Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< October 29	October 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Sea

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

recent graduate, probably WP:TOOSOON Vexations (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saskatchewan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are a few decent sources, but this is overall a promotional effort and WP:TOOSOON. --- Possibly ☎ 19:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing in the article doesn't satisfy WP:BASIC, nor do the sources that I can find. Sea appears to fail WP:NARTIST, as well, so I don't see a reason to presume notability. The article in its current form borders on being a speedy WP:G11 deletion, in my book. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Society for Training and Development

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every reference is either an uncritical interview with them, or a mere mention, or other PR, DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG . LibStar (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Behzad Bolour

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article includes a few BBC links (not independent) and some YouTube videos. A BEFORE search didn't result in anything other than a passing mention here. Pretty obvious COI/UPE looking from the pictures. Borderline A7/G11. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE and isn't notable in the slightest. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Behzad Bolour is a well-known Iranian journalist and producer in the BBC Persian who has been making movie and programs in BBC organization for two decades, and you can take a look at his page on the BBC's official website.

There is also a famous program made by him called Bolour Banafsh (Purple Crystal) and KOOK (TV series) on the prestigious IMDb site, and you can easily find parts of this program with a search. Behzad Bolour has also won numerous awards, some of which are available on various sites as archives(here). The same YouTube pages that you say belong to BBC Farsi and not every person's video is published on this page. He has also been mentioned in various sites and news agencies, and I will give you some examples below. 1 2 3 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 Behzad Bolour's complete information is mentioned in his Persian Wikipedia, which was made in 2016, and this article has been translated into English from his Persian Wikipedia. FatemehKhalili (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume this is a keep, so I have noted it as such, with no refactoring otherwise. Please comment in format as keep or delete. Nate • (chatter) 19:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrschimpf, it's not a vote, see WP:!VOTE. The bold text is just a summary, you're not required to use it (though you can, I use it as well). ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FK had posted the text without a 'keep' in front, including text that broke the daily AfD log, so I clarified their position since they seem unfamiliar with the AfD process and it read as they wanted to keep. Just trying to keep things tidy. Nate • (chatter) 19:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Some of these are mentions, not significant. There is one interview and others don't seem reliable or independent in the first place. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to say about him. I put a few by chance at the top. Most of the resources are very old because he has been working professionally for many years. FatemehKhalili (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information Today

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article. Cited only to primary-sourced directory information - no RS coverage. A WP:BEFORE shows no third-party RS coverage of the company that I could find - plenty of uses of the words "information today" and several other companies of the same name. I could be wrong, but it would be need to be shown with clear third-party RS coverage meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. They should be notable per the large claims - but we have nothing to base an article on. Article tagged since 2018 without improvement; no reasonable prospect of organic improvement. PROD removed without addressing issues. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major and mainstream publisher of several notable publications. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- cool, do we have any independent RS coverage? - David Gerard (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, here's one [1]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's better than nothing! I will note that an article based on a single interview would be very short - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately an interview isn't good enough for it to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and I couldn't find anything else myself that would. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The source indicated by Headbomb is reliable. I also found a few more reliable sources which talk about the company: [2], [3], [4] and [5]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very weak~~ keep. Here are some bits and pieces: [6], [7], [8], doi:10.1080/00049670.2012.10739073. I'm amused to be here because of this edit I just made, where I found an Information Today publication useful for publishing-related info (not an argument, obvi). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops, didn't look closely enough at Superastig's find. A full-length article in Library Journal looks good. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep We have an interview and an article in an academic publication, which is more than nothing and passes WP:GNG with 2 sources. More sources would be better. In the case of publishers and publications which are themselves WP:Reliable sources used to back other Wikipedia articles with citations, I think we should accept fewer sources than typical even if it means a more bare article. I do not think we quite have a guideline for trade journals like this, but we do have Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) which makes a similar case for academic journals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jones (snooker player)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has competed in events that were open to both professionals and amateurs, but this alone does not satisfy WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. These events had amateur qualifying sections, through which a set number of amateurs would qualify to appear in the main draw - from the last 128 onward - of the event, joining the professionals who were seeded to that stage; this is the only claim Ben Jones has to notability, and it's flimsy at best. If we are to agree that he's notable on that basis, we'll need to go about creating articles for every single amateur who's ever qualified to the first round of the Riga Open/Riga Masters, Paul Hunter Classic, or Gibraltar Open snooker tournaments...without putting it too bluntly, Ben from the snooker club might be a great player, but as per our guidelines and - frankly - common sense, an article with his name on it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Montgomery15 (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Montgomery15 (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cue sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player not professional, so generally not notable. No sign this person meets WP:GNG Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I checked NewsBank, as well as conducting the usual online searches. I didn't find the sort of coverage that would be required to support an article, only passing mentions, e.g. about local league snooker and him reaching the semi-finals at the 2015 IBSF World Snooker Championship – Men's. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Doug Ring. Consensus is that parts but not necessarily all of this article should be merged. Sandstein 08:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though this article may be FA, there is significant concern that it fails to meet notability guidelines, particularly WP:PAGEDECIDE. Doug Ring is notable, the 1948 Australian cricket team is notable, but there is not enough significant coverage to justify a specific article on Doug Ring's performance as part of the 1948 team. The article quite literally says, and I quote, "Ring was not prominent in the team's success." Much of this article is either statistics, or a repeat of what is already included in the article Doug Ring. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article just appeared as today's featured article, and 38k+ viewers didn't share your concern. The article was written by a much missed user, - I'd prefer to just leave it as has been for a long time, in respect. Or is this a Halloween trick? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question has an entire featured topic to their name. I fail to see how deletion of one article somehow affects their legacy. If you are wondering where this came from, take a look at Talk:Doug Ring and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1. The decision to nominate a featured article for deletion was not made lightly. Significant concerns have been raised about its notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I fail to see why the user matters at all. The article isn't worthy of inclusion, and that it was written by a much missed user does not matter even slightly in assessing its notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sort of suggested this come to AfD as a way of reaching a wider audience than a merge discussion would. I hadn't realised that it had been nominated in 2014 and read that discussion with interest. I am swayed by Sarastro1's comments there (Sarastro1 is rarely around these days). There are clearly sources which exist and Sarastro1 was of the belief, having read them, that there was about enough coverage to justify the article from the POV of whether sources provide enough detail. That's a persuasive argument.

