Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 15	July 17 >

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 23:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Waters

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

Even for a Christian pop rock band, they have very little coverage and no charting. Three album reviews linked to their non-existent bio at https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/artists/JacksonWaters.asp. Only one review at https://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/artists/Jackson_Waters/12942/ (and they review everything because they sell it too). No bio at https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jackson-waters-mn0000620593 and only one review: https://www.allmusic.com/album/come-undone-mw0000575907. Borderline fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially unsourced. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was thinking that this article should be put in draft to let them provide some RS, but the article does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 07:32, 19 July 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. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ExtraTrain

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

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the source cited in the article (Pareja et al.) provides significant coverage, but it's not independent: the authors appear to be financially connected to the company. Everything else appears to be little more than trivial mentions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. WP:COMPBIO has a number of these stubs for databases with little notability, all added around the same time and tagged since 2011ish. Amkilpatrick (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to establish why this DNA database is notable, and it is a mere one sentence in length.TH1980 (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:28, 20 July 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. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Verbeke

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I don't see any significant coverage of him. No awards, no hits. His French Wikipedia article is even more badly sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this page, Patrick Verbeke was an important part of the French music scene, and contrinuted a lot to the development and appreciateion of blues in France. I was on his radio show on Europe 1 and did concerts with him. If the article disappears, it only shows that the rule should be changed.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep - Verbeke seems notable, but article needs more sources. Kevin19781 (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single source that lacks required WP:SIGCOV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLPs need signficiant coverage in reliable sources, not just sources, which are lacking here. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 23 July 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. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athar Siddiqui

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

Doesn't have multiple significant roles. Sources cites are all rewritten press material. No in-depth discussion of the work of the subject at any sources. Only routine coverage in an attempt to keep the subject relevant and alive in media. Person who moved it back to main space is Questionable - with first edit as a Weak Keep on a deletion discussion and later, within very few edits, having confidence on moving draft back claiming that it satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I don't see how any of these two are satisfied. Very much okay to be proven wrong. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No in-depth coverage. All the times of India sources are either PR and/or filled with direct quotations from the subject or trivial mentions. - hako9 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per WP:NACTOR (#1) policy. The actor has played a significant role in multiple notable productions as listed in the article and those claims are well sourced with reliable sources. 42.106.216.188 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What is a significant role according to you? Most of the questionably notable tv series in which the said actor has appeared are roles which would be considered as supporting roles, inferred from what I can see in the respective articles on tv series.
  Most of these tv series fails GNG anyway. More importantly none of the sources are reliable (incl TOI) and none are WP:SIGCOV.
  Wikipedia isn't a tv directory for Indian soap operas. By your ridiculously lax inference of SNG, you are advocating just that- hako9 (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not the only route to establishing notability. As per WP:NTV TV shows that air on television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience are presumed to be notable. Below is the list of significant roles played by the actor:

The actor played Mahabali one of the main characters in Jag Janani Maa Vaishno Devi - Kahani Mata Rani Ki.^[1]

Played Devantak one of the important characters in Vighnaharta Ganesha.

Played Bhimdev in Chandra Nandini

Played Kaliya Naag one of the important characters in Paramavatar Shri Krishna.

Played Virabhadra in Jhansi Ki Rani (2019 TV series)

42.106.218.140 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are not significant roles. Nope! Curious to understand what is your connection with the subject. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection with the subject, but i would like to know how these role (very much important for these series) are not significant? Please explain in details. As you can see these are mythological series and they are incomplete without characters played by the subject in question. If you don’t know how please read the history of particular character, they all have independent articles. 42.106.218.44 (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting to play on ambiguity of the word significant in the guidelines. Allow me to explain what I think - significant role, according to me, would imply to a role that is significant in relative to the entire duration of the show and not playing a significant part in the plot or the story. In short, I would relate it directly to the screen time if being utmost crude. One cheat code that I follow to determine significance (it works positively in most of the cases but won't recommend others to make it a golden rule), is to check the chronological number the subject is listed in the cast section. If it is not in top 3-4, I usually consider it not as a significant role (Again, this rule should be apply with caution and the context of the show/film should be checked). While the subject plays significant mythological roles, these roles are not significant if seen from the perspective of the entire show. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NACTOR and points mentioned by the IP above. Siddiqui has played significant roles in multiple notable productions and currently playing the antagonist in Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2 which is the reason why I moved this article. In2020 (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ In2020, Some observations:

You are one of the other major contributors of this article
This page has your most significant contributions if seen your not so lengthy edit history
Your talk page reflects a COI warning
Your first edit was a vote at a deletion discussion
You have less than 50 edits but you know how to move a page

I will let other editors draw conclusions from these observations about your nature of edits and the relevance of your vote here. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources presented in the article do not amount to in-depth coverage and are heavily dependent on a single source, Times of India. The coverage seems minor. I can't speak to the roles performed, but after looking at each article listed above - the features appear to list a significant number of actors, among which Siddiqui is not especially standing out - our own coverage of him does not indicate significance of roles performed, so I do agree that this presently fails WP:NACTOR. Source search, particularly WP:RSSE turns up mostly Times of India, which is noted in WP:RSP "to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable." In this case, I would say the standard for notability demands more in-depth coverage than shown currently - I'm not seeing evidence of passing WP:GNG. A S U K I T E 05:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per analysis by Asukite. Notability of the TV shows listed above is shaky and the subject does not seem to stand apart from many other actors listed in the cast. So, NACTOR is not met and there's not enough coverage for GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:12, 23 July 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) 18:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GPRP

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the article, this protocol has garnered no interest. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Global Position Routing Protocol" brings up exactly seven results on Google, including the Wikipedia article. None of them reliable sources. Obviously fails GNG. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Alex-h (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:21, 22 July 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. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Ægidius

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Fails WP:NFOOTY as, while he has played a senior cup game for a team in a fully-pro league, it was against a team in a non-fully pro league (Danish 2nd division). I would draftify for now as the article is in a good shape. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Nehme, I would like to argue, that he's been the starting Danish goalie on all international youth teams, and is currently hailed as one of the brightest Danish talents. Verdenskrig (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Verdenskrig: I did try to find sources on the subject but failed to find anything substantial. As you seem to have knowledge on Danish football, can you find any significant articles on Ægidius in the Danish media? Alvaldi (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (e/c) @Verdenskrig: It still isn't enough, yet. Can you find a few articles that talk in-depth about him (his life, his career, etc.)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The best I could find was this and it does not go into the subject in any deep detail. And on a further note, WP:NFOOTY does not supersede WP:GNG so if he happens to appear in a game where every player got paid he won't magically turn notable. Passing WP:NFOOTY only means that the subject supposedly is likely to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG but he still has to pass it, although anyone following the AfD's on these one-game wonders knows that is far from the case. Alvaldi (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are these any good? https://www.tipsbladet.dk/nyhed/superliga/var-jagtet-af-bif-og-fck-derfor-blev-det-broendby, https://www.bold.dk/fodbold/nyheder/broendby-koeber-lyngby-talent-med-det-samme/, https://www.bt.dk/superligaen/bt-afsloerer-fc-koebenhavn-og-broendby-kaemper-om-guldfugl-i-lyngby Robby.is.on (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources just cover his transfer to Brøndby and don't really go into the subject in any depth. They are also all from january/february 2021, a relatively short period of time, so that wouldn't pass WP:SUSTAINED. Alvaldi (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to fail NFOOTY but pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - significant coverage is where the subject is addressed directly and in detail and there is no evidence of this for this geezer. No objection to this being moved over to someone's user space or to draft space. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per lack of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:18, 16 July 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. Daniel (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles final

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

Most of these "Singles final" article have been deleted or redirected such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Australian Open – Women's singles final. We have an article where details are given at 2021 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles. A special finals article is for those finals that were extraordinary such as those considered the best of all-time finals. This does not remotely fit that description. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per consensus at a very similar discussion last month Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone's linked consensus discussion. OsFish (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 22 July 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) 18:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of pro-China individuals

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

I can’t see how this is a valid list. Various people may from time to time say things that indicate they support the PRC on one matter or another, but peoples’ apparent political opinions can’t be the basis of an encyclopaedic listing. Mccapra (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopelessly vague concept for a list. XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surprised it lasted as long as it did. pburka (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete failure of WP:OR and WP:BLP. Jumpytoo Talk 21:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – much too broad; fundamentally susceptible to original research. Such a list can only exist if there are objective inclusion criteria and clear coverage of the list in reliable sources; neither is true here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being "pro-China" is not exactly a well-defined position, so what exactly are the WP:LISTCRITERIA here? For that matter, what are the exclusion criteria? It's perfectly possible for one individual to hold opinions that may be construed as "pro-China" in some aspects and other opinions that may be construed as "anti-China" in other aspects (such as being in favour of China's domestic policy but opposed to its foreign policy, or vice versa). How would we construct the corresponding list for any other country? This article comes across as an attempt to name and shame, whether or not that was the intention of its creator. This is not WP:BLP-compliant, and even if it could somehow be made that way (with proper WP:LISTCRITERIA and way, way better sourcing), this version should still be deleted per WP:TNT considering the WP:BLP issues. TompaDompa (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pro-China how? You could praise its climate policy yet complain about the Uyghur genocide, for instance. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – impossibly vague. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violation of WP:OR. Sun8908 _Talk 10:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is completely against WP:NPOV as a whole. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same situation as List of Films that Pass the Bechedel Test and Life Spans of Home Appliances— list article with no criteria that attempts to drag Wikipedia into yet another culture war by oversimplifying complex topics. Dronebogus (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too vague a subject, a blatant violation of WP:OR, and completely biased, violating WP:NPOV. TH1980 (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , The list cannot be proved and is against WP:POV, Alex-h (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a valid list, entries can be considered a blp violations in it self.Ratnahastin(t.c) 11:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vast BLP violations and the clear consensus now seems to be to delete this mess. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 23 July 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 20:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doramaar

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

Completely unreferenced article about a band, not making any discernible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC: the notability claim on offer here is that they existed, it's so poorly referenced that it doesn't even assign them a genre, and the band is not even mentioned at all in our article about Kim Pieters, the one claimed band member who seems to have independent notability as a visual artist (but not necessarily as a musician according to the way her article is written). As I don't have access to a database in which I could retrieve New Zealand media sourcing from the 1990s, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if some Kiwi can salvage it with some proper sourcing and substance -- but just unsourcedly asserting that a band existed, the end, is not an instant notability freebie in the absence of some concrete and properly sourced evidence that they would actually pass our notability criteria for bands. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC - 41.6.39.92 (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete q]]. Nexus000 (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC - Kevin19781 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:MILL - zero evidence of passing any factor of WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 23 July 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. Daniel (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Enrique Acosta

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

Non-notable activist. Most of the references only mention him in passing. Un assiolo (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Un assiolo (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 16 July 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 (on the narrower end due to disagreement over routine/significant coverage, but there is consensus here). Daniel (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Burgreen

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

The only sourcing I can find on Burgreen are publications of the Episcopal Church. For someone to be notable we need to be able to source them to reliable, 3rd party indepdent sources which give indepth coverage. Publications of the organization they are an officer of do not meet the indepdent prong in this requirement. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Beneath the surface, there's plenty of press coverage: see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. While he may not have been the world's most noteworthy person, these sources amount to significant coverage, particularly considering WP:BASIC's statement that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Putting these sources together, we have more than enough to write a policy-compliant non-stub article, which means he's notable. (WP:BISHOPS makes an argument that bishops are automatically notable, but we needn't delve into that when the GNG is passed, as in this case.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Bishops of major denominations are notable per se. Needs tagging as stub for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no agreed upon inclusion criteria for religious leaders, definantely not one that automatically grants all the holders of the title of bishop notability. If we look at that string of 7 articles, those are all hyper local articles, one of them exists because Birgreeen was the son-in-law of a couple in the community, most others are about events not about Burgreen, and if being able to find a local newspaper article on someone being oradained an Epsicopal priest is grounds for creating an article, than we should have articles on way more Episcopal Priests than we do. Having a string of 7 mentions in hyper local coverage mainly of the event type does not add up to making someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Clergy, so to state that there is "no consensus" is false. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one-sentence stub. The coverage Extraordinary Writ has found is local and WP:MILL, a quarter of the population of any US state would be notable if that is considered sufficient. Furthermore, it's not clear that the Episcopal Diocese of the Armed Services and Federal Ministries is equivalent to a regular diocese. Several of those Episcopal bishops have been borderline cases with substantially better sourcing. I don't think the presence of the magic word "bishop" justifies a keep, and don't see coverage to justify a keep either. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:39, 23 July 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. Geschichte (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Muthukumar

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. A before search returns with social media links, and some vanity press and potentially unreliable source such as this. She has played minor role in a TV drama that is not sufficient to demonstrate notability [1] TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No lead role. Fails GNG, Nactor, Basic, BLP. Sonofstar (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on improvements passing Nactor. Sonofstar (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has played three lead roles. She was one of the leads in her previous show Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal? and is the main lead in her present show Sasural Simar Ka 2. She also played the main lead in her marathi film Rangeela Rayaab, satisfying WP:NACTOR. Also adding sufficient references to support the actor's career and life, satisfying WP:GNG--117.193.137.253 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per additions by IP. Furius (talk) 00:29, 18 July 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 Orientation (for now). There is rough agreement below that this article shouldn't persist in its current state. However, we seem to be one or two steps from finalising what should happen with it. In the interests of WP:ATD and preserving history in case it ever gets merged, setting up this redirect back to the main page - however, anyone at any time is welcome to retarget it, or use one of the suggestions below, or just do something totally different that improves this space. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orientation (computer vision)

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

Tagged since 2009, the subject of the article is not sourced (only applications and side concepts are sourced). The writing is so confusing that it is impossible to know what is the topic that the article is supposed to describe D.Lazard (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been completely incomprehensible since October 2009 when it was tagged as such. This implies that no one cares enough to want to improve it. It's so incomprehensible that I think it would have to be a start-from-scratch job; in its current state, I can't imagine who the readership are supposed to be. It would be helpful were an expert on computer graphics to give an opinion on whether there's a need for an article on this subject. If Yes, I'd say reduce this to a stub and hope someone works on it; if No, then delete. Elemimele (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are multiple concepts of orientation in computer vision:
- local orientation estimation - the orientation of anisotropy in the neighborhood of a pixel, such as the gradient direction in edge detection, as mentioned in Edge_detection#Approaches
- Object orientation estimation - the orientation of an object within an image. This is computed in Pose (computer vision) estimation.
- Image orientation estimation - what is the global orientation of a whole image? This is useful for photo orientation, or a robot determining its attitude. I don't know if we have a good article for this. It is described in, e.g., Scale-invariant_feature_transform#Orientation_assignment and Image registration.
Given the multiple concepts of orientation in computer vision, either a disambiguation page or a broad concept article may be the best approach. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of a dab page, as Orientation is already a dab page, which links to this article, the disambiguation should be done in a section of Orientation, and this article should become a redirect to this section. D.Lazard (talk) 11:50, 17 July 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 16:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skinner Belfield

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

Article is about a non-notable player who only played one game, and was only at bat one time. Beyond statistical databases there are no sources. No hits in newspapers, google books, google scholar, ProQuest, etc. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTCRIT. 4meter4 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless anyone can find significant coverage I couldn't. I turned up what I think is his wife's obituary, a passing mention in a 1950s game summary, and his wedding announcement in an old newspapers.com result, but I'm not finding significant coverage. Marginally pass of WP:NBASE does not overcome the WP:GNG failure. Hog Farm _Talk 05:21, 17 July 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. Daniel (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic of Nias

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

As per WP:QUESTIONABLE. Sources given are either self-published or "sensationalist" Indonesian language publications. Also WP:NN - a total of 1,250 hits in Google, many of which point to Wikipedia. Davidelit (Talk) 15:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Davidelit (Talk) 15:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can’t read the Indonesian sources but the English source does not look reliable. I found some sources regarding the sinking of the SS Van Imhoff [2] [3] [4] but these do not seem to be RS. This event is already mentioned on Nias. I don’t think a month long ‘state’ with so little written about it requires its own article. (I will note sources say allied media covered up the sinking which may account for lack of RS but that’s not a reason to keep the page.) Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- It is potentially a harmless article, but I think it might be better to give it a NPOV name such as German occupation of Nias. I rather doubt that the German rulers considered themselves as a sovereign state, rather as occupying it on behalf of the Axis powers, which is consistent with their peacefully handing the island over to the Japanese. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just worry that these sources are pretty unreliable especially for an article of this length and depth. We really need an Indonesian speaker, maybe the original author Jeromi Mikhael, to give some advice on the reliability of the Indonesian sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I speak Indonesian. Page 359 of one of Oktorino's books (Jejak Hitler di Nusantara - Petualangan, Intrik dan Konspirasi Nazi di Indonesia - The Footsteps/Traces of Hitler in the Indonesian Archipelago: Nazi Adventures, Intrigues and Conspiracies' in Indonesia) discusses the possibility that Hitler escaped to Indonesia, married a local woman and died a Muslim in Surabaya. Davidelit (Talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The book says this and we only get an article about a 30 day Nazi republic. We have been robbed of a great section in Adolf Hitler titled "Post-retirement Life in Surabaya". Joking aside, I double down on my delete vote now then. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is a non-trivial coverage in two English language books and apparently in sources on other languages (cited on the page). My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Geerken book is self-published so does not meet RS standards as per WP:RSSELF and the section of the book talking about the Free Republic of Nias contains no referencing. See this amateur review by Hans Veltman of the book for an idea of its reliability. The other source is a self-published website that does not give any sources for the information presented and looks to be quite a biased site. All other sources appear to be in Indonesian (which have been questioned above) or Dutch. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you say this is "fake story" that never happened? Given that the story is apparently true, that page is relatively well written and well sourced to Indonesian sources, I do not see a compelling reason for deletion. The sources are few, I agree, but having at least some coverage in several books I think makes this story worthy a page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The story is already covered in the Nias page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It mention this story in one phrase and provides link to this page. I think it is exactly as it should be. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one main reference, which is clearly unreliable. A list of survivors of the sinking of SS van Imhoff is available elsewhere in wikipedia, which demonstrates a fundamental confusion on the part of the original editor as regards the name of the doctor who was one of the survivors. Not a large error, perhaps, but in view of the paucity of other references it throws, IMHO, the whole article into serious question. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is without extensive WP:RS to clarify context in the wider picture JarrahTree 11:39, 20 July 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Smith (journalist)