There are other arguments that can be made, and I'm unsure of the best approach to take here, other than that a merge would clearly need to be very, very selective and probably also very limited in scope.

If I'd have realised the 2014 discussion had taken place I'm not sure that I'd have suggested an AfD now fwiw, but there you go. Sorry about that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that it isn't a cut and dry situation, even as the nominator I am not 100% certain the article should be deleted. From reading the previous discussion, what struck me is the argument that an encyclopedia should not just be an indiscriminate collection of information. Particularly, I was struck by Calthan's comments in the discussion, some of which I will quote here:

"I've always seen this series of articles as being a failure to condense the subject into an encyclopedia article (or articles). Books focusing on a notable subject would generally be expected to cover the subject in detail, and just because information can be cited to books doesn't mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia article. An essential part of writing an encyclopedia article is selecting the portions of the information available that are important to understanding the topic. This article consists primarily of information such as the score or outcome at different points in different matches. Those are minute details that are not at all essential to understanding the main notable subject of the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Except for the "role" section, this article is all material that encyclopedia editors should have selected to not include in Wikipedia."

There are valid points that were raised by the keep voters, but it is also true that standards on Wikipedia have changed since 2014, and this article deserves reassessment of its notability, or lack thereof. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It does seem a bit much to have articles on each player in a single test series, however important that series may appear to be (though, I note that there is no mention of the series in Test cricket). And then there is Ring's record in the series (1 test, 9 runs, 1 wicket) which can pretty much be summed up as "didn't do much, did he?" (though he seems to have done a lot better against the county teams). Much though I'd like to say "keep" out of respect for YM who is much missed on wikipedia, merge is probably the right choice. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the nominator last time this article was up for deletion, and although the consensus was in favor of keeping it, in the intervening years there has been no further demonstration of notability and consensus can change. St Anselm (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Doug Ring. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge § Role to Doug Ring~~, delete~~. I was initially very convinced that this article should simply be deleted, but following conversation at the FAR I can appreciate that it's a bit more complex than that. The bulk of this article is, as mentioned above, unencyclopedic statistics. The statistics are only really placed in context in the Role section, and even then some of that content appears to be original research. I do not believe that notability is established in the article, I don't see a claim to significance or to importance, and to the contrary the article downplays its own significance. It's debatable as to whether all the almanacs/etc. can be used to establish notability, and maybe for other players they could, but when the lead introduces the subject as unimportant then I don't get why there's an independent article on it.

I do not believe that the previous AfDs (both for this article and the group nomination) were good discussions. A lot of comments were essentially "it's an FA" and a few were a bit kooky in their definitions of notability and Wikipedia's purpose. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep it. To me, this article seems to be a bit of quirk of Wikipedia, a kind of remnant of when the site was a lot less bureaucratic and standards for inclusion were much laxer. If an article of this kind were created today I don't think it'd make a week, let alone pass as an FA. Our standards have changed and in my view its wrong to grandfather in articles which can't be brought up to the current standard. The FAR isn't gaining much traction and it looks as though the article will remain pretty much as it is.

If we're going to accept a collection of stats (and admittedly a pretty big collection) as combining to prove notability, it begs the question of how far we can stretch inclusion guidelines. I don't think this article meets them, and although we might not be a paper encyclopaedia there needs to be a reasonable limit to how far down a rabbit hole we can go. In this case, I think the limit is probably a step up from this, and we should have stopped with Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and Doug Ring. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC), amended 08:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge and delete" is not a possible AfD outcome, as it loses the attribution for the merged content. —Kusma (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As others have pointed out below, if you keep the redirect you keep the history. For the avoidance of doubt, I will re-word my !vote. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the one who originally raised issues with the article here, I was concerned by issues with OR and inappropriate synthesis/editorializing. As it currently stands, the article heavily relies on game summaries and statistics. In my opinion, this signals a lack of notability; game summaries and statistics are common to most professional sporting events and therefore fail to indicate lasting significance. Moreover, when considering the additional sources used in this article, the topic's notability seems to be inferred from the fact that the team as a whole is notable, but notability is not inherited. To put it another way, I am concerned that allowing the article to remain as-is would send the message that articles about an athlete's performance in a single year, season, or comparable time span are inherently notable, which is not a precedent I think we should set. As a comparison, the 1972 Miami Dolphins were a historically successful team like Ring's 1948 team, but that should not imply that articles for Bob Griese with the Miami Dolphins in 1972, Earl Morrall with the Miami Dolphins in 1972, Larry Csonka with the Miami Dolphins in 1972, etc., are notable topics for inclusion on Wikipedia. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Doug Ring This is a contentious subject given that the article is a FA, however it's my view that as wikipedia has moved on there probably isn't a need for this kind of article given the subject's limited participation on the tour. Articles such as this for Don Bradman, Sid Barnes or many other on the tour are perfectly acceptable, but because Doug Ring played such a limited role on the tour in terms of test cricket a merge would be best here. In the FAR it was found that Wisden only had limited coverage on the subject and so GNG was likely to be an issue, but merging is a suitable WP:ATD. However as Blue Square Thing brought up in the FAR on the subject, a lot of the detail in this subject is already included at Doug Ring and if lots were to be merged then the Doug Ring article would become excessive and over detailed. Therefore a selective merge is required, likely to be done by someone from the Cricket WikiProject or with a close interest in the subject. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the biography (or keep, I can't comment on the notability much as the topic is very alien to me); do not delete the redirect per m:Keep history and to have a good way to keep the paper trail of the FA nomination etc. Can't see any advantage of hiding the history from non-admins. —Kusma (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly agree that deleting would be an issue and that the history is better preserved. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and evaluate the others on their notability. Keeping them around could set a precedent for similar articles about other athletes, which could result in hundreds of extra headaches. Sounder Bruce 10:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I recall raising my eyebrows when I saw this at TFA. There's far from enough coverage to justify a standalone article here; a combination of prose content that could be covered elsewhere, and statistics that Wikipedia is not a database for. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Doug Ring. Do not delete; as a FA this seems like a case where there could be benefit to retaining page history, and given the status and history of this article my guess is that's there's outside links here that would be broken if deleted. With that said, I don't see any notability in this subject. A notable athlete on a notable team, but too much detail for an instance where there isn't significant coverage or a significant role by this player. The others may be salvageable, though. Hog Farm _Talk 21:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Hog Farm: retaining page history. Femke (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively. Ring's role in the tour is relatively minor. Coverage of his participation is trivial and mostly appears to be routine match reporting. While he was relatively successful in tour matches outside of the Test series, this is not covered in detail by reliable sources. He is mentioned in passing in Wisden and while he is championed by Bill O'Reilly as a potential Test player, though this appears to be more about O'Reilly criticising Bradman than about Ring. Hack (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have started working on this, and access to sources is better than the old days because of increased digitisation Grubby Richard (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) into Ring's bio and the tour article where the content is not undue in those articles. Although both tour and player are notable, the cross-section is not. There is insufficient material to sustain an independent article without venturing into original synthesis based on statistics, and his role in the tour has not been covered extensively in reliable third-party sources. Nonetheless, the page history should be preserved in case it's useful in the future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yehudit Tamir