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

Article about a television journalist, not properly sourcing any credible claim to passing WP:JOURNALIST. The only notability claim on offer here is that she exists, the article is so outdated that until I fixed this a minute ago it still described her as the current host of a program whose own article says she left it 13 years ago, and the only source being cited is her former staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer rather than any evidence of third-party coverage about her or her work. As always, the notability test for journalists is not passed by using primary sources to verify that they exist, it's passed by using reliable source coverage about them in media outlets independent of their own careers to verify that their work has been externally validated as significant. But there's nothing like that here, and even on a ProQuest search I'm not finding anything better: I get over 1,000 hits on the generic phrase "Donna Smith", virtually none of which are verifiably this Donna Smith (which is a name far, far too common to assume anything in the absence of hard proof), and if I try "Donna Smith" APTN to filter the noise I literally get reduced to just one trivial hit in an event calendar. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything to show that this person passes WP:JOURNALIST or WP:ANYBIO. Zero independent refs. The 13-year-old archived page (the only ref in the article) claims she is an award-winning journalist but does not specify what award or when. The three lines of content in this article were created in one edit in 2007, and have not changed since, so it appears that there is nothing more to say about her. Meters (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --hroest 14:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indepth sources available. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:16, 20 July 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Nicolle

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

No indication of notability as an actor. References are not enough to prove notability. Fails WP:NACTOR DJRSD (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Not a particularly notable social media person with a few credits in no-budget films. KidAd • SPEAK

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. ✗plicit 14:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching of Jesus about little children

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

Article fails WP:GNG for lack of independent non-trivial sourcing. User:Namiba 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously? Can anyone familiar with the Western tradition even assert with a straight face that this topic fails WP:GNG? I suspect a WP:CIR fail here, and that's not trying to be ad hominem, just entirely mystified about how anyone could think this nomination makes sense, regardless of the lack of documented RS'es in the article. Jclemens (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a WP:SYNTHESIS until you prove that there are multiple, independent, non-trivial sources on the topic. You can claim whatever you like about myself, but you also haven't provided any evidence.--User:Namiba 15:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if that came across as an ad hominem, but incredulity can sound that way. To put it simply, everything attributed to speech of Jesus of Nazareth in any canonical Christian writing has approaching two millennia of commentary. The fact that the various citations are not in this article doesn't mean a reasonable person would conclude that the topic might possibly be non notable. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I'm not experienced in researching topics about the Bible, but God has clearly failed me in my searches for good coverage about this. This regular Google search just gives you a bunch of blogs (of which the reliability I don't know of) only mentioning the time Jesus talked about children, and blogs and legitimate sources like Christianity Today talking about the line "Jesus Loves the Little Children" (and man, would that sound creepy out of context), which isn't a line from the Bible but from a hymn C. Herbert Woolston wrote. GBooks just gives me a bunch of bizarre children's book that use that line as their titles, and thus establishes no notability for this topic. Only one result in this Google Scholar cites the passages currently in the wiki, and the rest talk about different Jesus topics while only using the phrase "little children" not to talk about these passages. I may change my !vote to a Weak keep if this thesis qualifies as academic coverage that establishes notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that qualifies as academic coverage since the bibliography has zero academic sources.--User:Namiba 19:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my !vote to Keep due to academic sources provided by other editors here, but rename to Teachings of Jesus about children; not really seeing why the title needs to be specifically "little" children, as the provided sources just describe and label Jesus' teachings as just on children in general. Additionally, WP:TNT; since I'm noticing the sources in this discussion cite Bible lines different from what the Wikipedia article in its current state cites, it's very likely violations of WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR are going on; apart from one sentence about an analysis by Heinrich Meyer, the article does not use verification from independent sources stating the lines were about or related to little children. Thus, the article needs to be re-written with citations from academic material. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; a Google search will produce a phenomenal number of hits for this, because it is a key concept in Christianity, and seen as important by a huge range of Christian churches. Of course it's easy to write off all of these sources as biased or primary, but you have to ask yourself whether the sheer number of them, and their range, hints at the notability of the subject. But for those who want unbiased sources, here's a BBC-bite-sized-guide revision topic on one of the Jesus/little-children stories[5], which shows that the subject is worthy of exam syllabuses; here's a study-guide from a multi-faith site with no particular alliance to Christianity, as evidence that Jesus' teaching about little children is seen as a notable feature to those studying world religions [6], and as just one example of the thousands produced by Christian organisations, here's the Taizé organisation's take on it (Taizé are well-known and well-respected) [7]. I'm not saying the article is perfect (it could certainly do with referencing) but to delete it as not notable (that's what GNG is) would be jaw-droppingly weird, to the extent that this Afd feels like it might be intended to make a point. Elemimele (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That one is well known and well described in sources; that's why this page exists on a number of other languages. Sources such as [8] or [9] do exist. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some deletion nominations continue to amaze me. Do we really have editors of an English-language encyclopedia who don't realise that "suffer little children" has become a commonplace phrase, and that it originated in a translation of a biblical report of Jesus's words? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never heard "suffer little children" in any of my everyday conversations with other people, so I am not aware that it is a commonplace phrase. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If your education is limited to everyday conversation then I can believe that you have not heard the phrase. People editing an encyclopedia should not have such limited horizons. The USA is much more a Christian country than the UK, so I find it difficult to believe that a quotation from the Christian bible is not more well-known there, rather than less. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as significant coverage in multiple reliable sources has been identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view. Also as a sidenote suffer little children is a common phrase in the UK broadsheets, imv Atlantic306 (talk)
- So it's commonplace in the UK? I live in the United States, New York state to be specific, so that might explain it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in support of affirmative arguments set out above and the fact that the articles on Matthew 18 and Matthew 19 direct the reader here rather than reproduce the material within those articles themselves. However, development is needed, and more secondary references are available. Popular usage of the phrase "suffer little children" is missing from the article. Luke 18 lacks coverage of verses 15-17, which could be addressed by adding there "See Teaching of Jesus about little children", and Gospel of Thomas does not refer to Saying 22. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added this coverage in Luke 18. BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep vote is very clear in here. It is clearly one of the concepts of Christianity. SunDawn talk 15:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a notable topic. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:59, 21 July 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 14:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HD 49306

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Rarely have I seen a star with so little coverage. It is in the Tess Input Catalog, but nothing interesting was found. It is Numbere 1 in the constellation by Gould, but that's a fairly obscure catalogue to start with, and a fairly obscure constellation. Lithopsian (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the references are articles about this specific star. Not a naked eye object. Not notable.PopePompus (talk) 00:40, 20 July 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. ✗plicit 13:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Dhaka

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

No indication of notability. fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Previous deletion log. GermanKity (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating the article, I reviewed that there was previous deletion logs, but the last one was in 2013. Since then, the designer has been more recognized in a national level (and we're talking about the second-largest English-speaking country in the world). Google News retrieves a lot of articles for rina dhaka designer. Current article doesn't show that coverage, that's my fault. I was sure that I was available of creating a good article in one night, but I got tired. Knewdates (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep leading designer from India, clearly passes GNG. Enough coverage to keep. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 07:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on sources in the article, easily passes GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 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 12:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano de Oliveira Santos