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP without working references and no obvious claim to notability. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ferber, Illinois

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another Illinois rail junction sitting in a rural area, with no town. Searching comes up completely dry other than a few rail-related hits. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no historic reference to Ferber, Illinois. does not meet WP:NGEO Lightburst (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks likes a named rail junction for a c. 20 mile spur line to Eldorado, Illinois that is still in use. MB 04:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Involved close per WP:WDAFD SpinningSpark 13:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genghis Khan (TV programme)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was rescued from WP:PROD, but I think still merits a debate on its notability - a one-off 50-minute documentary about Genghis Khan from 2005 that I have personally struggled to find secondary coverage of through the haze of the numerous other productions on the same subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator — The substantive coverage found by Spinningspark has allayed my concerns about notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article used to be a lot longer, but was stubbed by User:Cntras without an edit summary, but presumably because it was written in the form of a personal review. SpinningSpark 10:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was reviewed in The Independent, "BBC gives Genghis Khan a makeover" and in The Times, "The greatest story never told" (subscription required). The Times also discussed it briefly in advance "Horesman of the apacolypse" (final couple of paragraphs)(subscription required). The article could include the news item that several people were deported from China for watching it [9][10]. There is also some evidence that the film is used for teaching in schools [11][12][13][14] which if this were a book would meet WP:BKCRIT#4. Yes, I know it isn't a book, but it's the same principle. SpinningSpark 11:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff on people being deported from China for watching it are pretty interesting. Thanks for digging those out. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those that have not seen this film, it is not a tacky, low-budget documentary. It is a major, lavish production shot on location in Mongolia. SpinningSpark 11:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spinningspark. WADDLES 🍁 🎃 16:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and salt. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Stokely

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated pornbio that fails the required necessary sourcing required by GNG, N & BLP. Please salt when this is deleted again. This should not have been recreated without a review but the creator is move warring to force this into mainspace so formal activity is required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. New facts since the 2018 deletion may prevent a G4 speedy, but the subject still lacks reliable secondary source coverage to support WP:BASIC or WP:ENTERTAINER notability. A WP:BEFORE search for independent sources find the Newsweek op-ed by the subject, various ask-a-pornstar quotes from the subject and porn trade press releases. While List of Penthouse Pets or List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame are plausible redirect targets, the new page's content should be nuked and paved at the very least. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retention of the article After reading your eligibility criteria, the article is obviously eligible. The notoriety is evident when you consider the awards and accolades.--Hemerocalle40 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 2019 RfC regarding PORNBIO, porn awards count for very little. That goes for AVN Hall of Fame inductees too. Claims of meeting criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:ANYBIO need to be attributable to independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my ivote would be to keep these pornstar bios. But alas, I am not in charge and Pornbio was depreciated. Unfortunately numerous awards are common in the industry. Sadly delete. Lightburst (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, ladies, you are severe...I still spent a few hours trying to make this article believable...--Hemerocalle40 (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time spend editing is not a consideration, sorry. Zaathras (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage in sources, same as prior discussions, same as others who have pointed out the same above. Zaathras (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this filth and salt the earth.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk)
- I’m no fan of badly sourced BLPs but your comment goes much too far. Filth? Really? Unsourced for sure but we are not censored. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pornography whores have absolutely nothing to do in an encyclopedia: hell, even university professors have high margins to get an articlke of their own.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's really inappropriate. Do not use that word about living people on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 00:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and ~~warn/sanction~~ creator for not respecting AfD consensus and re-creating these porn actors. (See also User_talk:Gene93k#About_the_article_"Kristen_Scott" for another similar article) Star Mississippi 19:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck sanction comment, this was a misunderstanding of en-wiki policy per the below. Delete comment remains. Star Mississippi 23:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi:, In my defense, I usually contribute on the French wikipedia. I had no idea that these articles had already been deleted before here.--Hemerocalle40 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is repeat moving allowed in the French wikipedia? If so, happy to strike my comment. That's the broader issue with my vote. Star Mississippi 22:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi:, On the French wiki, re-editing an article is possible if it meets the eligibility criteria ;).--Hemerocalle40 (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. These sources are not sufficiently reliable for a biographical article.—S Marshall T/C 00:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some notable "pornography (BLP violation removed)" (come on, don't act like they don't belong on Wikipedia) but she isn't one of them. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostDestroyer100:, WP:BLP applies to all parts of the Wikipedia, even deletion discussions. You cannot use that W-word to describe a living person. Zaathras (talk)

@Zaathras: not endorsing or anything, but pretty sure GhostDestroyer100 is quoting Polska_jest_Najważniejsza's !vote above. Star Mississippi 21:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras: Yes, I am just quoting. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Johor Lama

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable road. The only reference is about a burst water pipe that doesn't mention the road. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 07:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zenel Hajdini

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zenel Hajdini

The subject of this article does not appear to satisfy general notability because he does not have significant coverage by independent secondary sources. Review of sources shows that they do not appear to be independent and secondary. Review of sources also found at least one case where the text appears to be almost the same as the machine translation of the Albanian source.

Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
Pirusti News	About the town in which he was born	Yes	No, could not find mention of subject	Yes	Yes
Rainca.com	Account of his life	No	Yes	Yes	No
Tupalla.com	Was not able to get machine translation from Albanian	No - This is the web site of the town of his birth.	Yes
plus-televizion.tv/	About his unit rather than about him	Yes	Not about the subject	Yes	No
www.botasot.info/	Passing mention of subject	Yes	No	Probably	No

Article was created in article space by originator, then moved back into draft space by User:GPL93, and declined by User:Eternal Shadow and User:Idoghor Melody. Originator then copy-pasted article from draft space to article space. History merge has been requested, but does not mean that it is ready for article space.

The subject very likely is notable, but this draft does not demonstrate notability, as well as having tone problems. Draftification is probably in order, but unilateral draftification would be move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As explained by nominator, does not satisfy WP:GNG for now. DMySon (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify terribly written, poorly referenced, unclear whether or not WP:BASIC is satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify A preliminary search on Google books indicates this subject might be notable (they do have a secondary school named after them) but the article is in such poor shape it should be properly incubated first. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof. Sandstein 08:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bidoof

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Pokemon that fails WP:GNG, all sources are trivial mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV, and pulled from articles not actually about Bidoof itself. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt, and not opposed to a Delete prior to redirect. Non-notable, doesn't pass WP:GNG. This article was merged in 2014, and stayed that way until Sept 2021. The IP who recreated the article is almost certainly an LTA/sock. It was quickly redirected again, then restored without a valid reason. There was then a consensus to redirect at WT:VG, followed by a talk page notification, a week wait, and a redirect. Then it was restored again, with a faulty argument that a talk page discussion isn't valid for redirecting. -- ferret (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and preferably delete and salt) - We had an extensive Wikiproject level discussion in which there was a consensus that it wasn't currently independently notable, and an unopposed discussion on the talk page about redirecting it. It's a very clear cut case of WP:Pokémon test. Nothing but trivial passing mentions and inconsequential blurbs and memes from the fandom. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pokémon. It may not be notable on its own, but this is definitely a searched name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding a link to the discussion that happened on VGWP:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 159#A Pokemon debate or something idk I'm not paying attention Jumpytoo Talk 20:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof as an alternative to deletion. Haleth (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking through the references in the article I find this. [15] Significant coverage in a reliable source. They talk about a music video someone made about the character as well. [16] A different reliable source also gives them significant coverage [17]. Dream Focus 12:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This was exactly the sort of inconsequential coverage I was referring to above. And it's the same coverage that was presented in the Wikiproject discussion already. Those sources are all fluff, not something you can write an entire article around. We already have a place to list off Pokémon where there's little if importance to say. It's redirect target. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - An entire article has been written though. Look at the Reception section! Anyway, significant coverage in a reliable source can not be dismissed because you consider it "fluff". The general notability guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 13:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you read the article? It's current status includes two massive paragraphs name dropping every single game he's ever appeared or cameo'd in. And another paragraph is just someone's writing out a basic description of him. It's all wikia junk - pure fan obsession stuff - not encyclopedic in the least. And don't get me started on that "reception" section listing off every time a journalist made a passing mention of him being "good/bad/cute" with no further elaboration. It's easy to say "read the article" but as soon as someone actually does, they see there's nothing of substance or significance on it. Just bloat to create the illusion of notability. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take the view that the debate over the coverage from the Kotaku sources is irrelevant. Even though Kotaku have published articles entirely about the character, they seem to be within the context of or related to the "Bidoof Day" promotional event run by Nintendo and the developers, as opposed to a proper observation or analysis about the character's prominence or otherwise . Even the Rickroll video was not made by an uninvolved third party (i.e. fan or critic), but Pokemon company employees. The aforementioned articles provide good info that can be adequately covered within the character's entry in the list article or any other related pages, but are unhelpful in demonstrating whether the topic is notable enough to warrant the presumption of a standalone page because of Wikipedia's strong policy stance against promotionalism. I am otherwise not in favor of the article itself being deleted or salted, though a permanent semi-protection to deter inexperienced editors from un-redirecting it again without good cause may be a reasonable course of action. Haleth (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reception is sufficient to make it notable or else we need a notability guidelines for Pokemon species and characters. If no such policy exists, this article and its efforts should not suffer. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long-standing community consensus at WP:Pokémon test. This fails it tremendously. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay, while the general notability guideline is of course a guideline. One you can ignore, the other you can not. Dream Focus 18:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, sourcing that weak doesn't satisfy the GNG either. The junk scraps you've scrounged up does not constitute significant coverage. But you've got a severe blind spot for that concept, so I won't waste my time arguing further. I believe unbiased, experienced editors will see through this ruse, like they usually do. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the delete and salt opinions above. Note that I actually prefer redirection, but the vindictive opinions above force me to !vote in such a manner since enough admins seem to count noses rather than arguments. To be clear: there's enough RS coverage for this to be a standalone article, even if editorially redirecting to a list makes better sense. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? We held a community discussion at the Wikiproject level, got a consensus, and I even waited another week after that to wait to wait and see if there was any last interest in improving it. After a week of silence, I redirected. Someone unilaterally undid the redirect weeks later, so this AFD was created. Everything has been done entirely by the book here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is a fictional rodent really the hill you want to die on? Even looking comparatively to other Pokemon, if various legendaries couldn't withstand the notability test would a totally inconsequential random Pokemon do so? I do support fictional things being articles if they are of actual critical importance, but the reception of Bidoof is totally predicated on memes. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general comment. The subject of a meme is treated like almost every topic on Wikipedia that is covered under WP:GNG. There are undisputably notable memes, and memes which lack that kind of prominence and is adequately covered as a section in another related article. If there are sources which provide WP:SIGCOV of the meme and makes a WP:CCOS for the topic, why would reception prose being "predicated on memes" be an issue? Haleth (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have no problem with the redirection, but deleting the content and/or protecting the redirect is punitive, when WP:CCC and Pokemon is an active franchise. Wikipedia:Pokémon test was created in 2005, so if it were an American, it could drive now. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Salting is standard practice when people repeatedly recreate articles against consensus without improvement. If consensus changes, a simple discussion can remove the protection. Something that forces additional improvement and discussion in situations like this is nothing but a good thing. Your accusation of "vindictiveness" is not only baseless, but probably one of the worst examples of projection I've seen in recent memory, when you end your argument with "even if editorially redirecting to a list makes better sense". Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naah, I just AGF about the serial recreators better than most. Vindictiveness is a characterization, not an accusation, so please don't take offense: deletion, THEN recreating a redirect, THEN protecting that redirect is vindictive, in that deletion is unnecessary and a protected redirect will suffice. If that's you, (and per how I read this AfD, it is you and one other editor) don't fight the label, but rather reconsider whether you should refactor your input to be less vindictive. Individual Pokémon may gain notability, and when someone argues that a not-yet-notable topic with potential future notability should be deleted, rather than just redirected and the redirect protected, there's something going on besides just minimizing disruption: a value judgment that the editors in question should be prevented from ever working on that topic again without begging an admin or recreating it from scratch. So, feel free to refactor the suggestion for deletion before protection of a redirect if you don't want to be vindictive, or decline to refactor if you prefer to leave the statement as is. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof - Merging is unnecessary as the sourced content from the reception section is already present. There is quite a bit of WP:REFBOMBING going on here, as many of the sources being used are extremely passing mentions of the creature, and hardly counts as actual coverage. Even if the few sources that could be considered significant are valid, there is still not enough actual content that an independent article is justified, and per WP:NOPAGE, coverage in the article on the broader topic is a valid alternative. Rorshacma (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC) hi[reply]