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

This football player seems to have played in two clubs in Brazil: Castanho and Poções. Poções currently plays in the Brazilian Serie C, which is a WP:FPL... I don't know what league they were in back in 2008-09. He also played for J2 League club at the time Shonan Bellmare. The J2 League is an FPL. I don't know how to check his stats because information on this player is so hard to find, nevermind the fact that there is an unknown Portuguese player with the same name... Anyways, this player COULD potentially scrape by WP:NFOOTY by the skin of its teeth, but the subject miserably fails WP:GNG for me, and therefore I suggest a deletion. I don't think Adriano is notable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He has a page on Soccerpunter and Tribuna. It looks like he had a career outside the three clubs mentioned in the article but I'm not sure where this stands in terms of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I couldn't find any profiles with statistics or anything else about him. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at the profiles User:Spiderone found and it seems he made 4 FPL appearances in the Campeonato Paranaense. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because no reliable sources confirm he meets NFOOTBALL, and GNG is also questionable. Giant Snowman 14:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 21 July 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 12:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shanee Moret

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

Something iffy here. This important influencer has almost no Internet results (61 distinct Google hits[10]??), and the sources... Well, the Stevenson University text from July 2020[11] can be found exactly the same, but from another LinkedIn "influencer", from January 2020[12]. Looking at the other sources: the first has a very short quote from her, the second doesn't even mention her but shows an image from her Linkedin page, which leaves us with only source three (a podcast) and four (an article from "Working Mother" which reads like a puff piece more than actual journalism). Her companies like Medsnake Media don't seem to be really notable either[13]. Growth Academy is harder to search for, as that name is used by many different things, but it doesn't look good either[14]. Basically, for an influencer, she has a large number of followers, but apparently very little actual impact, making this read more like an ad for a non notable person than an actual article on a notable influencer. Fram (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), most sources appears to be primary RoanokeVirginia (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) but maybe her podcast Growthpreneurs could be notable if it is indeed in the top 50? --hroest 18:42, 16 July 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 12:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maj3sty

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

Non-notable musician. No sources I can find are reliable nor independent of the subject. A case of an article being written too soon. Urve (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did find this [15] and [16] from sources claiming to be magazines and blogs, but man do they look like ad pieces instead of actual coverage. Plus they're not known by any editor on here, admins included. You know you're not dealing with good material to work with for a Wikipedia article if one of the brief pieces says "This North Carolina native is destined to be in the mentions of artists such as J. Cole and more." 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed both of those sources; "Disrupt" is a known SEO/paid placement sink, and "raptology" is just a collective blog with accuracy disclaimers - far from the RS we need for BLPs. Kuru (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per 👨x🐱 - 41.6.39.92 (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is really good and there are some pages which are not even up to the standard of this page and they stay LeoAanholt (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: LeoAanholt (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

This musician is not more notable because other articles are lousy. The solution is to fix them too. See this guideline. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Did not seem to be notable. SunDawn talk 13:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good luck to him as he gets started, but his media presence so far is clearly in the form of reprinted press releases and minor blogs (as described by previous voters). He has not yet achieved the reliable and significant coverage that is required for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is not notable and neither are the sources. - Kevin19781 (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Subject is notable and an Independent Artist. The notable artists that this one is being compared to, are not independent within their music career. If the fixing of the article is no longer being questioned and it’s now a matter of notability, this can be addressed. This particular artist is notable within the independent artist sector of music. There are many different avenues to take for a music career and true independency is one of them. The article has been sourced properly. Because of lack of comparison to others, the subject shouldn’t be deleted. It’s a great start for any artist who is doing it alone. Remove the deletion and give the artist a chance and time. The subjects legitimacy isn’t questionable. What’s being questioned is his level of notability in comparison to others, which is somewhat discriminatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changecoming1 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC) — Changecoming1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 12:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodnoy Tea

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Poor coverage of the topic by reliable sources. Deleted two times in ruwiki, u:Olegplotnikov97 is most likely an employee of a PR agency or the company that owns the brand itself. Sigwald (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the author for spamming. MER-C 10:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty much an obvious advertisement. My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 21 July 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. ✗plicit 10:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Imperial (Croatia)

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

Not notable hotel. Its only reference is a reservation website. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the claims the article makes appear to be true, it's merely a weak stub. A search for it on the Croatian scientific journals website doesn't show much, but a google full text search at https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahrcak.srce.hr+hotel+imperial+opatija brings up a fair bit of coverage - looks like this place was originally called "Stephanie" or later "Imperijal", and it seems fairly notable. There seems to be WP:POTENTIAL here to describe how the place was one of the origins of tourism on what was then the Austrian Littoral, as that seems to be the main point of the coverage. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, umm, [17] is pretty bad form, IMHO. There were plenty of clues there in those statements about some research one could do WP:BEFORE. If this was just blatant tourist trap promotion, no problem, but like this, it just seems careless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: Excuse me. If the reference/IC doesn't corroborate it, it gets removed. There is way too much shit like this around WP and I have been saying it constantly since I found this[18]. Read the latter parts of this talk page discussion[19] too. People make it up as they go too often around here, the disgraceful[20] Naomi Ishisaka business, being the worst such example. Save your outrage for the contributors who screw up WP not the editors who clean up these messes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that escalated quickly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A historic and pioneering hotel. It started under the name Hotel Kronprinzessin Stephanie and seems to have had several name changes since so a thorough source search would have to address this and the issue of different languages. WP:ATD and WP:NEXIST therefore apply, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historic hotel which is listed as a cultural monument by the Croatian government, so clearly passes WP:GEOFEAT. But move to Hotel Imperial, Opatija. We use the town as the primary disambiguator for buildings, not the country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search for "Hotel Imperial (Croatia) history" has returned at least three articles which could be used as sources. Given more time this article could be significantly improved. NemesisAT (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has potential and I've started expansion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:14, 21 July 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 10:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 4 models

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The fact that there is a PS4 normal, slim and pro is established in the main article, and the list of slightly different limited edition models in this article is solely the domain of fancruft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article lists noteworthy physically different looking variants (colors, game branding, special editions much like similar console pages. This is useful information for anyone looking to obtain a PS4, regardless if they are a "fan", and it provides historical context for what games were significant enough at the time to receive special treatment in the form of a dedicated bundle or special edition. I would not consider it fancruft. --Derf Jagged (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Derf Jagged (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. Anything truly noteworthy can be covered in the parent's existing list of models and details. -- ferret (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Any notable model should be added to PlayStation 4#Hardware revisions. Plus this article looks like a promotional catalog, compare it with PlayStation models, PlayStation 2 models, and PlayStation 3 models. Wario-Man ^talk 04:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious WP:NOTCATALOG vio TarkusAB^talk/contrib 08:45, 20 July 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bench, Idaho

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

This is another case of an LDS ward which the church hoped would grow into a town but which apparently never did. It geolocates to a house which aerials show replaced an earlier building sometime in the decade after WW II. That earlier building would appear to be the church shown on topos. Other than that, the area is all farms, never seeming to change much over the decades. Our favorite LDS genealogical publication is the only source I've found, since searching is well-nigh impossible for so common a word, and I'm not willing to take their description of the place as a "small farming settlement" as imbuing a vague rural area with notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bench had a population of 75, according to the 1909 Davis Encyclopedia, so it did grow into a small town, although the population clearly eroded over time (which is extremely common with small towns). The USGS has an entry for the community, listing it as a populated place, and reference works of the past note the community's population. WP:GEOLAND is thus satisfied: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." The deletion nomination appears to be based on observations of the current state of the community, but reference works of the past tell us this was a once-happening place. Since notability is not temporary, and since there are other encyclopedias which note this community, we likely should, as well. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Davis population figure, even taken at face value, does not show that Bench was a town at all; at best it shows that some area had that many people in it, but it doesn't characterize that area. For all we know, it could just represent all the farms whose mail was picked up at the Bench post office. We've been over the USGS entry many times: first, GNIS itself denies that it constitutes official recognition, and second, there are so many errors in GNIS, and its classification of "populated place" so broad, that we have deprecated it in AfD after AfD as far as the characterization of a place is concerned. The same story goes for old post offices.