Redirect per above. This doesn't seem to meet the notability guideline yet, but there is a very clear redirect target (List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof) and it is a perfectly legitimate search term. OceanHok (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing is enough. It's not good, it's not even okay. I would go so far as to say it's bad. But it's enough. Mlb96 (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which part doesn't make sense? WP:GNG isn't a terribly high bar, a topic can still barely satisfy it even with less-than-stellar sourcing. Mlb96 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrently positing that the sourcing is "not okay", "bad", and that the article should be kept. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. Honestly, the reception section is showing literally pulling every possible strand of weak , non-significant coverage (two or three sentence mentions from articles on broader topics) to try to make the character seem notable; this is equivalent to when we had editors using "listicles" to support notability. The only real significant coverage of Bidoof is related to its meme nature, and a merge/direct would allow that information to still be mentioned in the List of Pokemon (as well as over at Rickrolling since I know I added that video there way back). --Masem (t) 13:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify - the coverage on the meme barely causes it to pass WP:GNG in my eyes. A rewrite is definitely in need, however. If the article gets redirected, I think some more time in draft space, where it was pulled from, could work if someone really wants this to stay. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who pay little attention to the Pokemon IP, the Mudkip one is better established as "culturally significant" when it comes to memes about individual Pokemon due to the coverage it generated, but it looked like the editors who participated in that AfD were not convinced that it helps the parent topic (Mudkip) pass GNG. Haleth (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bidoof is mostly a meme Pokemon but it's good enough for me to justify keeping an article. It still has some attention for a character from a video game that came out in the mid 2000s. Redirect/merge is also an ok option. --Killuminator (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Vice and Kotaku are probably RS and SIGCOV enough to make this one survive the 2021 Pokemon purge (in which I participated, mostly from the deletionist side). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof. Coverage is insufficient to warrant a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the sourcing is sufficient.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof. 99% of the references are trivial cruft. While the Vice and Kotaku articles might get it up to the standards of notability (it's being generous to say they do), I just don't see what the unique value proposition of an article here is since both sources can be (and already are being) cited in the redirect target. So I don't think two sources alone justify a fork article from the main list. It's not like Bidoof is a super popular or well known Pokemon either. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temujin (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:TWODABS. This disambiguation was pointlessly created. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was created for the reason that, despite Temujin obviously referring to Genghis Khan, because of the article on the 80s computer game of the same name, it otherwise becomes necessary to state on the Genghis Khan page that perhaps people actually meant the video game, not the historical conqueror. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - other than the obvious pragmatism of clearly distinguishing between the name of an incredibly important figure from human history and a computer games, I have now added some other Wikipedia entries that have the same pronunciation, as well as highlighted some other areas of potential confusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TWODABS, a hatnote can clearly distinguish as well when there is only one page to be disambiguated. A full page isn't necessary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid disambig that disambiguates. WP:D Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of all possible weak keeps. I've scraped together a few legit entries (and deleted or demoted the pre-existing unworthy ones). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing there that A) has its own article and B) isn't a partial title match besides the video game. Disambiguation pages are made for navigational purposes, this is just misrepresenting them as an index of related pages._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DABMENTION covers this, and the entries I added are not partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: game, sportsperson, character, horse... valid dab page. PamD 09:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid and useful disambiguation page. WADDLES 🍁 🎃 16:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Indigo Parallel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably created as WP:PROMO but is not unambiguous advertising so it is ineligible for speedy deletion. Fails WP:GNG clearly, has no press coverage at all. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable and may be WP:TOOSOON. OceanHok (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no sources found, creator likely has WP:COI. Jumpytoo Talk 20:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a crystal ball. Promoting a product not even developed. W Nowicki (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely a PROMO for a two-man indie project. One of thousands. No evidence that it's notable. Article created solely by the game's composer. The nominator was being kind when they said "not unambiguously advertising." ApLundell (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – We absolutely can have articles about not-fully-developed games, but due to a lack of reliable, independent sources, this ain't it, chief. The article is actually, to its credit, written very neutrally by Decima1 Audio... Excepting the fact that they link their own YouTube channel under 'Composers' in the infobox. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Also created by a Bodiadub sockpuppet. MER-C 16:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Jefferson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A businessman ("entrepeneur" in marketing-speak) that does not meet the general notability guideline due to being bereft of coverage from independent sources. A plausible claim to significance (hence escaping the A7 speedy deletion criterion) due to his work for Forbes, and not sufficiently promotional for the G11 speedy deletion criterion (though "personal empowerment, spiritual fulfillment, overcoming adversity and building business with exit in mind" is meaningless to me). Bringing this to AfD to guard against future recreations and because it is a newly-created article and I would expect objection to a proposed deletion. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - functionally a vanity article - David Gerard (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since being a contributing writer and being featured in hundreds of podcasts doesn’t make someone notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neat (TV series)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a television show, not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. Full disclosure, I was the original creator of this, well over a decade ago when we extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television show that verifiably existed at all regardless of its actual sourceability or lack thereof -- but the inclusion standards for TV shows have been considerably tightened up in the past 13 years to rely much more on the quality of the referencing, and I just can't find very much on a ProQuest search to salvage the article with: apart from two "new show debuts" articles in 2004, I otherwise just get glancing namechecks of the show's existence in tangential later coverage of its host making appearances at home design expos, so there just isn't enough coverage about this show to get it over the WP:GNG bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – could not find anything meaningful on Google or several other search engines. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammer keyboard

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

COI;unnotability Swiss Frank (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2021-08 Thummer keyboard (closed as redirect)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 15:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Sousa (footballer, born March 1996)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 68 minutes spread across two cup matches for Rio Ave. Geschichte (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for Portuguese-based sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, per WP:VERIFY my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY, with semi-pro career after his pro appearances.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 15:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Lightyear (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the entries in this list is known solely as "Buzz Lightyear" alone, and a disambiguation page should not consist of WP:Partial title matches. Ultimately, "Buzz Lightyear" is not ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the disambiguation page links, the only one that I would envision someone searching "Buzz Lightyear" to find is the Toy Story character. Per nom, they are all partial matches. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 16:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:PTM._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a believer that any navigational tool which helps a reader find what they are looking for is useful. I can see how users may land on this d page. Regarding page views - about 2,700 for the whole year of 2021, but interestingly the last three days, 870 the 27th 469 the 28th and 147 on the 29th. This tells me readers are using it, perhaps because the new lightyear movie is coming out and the new trailer landed. In any event it is a valid disambig page with similar terms WP:D. Lightburst (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lightburst:, that's what categories are for. Perhaps someone, maybe me, could create/created a Category:Buzz Lightyear. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 00:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PARTIAL, all those links can (or should) be found on the main Buzz Lightyear article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the bit bucket and beyond per nom. Only partials. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petit Tube

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a non-notable website. Found a very brief Daze Digital article and one by a website called Tube Filter but that is it. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Managed to find reference and I'm an idiot Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"And" theory of conservatism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article with bad sources and cleanup templates that haven't been touched. Also looks like low relevance as I couldn't find any good info on it. Perfecnot (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Perfecnot (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Perfecnot (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 10 refs for this sized article is pretty good.Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not make sense. Mostly garbage sources. Geschichte (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTNEO. The sources used are primarily tied to an independent blog that seemed to have coined the term and a couple of op-eds that speculate on the theory. Nothing seems to indicate that the actual phrase is popular beyond Montgomerie, especially as the "In the United Kingdom" section references two politicians who never actually used the term. — Ghost River 18:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDICT. Seems like an obscure term. KidAd • SPEAK 20:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an ATD redirect to compassionate conservatism; "Montgomerie calls the "And theory of conservatism."...If this sounds a bit like "compassionate conservatism," you're right to see a family resemblance." [18]. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides The Atlantic, there are some journal articles[19] that refer to the term. But I'm not sure if these articles give the term in-depth coverage or not, which would be required to meet WP:GNG.VR _talk 20:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kawa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill dentist businessman. Edwardx (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non-notable. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 02:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of Peter303x's improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments so far. Dege31 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listing of academics by department in a university faculty. Essentially copied off the university website, no independent sourcing, and just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOTDIRECTORY Danstronger (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Just a massive list of WP:REDLINK's. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Avilich (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY issue, given that the content of the article... is a directory full of redlinks. There might be some usefulness in creating a category (or list article) that contains notable faculty, but the article present doesn't seem to even attempt to do that. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Premier Volleyball League. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shakey's V-League Notable Records