I've found old abandoned places, like Conda, Idaho, but the difference is in the documentation. In the case of Conda, the maps show it used to be there, and there is perfectly good documentation of its construction and removal. In the case of Bench, it seems to me that the best we can do is string together a location given by GNIS, an LDS ward, a post office, and a population of uncertain authority, and synthesize them into a town called Bench. And on some level there's no doubting a place called Bench, but there really isn't enough here to characterize it. Mangoe (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Davis population figure, even taken at face value, does not show that Bench was a town at all; at best it shows that some area had that many people in it, but it doesn't characterize that area." No, it actually does, listing Bench, Idaho, under 'towns'. Bench also appears on the map in the same encyclopedia, not as "Bench PO", but as "Bench". We've got references calling the community a "small farming settlement" and a town. Clearly, this was a community, not a post office, as post offices don't have populations. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article has had enough added to justify keeping. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Weak Delete As it stands the only notability is from a 1909 encyclopedia showing that the town had a population. It should have at least three significant reliable sources to verify its population and thus notability, and none of the other sources do that. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 00:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 21:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - all we really have here are the statement in the canal book cited in the article that however the Davis Encyclopedia defines the scope is as that it had a population of 75. My searching brought up some passing mentions that aren't very helpful, and a number of fairly trivial references to the "Bench ward". Looks to me like this could well have just been a vague, undefined area based on the LDS ward. I'd probably have given this one the benefit of the doubt if I were nominator, but I'm not seeing the bases for an article here. Redirection to Gem Valley#Geography might also be okay, as it is briefly mentioned there. Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the description of having a population of 75, which indicates a community of sorts at one point. Thus, it meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source that states it had a population is really weak and doesn't verify that claim. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 04:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source states that it was a town with a population of 75, which absolutely verifies there was a community here, and with a population of 75 residents. Why are we deleting content included in other encyclopedias? Isn't the concept of deletion to remove unencyclopedic content? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A single line mentioning the town name and estimated population from the 1909 version of an encyclopedia does not warrant a standalone Wikipedia article. It does not pass WP:GNG. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, a single line mentioning the town name and estimated population, in an encyclopedia, verify that this was a populated place, thus satisfying WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." Again I am asking: why are we deleting content included in other (print) encyclopedias? We delete articles on non-notable things, not communities that once had 75 residents. The sources used in this article are independent of the subject, and include a national encyclopedia, a publisher outside of the state of Idaho, a government database, a commercial website, and county newspapers from a 20-year period. They encompass sources from between 1909 and 2018: over 100 years of history, and include milestones from 1902, 1909, 1919, 1923, and 1957-1977. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Jamesallain85 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GEOLAND and some newspaper mentions. I've added an oddball law enacted there. There's also an Idaho Statesman article dated 22 September 1903 about a young woman from there who committed suicide in Salt Lake City; not suitable for Wikipedia, but more proof it was a recognized populated place. The place also pops up in minor social news, obituaries, etc. (e.g., "Frank Christensen of Bench, Idaho, has been visiting his parents and relatives here", according to the 1912 Logan, Utah, Journal). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have enough sources that show this was a recognized place to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it probably does not meet GNG, it meets GEOLAND, which is enough to justify an article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:34, 23 July 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. And move to Thomas Lockyer (disambiguation). Sandstein 06:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lockyer (disambiguation)

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

The subject Tom Lockyer was recently found to be the primary topic for this name. With only one other notable person of this name, and no real indication there are more on the horizon, the disambiguation page is unnecessary per WP:ONEOTHER. Readers can reach the cricketer through a hatnote rather than first needing to click through an unnecessary disambiguation page. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to an admin: I think, uncontroversially, we're all in agreement that this page can just be moved to Thomas Lockyer (or the redirect can be made into that page and this one deleted, whichever is the proper outcome)! While there may not be other Tom's, with other people named Thomas in play there's a good solution here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as discussed at Talk:Tom_Lockyer#Requested_move_18_June_2021 (WP:ONEOTHER). Adumbrativus (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Keep based on Boleyn's additions. A combined disambiguation page (WP:DABCOMBINE) for Tom and Thomas seems appropriate for the small number of entries. Adumbrativus (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is only one person of note with this name, the disambiguation page is superfluous.TH1980 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (per improvements) there were other entries for this, they just needed to be looked for and added. This is a valid dab, meets all the guidelnies. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There still only seem to be two people named Tom Lockyer -- neither of the additions appear to have gone by Tom Lockyer. It does seem that there should be a dab page for Thomas Lockyer -- whether that should be created by moving this page to Thomas or by creating a new one at the redirect you should created seem equally fine to me (but the current status should not remain, given that we now have a dab page at Tom Lockyer where 2/4 entires are not Tom Lockyer's.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording on the intro so it shows it is for those named Tom or Thomas (both Toms do appear to be Thomases, so I agree, a move to Thomas Lockyer as the base name is a good idea, I just didn't want to do that while this was ongoing, but perhaps afterwards).

Which, just to be clear, I would support (not sure if the closing admin can do that, but seems like the easiest, presumably uncontroversial next step).--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Thomas Lockyer (disambiguation) per nominator's suggestion. This would allow for the inclusion of the other Thomas Lockyers that didn't go by "Tom." Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:40, 16 July 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. Consensus is that this museum is sufficiently notable for inclusion on WP. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! Children's Museum

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

Local museum which appears to fail GNG. I see a lot of coverage in "Colorado Hometown Weekly" but I'm not seeing anything aside from these local stories and inclusion on tourism websites. I fail to see any notability in this local children's museum. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is sourcing, some of which I added. I think there's enough to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 16:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in a directory of museums opened by women does not establish notability. Neither does inclusion in a regional (Denver) business journal list of "2015 Cultural Attractions" which is literally just a list of things to do in the area. The third source is just the same regional journal noting in a blurb that the museum and another local attraction were included in a non-notable list of 25 children's museums created by The Early Childhood Education Zone (an unreliable blog). I maintain this is just routine regional coverage and I don't see it passing ORG or GNG. I appreciate your search for sources, however. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's more sourcing beyond Denver, which I'll try to add during the course of this discussion. I think together they might get it to WP:ORG. List of attractions was just to cite attendance, not notability on my end. Sorry to confuse. Star Mississippi 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having dug a little further (and for the purposes of this, disregarding the local source element) and the info is inconsistent which is an issue raised above. A museum drawing 300K/year was one thing, but it seemed on further digging that 70K was their peak (as of 2015) and now I'm not sure. It's a small children's museum, and community fixture, which unfortunately doesn't mean anything for WP:ORG. I'm still saying keep for the moment, but maybe closer to a weak keep. Going to keep looking to see what else I can find. Star Mississippi 15:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don’t see anything currently in WP:ORG about attendance determining notability. Please correct me if I’m wrong. The bit in there that would help the delete case is WP:AUD, which requires coverage in one non-regional source. Looking carefully, bizjournals (in the form of Denver Business Journal) and Colorado Hometown Weekly have strong RS cases, but they are admittedly not national or international sources.

Some comments on the reliability of existing sources:

bizjournals was discussed on RSN less than a year ago and is generally considered reliable when the content is not flagged as an advertisement. See wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_288#Business_Journals_/_bizjournals.com
bizjournals has a reliability score of 46.22 by Ad Fontes Media (well above the 32 point threshold). https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-business-journals-bias-and-reliability/
Colorado Hometown Weekly hasn’t been discussed at RSN yet, but we can use the WP:USEBYOTHERS standard, meaning if other WP:RS uses Colorado Hometown Weekly, it's an indicator of it's reliability. If you search the links out of these articles you'll see The Denver Post does [21], 5280 does [22], Vice Media does [23], Colorado Public Radio does [24], Yahoo! News does [25] and The Colorado Sun does [26]. The Denver Public Library also links to it as a resource. We could have RSN review Colorado Hometown Weekly as a source, but I'm pretty sure they'll say something like "reliable for topics in their purview." But would happily abide by whatever consensus emerges there.

The WP:AUD argument for delete is that Hageman, and Rowman should be considered regional because they're about Colorado (regardless of the publisher) and that the only non-regional source is Danilov. In my opinion, 1 ≠ 0, and according to WP:AUD, one is enough. If people want to harp on this, and there are no other undisputed non-regional sources found, then fine. I would say that's beyond deletionism, it would be like a case of deletionist supererogation. That's all I have to say about that. - Scarpy (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I'm still leaning keep, so I'm not sure what you're saying about deletionism in response to my comment Scarpy? My concern with respect to attendance is the museum's broader significance, but we can agree to not really disagree I guess? Star Mississippi 17:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions are not a vote. The closing admin should look at the quality of the arguments for an against. I say this to point out when you’re talking about WP:ORG and then talking about your own criteria for “broader significance” of museums, you’re talking about two different things. There are some caveats in WP:ORG (like WP:AUD) but the primary criteria is A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

If one follows the guidelines, WP:AUD is the best way I’m aware of to Steelman the guideline-agnostic cases made for deletion so far. My point there is that the best case for deletion in the guidelines is it not even particularly good or applicable here.

This is where the “let’s agree to disagree” breakdowns down. Yes, the two of us can agree to disagree, but guidelines are guidelines. Ultimately we can disagree on interpretations of them to some extent. But of the things that are clear as day in the guidelines, it’s not about disagreeing with me, it’s about applying criteria not in the guidelines to decisions made on Wikipedia. Otherwise we’re engaging in something like AfD judicial activism. That creates a lot of problems because it means that Wikipedia doesn’t even follow its own rules. In the longterm, if this occurs a lot, it’s bad for Wikipedia’s future because it obfuscates the expectations contributors will have for their work being included. Consider scenarios where someone reads the guidelines, writes content according to the guidelines and then it’s deleted because some editors decided to ignore the guidelines in an AfD. That contributor would be justifiably upset.

Perhaps there should be a section in WP:ORG specially about museums and their attendance that the supersedes the primary criteria. The place to have that would be the WP:ORG talk page, and if found consensus and this museum was below the threshold, then it should be deleted. AfD is the wrong forum for it. - Scarpy (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's where WP:ITSAMUSEUM came in. Pinging Doncram who can speak to the history of it better than I can and whether it speaks to your point. Guidelines are that--guidelines not rules, so it's very possible decisions can counter them. I've had articles deleted. It's art, not science. I'm well aware AFD isn't a vote and as I'm not arguing for deletion, so I'm still confused. I've actually been accused of being biased toward museums, so I guess we'll see where it lands. Star Mississippi 02:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s true in English that guidelines and rules are somewhat different, but polices like ignore all rules use them more or less synonymously.

If we don’t follow the guidelines, we’re just fickle and capricious. We become a naked popularity contest—that’s not what encyclopedias are.

I like Museums too. I also want this article kept. but it’s not about us being on the same team of Museum inclusionists and getting museum articles kept if that means weakening the reasoning for all AfDs to some extent. There’s the primary criteria, there’s WP:AUD, there’s the rest of the guidelines. Those are the concepts that we should be reasoning with in AfD. This isn’t some crazy edge case. You find the sources covering a topic, you see if they’re reliable and in-depth. You compare this the the criteria for the category. It meets the notability criteria for its category, or it doesn’t. If we stick to that, bias for or against Museums doesn’t matter, bias for or against cultural regions of the US doesn’t matter… In the nearly infinite number of things that could be argued on Wikipedia, cases like this should be as simple as what Leibniz envisioned when he said Gentlemen, let us calculate!’. (I’m sure he would have said Gentlepeople if he was alive in 2021) - Scarpy (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree there is enough sourcing to pass GNG. Wikipedia is partially a gazetteer and museums are important in that capacity. - Scarpy (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m reminded of this AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Crimes (2nd nomination) where similar disparaging remarks were made to the above “Colorado Hometown Weekly.” @El cid, el campeador: I want to ask you to reconsider how you talk about other parts of America. You never hear people say “ohh, the Village Voice was just a ‘hometown weekly.’” But I see plenty of Wikipedians treating Denver publications that way because… they’re from Denver. The implication is clearly not about the merit or reliability of the specific periodical, but rather a sneer based on it’s geographic association. In other words, “it’s Denver therefore it’s not in the same rarefied class as (insert whatever metropolitan area the author is from).” If I’m miss reading you, I’m sorry. But please do tread carefully on this topic. I’m from Denver and have encountered the sentiment numerous times in my life that whatever art or culture we produce doesn’t count because our population isn’t large enough or the coordinates don’t fall in acceptable ranges of longitude. - Scarpy (talk)

I can assure you I have no anti-Denver bias, and I note I had nothing to do with that other discussion. Simply put, the coverage here is WP:ROUTINE - and the fact that it is only local plays into that. Ultimately, though, the fact that the sourcing is from "bizjournals.com" is irrelevant - the stories cited to simply do not establish notability, as my analysis should show. The fact that a publication would run a story about a local museum being listed in a list by an unreliable blog does cause me to doubt the validity of the source, though. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: then you won’t mind striking out the “Colorado Hometown Weekly” prose from your opening AfD paragraph? - Scarpy (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless I'm missing something, I don't see bad faith on the part of el cid here. The paper (not using this article for notability, it's just a convenient link) is literally called the Colorado Hometown Weekly. Star Mississippi 13:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Star. There is certainly no bad faith at play. And thank you for your work on the article - if it is kept it will be due to your improvements. Best to both of you ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. See MOS:SCAREQUOTES Misused punctuation can also have similar effects. Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themselves from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. The use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression, so such occurrences should also be considered carefully. @El cid, el campeador: If you’re unwilling to strike it, will you at least properly italicize the name of the periodical? - Scarpy (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I will absolutely not be doing either of those things. You’re being unreasonable and I’m not going to humor you. We’ve both made our points so let’s leave this for now. Cheers ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 00:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italicizing the name of a periodical seems… normal—especially given the MOS. I’ll grant that this is not article space, but still. My constructive feedback here is to be more careful with the tone of things like this. I accept that you don’t intend it to sound condescending, but think about how it comes off to other readers. Alternative newspapers should be judged on their reliability and depth of coverage, their “localness” shouldn’t be an issue. I believe people from any area would bristle at seeing the term “local” used as a euphemism for as “irrelevant” when it comes to media produced in their area. Will leave it there. - Scarpy (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as appears to pass WP:AUD, coverage is on a non-local level. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have enough coverage to barely pass GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 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 per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Hotels and Resorts

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

Fails WP:NCORP GloriaJFM (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 16 July 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 per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UNA Hotels & Resorts

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

Fails WP:NCORP GloriaJFM (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 16 July 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 (withdrawn also). Daniel (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex D. Linz

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

Non-notable child actor from Los Angeles–the sole reliable secondary source I could find was from the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, for which he gave an interview. Don't see a pass on WP:GNG. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actor has been directly involved with numerous notable films besides the interview, passes WP:ENT #1. Jamesallain85 (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes he was "directly involved" with multiple notable productions. However I challenge anyone to show that he had multiple "significant" roles in notable productions. Not every speaking part is significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article because it's informative. —ÐW^(T·C) 19:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might not meet the GNG for news coverage (although child actors often don't get meaningful coverage in general) but in his relatively short career he had multiple significant roles and was a very visible child actor circa 1996-2002 and meets WP:ENT #1 as Jamesallain85 pointed out. He was the lead in Home Alone 3, Bruno (2000 film) and Max Keeble's Big Move and had co-starring roles in One Fine Day, My Brother the Pig and Race to Space. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some news coverage on Linz and I think it demonstrates notability. 1, 2, 3, 4. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn I'll take it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the findings of GoldenAgeFan1 (talk · contribs) Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:36, 19 July 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. Daniel (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hearitfirst.com

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG GloriaJFM (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirects It's seems the website no longer active, and since it redirects to another website, I found out that the website too is on Wikipedia maybe it should be merged together if the other website meet any Wikipedia standard Oloriebi 12:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. ✗plicit 13:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. There are some trivial mentions in some christian news sources and christian books, but I couldn't find any good sources. I also checked Google Scholar and couldn't find anything there either. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:34, 22 July 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. Daniel (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Shaw (Encana)

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

Not notable; most of the reference links are broken anyhow. GloriaJFM (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is advertorialized ("Brian Shaw, CFA, is a Canadian financial industry executive with particular expertise in capital market and investing activities"), has been edited by the subject himself (see WP:COI), is referenced overwhelmingly to directory entries and other primary sources rather than journalist-written third party reliable source coverage about him, and states absolutely nothing about his career that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from any of those problems having to be taken seriously. Bearcat (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really need to proactively purge autobiographies from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. ✗plicit 13:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, independent of the sock puppets the nomination is correct and the article should be deleted. --hroest 14:45, 19 July 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. Daniel (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shivangi Khedkar

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

It seems re-draftification is unnecessary. No notable roles, vanity press, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NACTOR. If someone could please find reliable sources to satisfy GNG or NACTOR kindly update this article. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NACTOR requires multiple notable films/series which is not the case here. --hroest 18:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. Sonofstar (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The actress fulfills WP:NACTOR as she was the lead in all her three works given in her filmography section--117.193.136.237 (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one mainstream acting credit; doesn't seem to satisfy NACTOR yet. Sunshine1191 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 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 Harris Jayaraj. Daniel (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Nikitha Harris

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

fails GNG. only single work and not notable. Iamfarzan (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the sourced material to her father's article, Harris Jayaraj, where she is already mentioned. Doesn't meet notability requirements for a separate article. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree with StarryGrandma --- Kevin19781 (talk) 00:41, 17 July 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. Daniel (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen R. Brown

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

BLP of an individual who would not have any notability but for his crimes, which seem ROTM so this biography does not meet WP:PERP. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Routine white-collar criminals don't merit articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Gene93k, accused is even less notable than convicted. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clarityfiend....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Person accused of rather unremarkable white-collar crimes. This person lacks non-trivial independent RS coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC, and I'm not finding much independent RS interest in the alleged crimes. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:17, 20 July 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. Daniel (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1960Bet