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and tagged for lack of notability for over 10 years. -- Beland (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Premier Volleyball League. Fails WP:GNG per nom. Dunno what to merge there, but I guess it's a better WP:ATD. SBKSPP (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Premier Volleyball League per SBKSPP. Drags4U (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tushar Prakash Rayate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SIGCOV, All the socalled sources mentioned in the article are paid promotional news articles. Their one company which is their whole work and its paid media coverage(Literally! all the articles are just copy-paste of the same texts) can not be considered for GNG. Nor for being a notable entrepreneur or for being notable educator notability, they are not anything. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 08:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 08:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 08:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I can see, all coverage on him is featured/sponsored content and most have warnings like "Disclaimer: This is a company press release. No HT journalist was involved in the creation of this content." or "Disclaimer: No Asian Age journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content." Such content is unacceptable and cannot be used towards a notability claim. To allow such a thing would mean that anyone can have a Wikipedia article on themselves if they have enough money. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and above. It is a promotional article. Eevee01^(talk) 17:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotion based on promotional non-independent sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one below is addressing the lack of independent sourcing. They seem unaware that verification of his existence is not even close to sufficient. Even to pass WP:BIO it is not sufficient, but this is really commercial promotion, and so the standard is WP:CORP, and it fails to meet any of its criteria. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marathi.Wiki.Editor. Spicy (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are significant reliable sources too which has no disclaimer or any kind of notice shown which states that the content is promotional google source here > [20]. —User:Marathi.Wiki.Editor (talk) 9:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep, After reviewing the article i have seen that the kind of articles which looked like promotional one have already been removed and only the reliable and authenticated sources has given, my view,. this article has no need to delete —User:JarvisLoog (talk) 9:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — JarvisLoog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have gone through the sources as well as some google search and also found that the person on which the article is written has verified presence on social media platform like facebook and in my view facebook doesn't give the verified badge to anyone, gives only to the people who are popular and well known... you can review here [21] —User:Jiolal41 (talk) 9:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Verification is not enough. Verification at Facebook is particularly not useful, considering WP:NOTFACEBOOK. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- agreed with you SmokeyJoe that the facebook is particllary not useful, BUT there are many sources i found on internet and that too states the authenticity about the article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivloger (talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikivloger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you SmokeyJoe for escalating in-detail but being from the same state i can confirm that the article really talks about the well known personality, some articles might have the one which we might take action on and after reviewing the same i have seen that such articles as reference has already been removed, so we should keep this article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiolal41 (talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Jiolal41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have gone through as much as sources i found on web and it states that the person on which the article is written is well known for his work he is doing for the rural areas on his country and has already been featured on many TV programs as well for his contribution towards the society so we should keep this article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivloger (talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikivloger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am in the favor of keeping this article as it does really talks about well known personality and has good sources to confirm the same on web —User:Reviewwikiindia (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Reviewwikiindia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per above entire discussion. i have reviewed the articles peace by peace and searched for relevant content and information then found that we can keep this article. Wikiforindia^(talk) 12:20, 30 October 2021 (IST) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikiforindia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note for administrator: At least 5 of the accounts above voting to keep have been created recently and have no edits outside of this AfD and userpage. MT Train^Talk 07:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note for administrator: according to MT Train i have created account recently but it really doesn't state that I can't contribute to the wikipedia and doesn't proves anything wrong me or any other new user has done. Wikiforindia^(talk) 01:06, 30 October 2021 (IST)
Note for administrator:, according to Wikipedia guidelines anyone can contribute to Wikipedia whether it would be a new user or old, only matters is the right contribution. i might be new user on wikipedia but i thing i have voted on the basis of the information which was available on internet and cross-verified the sources Aswell. hopefully the administrator will consider new users contribution and this will help to boost the confidence of new users as well it will be a fare trail —User:Reviewwikiindia (talk) 1:32, 31 October 2021 (IST)
Note for administrator:, Strongly agreed with —User:Reviewwikiindia as being new or old user doesn't matter to me either, we are here to make this place more useful and informative for the peoples around from the globe. also the another user —User:Marathi.Wiki.Editor has given google news sources to prove the authenticity [22]. so i do think the article needs to be available on wikipedia —User:Wikivloger (talk) 1:45, 31 October 2021 (IST) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikivloger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are spam and I can't find any better, hence failing both WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote, these two SPI pages may be of interest given the remarkable level of interest in this AfD discussion from brand new editors. I've not bothered with SPA tags for the Keep !voters as it's patently obvious and the editors just need to be blocked to be frank. I have also requested page protection to prevent any further timewasting. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, new users might want to go through WP:MEAT and WP:QUACK § Variations. MT Train^Talk 09:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional context about a non-notable businessman.Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: I just plain removed comments from Jaanvikwiki and Kickystar (diff). Might as well have less clutter. El_C 10:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And another by Marathi.Wiki.Editor (diff). Upgraded semi to WP:ECP. Wow, impressive spammage. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And perhaps salt it too to protect for future. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with salting, especially since the first location for the article Tushar Rayate is already salted, hence why it was created with his middle name Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Sockpuppetry is worrisome and the article subject is non-notable, per pretty much everybody else above. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Chalil

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability in the article. A search turns up no in-depth mentions in reliable, independent sources. Consequently, fails WP:NBIO, and also fails to pass WP:NPOL as the subject has not held any office. AryKun (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. The subject is some party bureaucrat, and I could only find passing mentions in reliable secondary sources. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was a good candidate for speedy. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a member of a political party's organizing committee is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia irrespective of his sourceability or lack thereof, but the sourcing here is 5/7 primary sources that are not support for notability at all and 2/7 glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that isn't about him. That's not how you get a person over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could well be speedy WP:G11'd. I don't see a notable individual being covered by sources here, and the article feels more like an advertisement about the individual than an encyclopedia entry. Otherwise, the individual clearly fails WP:NPOL and doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC, from my search of sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajive Dhavan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable digital marketer. The article relies on interviews, press releases and features on unreliable startup news blogs. There isn't any independent, in-depth coverage on this person in reliable sources. M4DU7 (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Hindu article caught my eye but it was only an interview unfortunately. Rest all is more or less paid crap. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual may be very good at digital marketing, but what appears to be digital marketing sources disguised as news doesn't actually make the individual notable. My search for his name similarly comes up without him clearly being notable. I'd recommend that this be deleted, though if anyone can find additional Non-English sources that cover him that might be relevant here, please post them and ping me so I can re-evaluate my !vote. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mike, I've seen your comment about the said individual. However, he seems to be doing a lot of notable work. Could you please re-look at your decision to delete his page. RohitMP (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star ng Pasko

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seven out of the ten sources listed in the "References" section are from publications that are unrelated to ABS-CBN Corporation, the company from which the article's song came from. The seven sources also manage to support in detail the context and significance of the song, while two out of the three sources from ABS-CBN News are almost ancillary in use except for the tenth source, which can easily be resolved. LionFosset (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LionFosset. Drags4U (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2021
Keep Meets WP:NSONG per LionFosset's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the contributors' arguments are more convincing than that of the nominator, which almost isn't an argument at all. Geschichte (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LionFosset. I think this article largely meets WP:NSONG with Special:Diff/1052996259. Nominator SeanJ 2007's argument was deemed incorrect and wrong. Chompy Ace 23:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mikey D#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Day of D'Struction