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

There are plenty of refs for this Nigerian betting company but mostly they look promotional, recycled PR or otherwise of doubtful independence. I don’t see anything that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — For the same reasons Mccapra already noted. Wikipedia is not a project for adverstising your organization. A major part of which constitutes what Wikipedia is NOT! Celestina007 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 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. Daniel (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Yashar Tavakolian

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

De-prodded. 5 sources are short articles about a publicity stunt where he sold watermelons out of a Lamborghini. 2 sources are a website claiming to be a newspaper but looks like a WordPress blog and has bad grammar. No in depth coverage of him biographically from a reliable source. Appears to fail WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some of the sources (Articlex News, anyone?) have the aroma of paid promotion. --- Possibly ☎ 23:11, 22 July 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 23:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Daizan Skinner Roshi

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

Lack of reliable independent secondary sources under WP:GNG and does not appear to meet criteria under WP:BIO. Article seems fairly promotional in tone as well. No hits on Google News. Citations in article do not seem reliable and do not indicate notability to me. Sasquatch t|c 01:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sasquatch t|c 01:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sasquatch t|c 01:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Sasquatch t|c 01:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting that this page needs significant revision. It seems a number of the ref links are no longer valid and additional citations are needed. I will work on revising it in the coming weeks. Westmoquette

It's not so much the links are no longer valid, but none of them are reliable sources which would indicate notability in the first place. Sasquatch t|c 18:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it appears that Westmoquette may have a significant conflict of interest that has yet to be disclosed. Sasquatch t|c 02:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I don't see much more than spam here. In 2007, this could have been excused, but in 2021, this is untenable. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources, heavily edited by an editor with a fairly clear undisclosed COI Dexxtrall (talk) 08:40, 16 July 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. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C.L.A.W Operation Blue Freedom

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

Head to toe, this article is an advertisement. WP:ORG fail RPSkokie (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:V; zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:36, 16 July 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. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chelcie Lynn

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

Most sources are passing mentions or unreliable (vines, youtube, ticketing websites). There aren't enough reliable sources to write a good verifiable article on the subject.

This article was created, moved to Drafts by TheChronium, then moved back to Mainspace by the author. Citing (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taken part in notable films and passes WP:ENT. I have found multiple articles on Chelcie Lynn. She has also taken part of VET Tv. Jamesallain85 (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her film roles have to be significant. Do you have links to these multiple articles?Citing (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing coverage in multiple RS when searching for her. Variety here alone mentioned her as a "comic to watch" in 2021. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ENT based on rolls and is also covered in Variety. Peter303x (talk) 23:16, 22 July 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 23:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misogynist (2013 film)

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

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The strongest notability claim here is awards from minor film festivals that are not internationally prominent enough to satisfy NFILM #3 (which is looking for film festivals on the Cannes-Berlin-Venice-Toronto tier, not just every film festival that exists), and absolutely none of the footnotes being used are reliable or notability-building coverage: there are two citations to the filmmaker's directory entry on Amazon Prime, one to IMDb, one to a Q&A interview in which the filmmaker is talking about himself in the first person on a podcast, and one to an online magazine that would probably be okay amid a mixture of solid sources but isn't reputable or widely-circulated enough to singlehandedly get this film over WP:GNG if it's the only non-primary source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bearcat and team, Thank you for your timely reaction and guidance, after understanding why it was tagged for deletion, am recommending that the speedy deletion tag could be removed, as I improve it by adding more references to make it qualify for notability as per rules and guidelines.Thanks a lot Ndahiro derrick (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no speedy deletion tag on it, and you haven't actually added any sources that are making a difference — the new sources you've added are still unreliable blogs and/or primary sources that aren't support for notability. We're looking for reliable sources, which is not the same thing as "just any web page you can find that has the film's title in it". Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of notable people did star and work on this film, but there's no independent sources about this movie besides this blog review. IMDb is not a reliable source for anything, so the festival award wins listed here can't establish notability if not cited with a reliable source. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing notable found. Kolma8 (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 21 July 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. czar 04:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Servilius Casca

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

Mostly original research, and also fails WP:SIGCOV. What's known is that one of Julius Caesar's assassins, Publius Servilius Casca, had a brother with an unspecified role in the conspiracy. No reliable up-to-date source reveals anything else about the brother, not even that "Gaius Servilius Casca" was his actual name, which is a confusion with another person (see Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic vol. 3 OCLC 749579922). The article's original rendition seems to have contained either questionable material with misleading citations (I checked them myself) or outright inventions (such as the original name, "Titiedius", before this article was moved to a less implausible, yet still incorrect name), though this apparently didn't stop the people at Articles for Creation from accepting the draft submission. Avilich (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no definite opinion about this but note that The Death of Caesar: The Story of History's Most Famous Assassination (Strauss, 2015) identifies the second brother as Gaius Servilius Casca. If there's some confusion about this then it would be good to get it straight so that the issue does not keep repeating. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source I cited says the name is a confusion with a 3rd person. "T. J. Cadoux believes that the evidence in our sources points to the existence of three rather than two Cascas, the two members of the conspiracy, and C[aius] Casca, Tr[ibune of the] pl[ebs]... Shackleton Bailey agrees that the evidence is in favor of the existence of three Cascas... The entries in the index would then be: [1] (Servilius) Casca, brother of the conspirator [subject of the nomination] ... [2] P. Servilius Casca Longus... [and] [3] C. Casca, Tr. pl. 44."

The Oxford Classical Dictionary's (2016) entry mentions the two brothers but has nothing to say about "Gaius".

These sources contain the inputs of 4 different authors: Broughton, Shackleton Bailey, Cadoux, Badian. An internet search reveals even more. Against them, Strauss shows no awareness of the argument that "Gaius Casca" was the name of a third person and not of Publius's brother, and he cites none of the works in which this is put forward. I'll boldly assume he simply wasn't up to date. Reading through his list of characters also makes me think he borrowed some info from wikipedia (WP:CITOGENESIS?). The brother already has an entry at Servilia gens#others, it doesn't seem to me like he needs a standalone article. Avilich (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Peter Stothard places Publius and "Titiedius" Casca at the scene of the crime and states that "one of the Casca brothers" struck the first blow, so I wouldn't go so far as to call this wholly original research or the original name as an "outright invention". See The Last Assassin, Oxford University Press, 2021, pp. 53-54. That does not not mean Stothard's version is correct or that Titiedius is individually notable, however. Perhaps, redirect both names to Assassination of Julius Caesar if there is insufficient information on this Casca brother. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stothard is a journalist, not a historian. Given the date of publication it is highly likely that this is a case of WP:CITOGENESIS, especially since neither of the authors I mentioned above nor any others I know about show the slightest knowledge of that name. Avilich (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be wise to leave a comment at WIkiProject Rome and WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome to get some more Romanists involved, since this topic is above the ability of a lot of us here at AfD. Also, there's no reason knock on AfC, we're trying our best. Curbon7 (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're automatically notified since the article is within the project. Avilich (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that all members of CGR automatically receive article alerts from the project. Based on who responds to them, it seems as though many, perhaps most, either don't receive them or don't review them. So it's probably a good idea to mention discussions like this on the project's talk page—not simply because it might be of interest, but because the contributors so far seem doubtful of the wisdom of deletion without further investigation. Since it's been suggested, I'll post a notice. P Aculeius (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know what Stothard is citing. Does he say? Citogenesis is a possibility, given the date, but I'd like to feel more certain before reaching that conclusion. If he doesn't cite anything in relation to Casca, or a verifiable source he could have used, I'd be more comfortable with that assertion. I note quickly that I checked the Clauss-Slaby Databank, and found no instances of "Titiedius" and "Casca" in the same inscription—although that's hardly conclusive. Countless Romans, including many important ones, aren't mentioned in any known epigraphy. But it does exclude one possibility. But "Titiedius" certainly does appear to be a gentilicium, so it's possible that there was a Titiedius Casca. We should try to figure out where this combination of names comes from. P Aculeius (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it, there are no inline citations to be seen anywhere near that excerpt. You're right that Titiedius is a 'gentilicium', but I found nothing connecting it with Casca. Avilich (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just seconding that Stothard did not include any inline citation for the name at page 53. He does have a "Sources" section at page 247, but it is not viewable online, at least by me. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He only uses primary sources for that chapter (pp. 253–4). Avilich (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Titedius Labeo (2 "i"s, not 3) who was proconsul of Gallia Narbonensis during the reign of Tiberius; maybe the name was misspelled? -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The OCD's third edition (1996) entry for Servilius Casca (contributors Cadoux and Badian) says "A third Casca, with the praenomen Gaius, apparently from a gens other than the Servilia, was tribune in 44; alarmed at the fate of C. Helvius Cinna, he put out a statement asserting that he had nothing but the cognomen Casca in common with the conspirators." That implies no conspirator was called Gaius Casca. NebY (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC) That maybe drew on Cassius Dio 44.52.[27] NebY (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete, the current article is in terrible shape and pretty much everything is original research. A Servilius Casca, brother of Publius, and assassin of Caesar, did exist. He was not named Gaius though. The question should mostly be about his notability. As he is only known in connection with his brother, I think he could be dealt with in the article about Publius Casca.