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Late Than Never: In Memory of Paul C, I hoped the article creator would get the message regarding the total lack of notability of this artist's albums and allow them to be redirected, but no such luck... they persist in restoring them. So here we are again, with an album sourced to the album's liner notes and a couple of WP:PRIMARY promotional interviews from the artist on non-notable YouTube channels, and no better sources can be found. I say this should remain redirected to Mikey D#Discography, but it seems I need to get consensus for this. Richard3120 (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mikey D#Discography per nom. Blackjays1 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Mikey D is a new, unreviewed article too. Are we sure the artist is notable to begin with? Most of the sources are unreliable or primary; the few that remain I have never heard of. --Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the artist's own article is extremely borderline notable, and I pointed this out to the article creator as well. The artist was a member of a hip hop group in the 1990s who were certainly notable and he featured on a notable album – I know this doesn't make him notable and automatically qualify for his own article per WP:INHERITED, just saying that he does have some background pedigree at least, which makes it possible that there is better information available about him. I was trying to go through these articles one at a time and getting rid of the clearly non-notable ones first. Richard3120 (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any reviews or references from reliable sources to address WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. I am also not entirely sure if the artist is notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mikey D#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mikey D#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dramacide

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Late Than Never: In Memory of Paul C, I hoped the article creator would get the message regarding the total lack of notability of this artist's albums and allow them to be redirected, but no such luck... they persist in restoring them. So here we are again, with an album sourced to the album's liner notes and a tweet from the artist, and no better sources can be found. I say this should remain redirected to Mikey D#Discography, but it seems I need to get consensus for this. Richard3120 (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)<signature>[reply]
Delete In most case compilation albums don't merit an article unless they meet WP:GNG guidelines, which I'm not seeing here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mikey D#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. I am also not entirely sure if the artist meets notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep. Has now been edited within the last year... Geschichte (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Taihang Glasswalk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hasn't been edited in a year and requires more information to meet wikipedia's general notability guideline The furret lover (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The furret lover (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes a WP:BEFORE check, with coverage in Atlas Obscura, Archinect, Mashable, Architizer, Lonely Planet, The Guardian, and The Straits Times, and that's just on the first page of Google. WP:NEGLECT and WP:NOIMPROVEMENT are not reasons to delete. — Ghost River 03:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep per GhostRiver. I did a search earlier and came up with some of the same sources and many more in Chinese. I am sure I recall some of the coverage of it, before I was drawn to this article by deletion sorting. I.e. it may only be a fancy footbridge, but one with significant international coverage.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GhostRiver has shown international attention for this bridge in secondary reliable sources, making it easily pass WP:GNG. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per GhostRiver, the Mashable and Straits Times sources in particular are enough to meet WP:GNG, and this is not even considering the Chinese coverage that likely exists. Lack of editing does not mean lack of notability, especially when the editors in that region don't speak English and have to use VPN to edit Wikipedia. Jumpytoo Talk 19:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources added to the article show that it satisfies GNG, and it also has wide range of coverage , by date. Previously, the article was just in poor state, but not failing criteria.Gorden 2211 (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Geschichte (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Whitchurch–Stouffville

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced list of entirely non-notable mayors of a small town. Whitchurch-Stouffville is not a large enough place that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #2, so it's not a place where we would need to keep an unsourced list of its mayors if absolutely none of them have Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The two mayors who went on to be regional chairs of York Region are probably notable, even though we don't yet have an article on either one. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even regional chairs don't get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, because they still fall under WP:NPOL #2 as local politicians. So while it certainly might be possible to properly establish the notability of one or more people in this list by fully demonstrating that they have sufficient coverage to pass NPOL criteria, we can't and don't take it as a given in the absence of concrete proof. Bearcat (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Whitchurch–Stouffville as fails WP:LISTN but is useful information that should be retained. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Whitchurch-Stouffville per NLIST. It's not exactly a large metropolis. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Whitchurch-Stouffville the information shouldn't be removed but it doesn't warrant its own article. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bowden

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kept in 2008 (bundled AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stingy Brimm) on the grounds of his best selling titles on his faculty bio and possible pass of academic notability. However under current standards, I do not see that he's well cited enough to pass that, leaving the GNG. There are interviews, and a number of performance listings but nothing independent, or significant enough. The books may well be best sellers, but I'm unable to verify that independently of his own school Star Mississippi 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not surprising not to see WP:NPROF for a guitar instructor. I also didn't find reviews for WP:NCREATIVE. I don't see any sign of other notability. Watching this discussion, and will consider if better sources emerge. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not an academic, but a guitar teacher with a position at Berkeley online, selling courses. No doubt that he is unusually versatile, but lacks independent coverage and does not meet WP:NPROF. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad. Sandstein 19:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GSSG Holding

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no substantive coverage of this company in reliable sources. There are only off-hand mentions. The page should be redirected to Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad, the person who runs the company (he too barely meets notability), If there's any content worth keeping, it should be merged with the Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad but there doesn't seem to be any content worth keeping. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it might be reverted to draft if it doesn't meet the notability guideline, however, there are some regional sources as references and it's an old article and old company. In my opinion, deletion sounds rude for this article.Mommmyy (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: An article by a briefly-active user who appears to have been connected to the principal of this company [23] and acting under instruction [24]. Neither under the names "The Jersey Group" nor the present name is there evidence that the holding company has attained notability. The holding company is briefly covered on the Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad page so a redirect to there could be an option. AllyD (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 07:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Alok

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography, recently accepted at AfC after being declined 6 times. The article superficially looks factual and neutral, but the sources are anything but: [25]: "This talented mind has completed his graduation in 2016 ...", [26]: "This talented mind's film ‘Namaste’ was shortlisted ...", [27]: "This talented person has already started working more passionately on his dreams and will reach new heights in no time." [28]: "This talented mind has already created a path for himself in the industry and with such movies, he is making a great impression on his audience." I don't think these sources are useable as the basis for an encyclopedia. Vexations (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: A premature acceptance at AfC, Alok may become notable at some point, but we are WP:TOOSOON. The references are PR style and promotional. Returning this to Draft: will allow the creator and reviewers to make a more leisurely determination of its fate than a simple yay or nay at AfD Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jigarwala (2015 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass GNG, WP:NFO, any inclusionary criteria. Unlikely that full length reviews of this film exist, in print or web. Sources in article and those that exist on the web are directory listings, unreliable and trivial. - hako9 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.