Alternatively, the article could be renamed Gaius Casca (tribune of the plebs, 43 BC). It would cover the life of the Casca unrelated to the assassins of Caesar who may pass the notability threshold, albeit not much can be said of him. T8612 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The qualifier 'tribune of the plebs' probably wouldn't be needed. Though there's equally as little to be said about the tribune, aside from the anecdote quoted above by NebY. Avilich (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Gaius Servilius Casca, tribune of the plebs in 212 BC... although dubious. T8612 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm the one who added the dubiousness. He doesn't himself have an article, regardless. Avilich (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've contacted the Wikidata Rome project as well.★Trekker (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the original article was written by a user "Historian Blek", whose contributions consisted of this article, & edit-warring this personage into Assassination of Julius Caesar. "Titiedius" returned to that article due to the edits of an anon editor posting from an IPv6 address. If no convincing evidence can be found for "Titiedius", it might just be a hoax & any useful information in this article be merged into the one about Publius, or the entire article converted into a redirect to Servilia gens. -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should just be deleted so everyone can move on more quickly. There are two editors in favor of deletion, the rest is just comments by people struggling to keep up with the reasoning, or simply drive-by remarks by editors who will never return here again after a few exchanges. There's nothing worth merging and the article subject itself is bogus. Avilich (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The comments so far have been informative and trying to make sense of this, stop being so rude.★Trekker (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and those who will return will make silly comments like this. Avilich (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completly justified in my comment. The so called "drive by editors" have all tried to the best of their abilities to solve why this article came to be and understanding that will likely help prevent more issues from rising again if anyone ever sites a bad source in the future misnaming this individual. Which is about 1000 times more helpful than just pushing a fast DELETE button on everything.★Trekker (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a bunch of comments lying around and not coming back consistently to address the points against you leaves each sub-discussion unfinished and gives the impression that the subject matter is more complicated than it actually is. The IP, for example, never came back to acknowledge my arguments against his source. There's also the first commenter, who is probably doing this deliberately. I have also not ever seen a 'merge' vote that's well justified, only as a proxy for those innately reluctant to support deletion. This all causes unnecessary delays and misjudgements, and 2 weeks for an unsourced stub of an article is an unreasonable duration by any standard. So, either commit yourself fully or not at all. If you're not prepared to defend your views, don't come in the way of editors who are more committed to improving the encyclopedia. Avilich (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awful take.★Trekker (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

only a literal dead weight in need of spoon-feeding would disagree with such a common sense thing, but that's not such a far-off description considering my experience with you Avilich (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being rude just because people challenge your arrogant comments.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich, Every comment above is pertinent in some form to this discussion. This is a very difficult deletion discussion, and so we're all trying to make sense of it so that we make the correct decision. Even I, a Romanist-in-training, can't really grasp this particular subject. Your crassness in this comment, as well as your shot at AfC in the beginning, are very rude and not appreciated. Curbon7 (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and following careful examination above. We have good reason to think no "Gaius Servilius Casca" existed at that time and no good sources to say he existed and is notable. NebY (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. T8612 (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: T8612 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[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. Consensus is that GNG is the hurdle here rather than the SNG, and the further consensus is that this article hasn't reached it currently. Happy to draftify upon request if anything changes with their GNGness in the future. Daniel (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Gongadze (footballer)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, having only played in the Russian 3rd division (not fully professional). Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, as coverage is routine. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Professional Football League is completely professional. In addition, this player is one of the best scorers and joined the team a league higher. -- Mish-FCTM (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mish-FCTM: The Russian PFL isn't included in WP:FPL. If you believe it to be fully professional, you can start a discussion at WT:FPL. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft When and if he makes his debut for FC Torpedo Moscow then he would qualify, but as it stands, he doesn't, and the article doesn't even pass WP:GNG at present. So until that point, this is better off in draft space until then. Govvy (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace as above, draftspace is a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage about him. Doesn't matter if he appears in a game tomorrow, he still needs significant coverage. The FAQ from the top of WP:NFOOTBALL makes it crystal clear that all sport figures need to pass WP:GNG regardless of how many professional appearances they have.
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
Alvaldi (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played in a fully professional league and so does not meet football inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No evidence of participating in full professional level. Alex-h (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while I still believe he doesn't pass GNG, the Russian 3rd tier has just been added to the list of fully-pro league per this discussion. @Mish-FCTM, Govvy, Joseph2302, Alvaldi, GiantSnowman, Johnpacklambert, and Alex-h: pinging involved editors. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair - but where is the coverage? Giant Snowman 10:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still going with my initial assessment, I really don't think much of that conversation at the FPL page. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: Doesn't matter if he has played 1 professional game or 1000, if there is no significant coverage on the person then he is non-notable and fails WP:GNG. WP:NSPORT, which WP:NFOOTBALL is part of, makes it crystal clear that sports-specific notability guidelines do not supersede WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion had 2 participants, hardly an overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS. And still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk)

Comment Declaring 3 tiers in a sport in a country giving all participants in them default notability is just insane. We should limit such to at most 1 tier per sport per country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Neither WP:NSPORT nore its subsection WP:NFOOTBALL gives anyone default notability. Per its own FAQ, passing a SNG only means that the subject is supposedly likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The subject still has to pass the general notability guideline. What is insane are claims that a player who happened to participate in a match where everybody got paid is for some magical reasons notable even if nobody ever wrote so much as a sentence about him. And having appeared in a game in a 1 tier league in some country is no guarantee that a subject has significant coverage or any coverage for that matter. The only two leagues I've come across where I've never had a problem with sourcing even the one-game-wonder players are the NBA and the WNBA, and those are the absolute cream of the crop in their respective sport. Alvaldi (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only two leagues I've come across where I've never had a problem with sourcing even the one-game-wonder players are the NBA and the WNBA These aren't the only sports, most players in the Premier League and even the EFL Championship can generate significant coverage from just a couple of appearances. Along with most major European football leagues.... Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: I was only speaking from my own experience from Afd's, mostly in basketball and football. Those are the two leagues I've never had a problem with sourcing one-game-wonders, mostly because they had already made a name for themselves before they joined the league (in college or elsewhere). I honestly would have thought that the same would apply for the biggest and best leagues in football as it is the most popular sport in the world and while I agree they are astronomically more likely to have coverage than the run-of-the-mill professional player, I've seen my share of these one-game wonders from those leagues that have nothing to their name other than a statistical database entry or a minor transfer article. And those articles keep getting kept despite the subject having no significant coverage on them because "he played in a game where everybody got paid!" or "he has an ongoing career, somebody might write something about him sometime...maybe". Alvaldi (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage addressing Gongadze directly and in depth, which is far more important than whether or not he took to the field in a game where everyone is on a full-time contract Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Article about semi-pro footballer which fails NFOOTBALL and GNG (this is the most in-depth article I could find about him), but as he has signed for a club in a fully-pro league, the article may qualify for inclusion in the next few months. Jogurney (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (~~Draftify~~)- FNL is fully-pro league ~~and the new season start is just a week away. His previous stats suggest a likely debut very soon.~~ And the player already made a fully pro debut last weeked --BlameRuiner (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has GNG coverage been found? It doesn't appear so, therefore he is not (yet) notable. JoelleJay (talk) 23:16, 16 July 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. Daniel (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeri Weil

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

Her recurring role in Leave It to Beaver isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. There's not much more coverage than "Whatever happened to x" articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge to Judy Hensler. If she is mentioned in "Whatever happened to x" articles, that's good enough for GNG. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just one "whatever happened to" article ("‘Leave It to Beaver’: 1 Child Star Quit Acting After Her Chest Was Taped Down to Make Her Look Younger"), now that I look. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do think, the article is alright with that. Per 力. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meh she is frequently mentioned, but rarely for more than a sentence. --- Possibly ☎ 09:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen articles in way worse shape than this (notability included) and are still kept with simply a refimprove tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Judi was a notable character in the series. - Seasider53 (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. popular TV series, makes her meet WP:NACTOR. I have added a few more sources which I found in Google Books. Peter303x (talk) 23:09, 22 July 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. There is an element of WP:HEY about this, and then further disagreement (ie. lack of consensus) if the improvements are sufficient. I cannot find a consensus for any action in this, so closing with no prejudice to a renomination in the future. Daniel (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stormworld

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

The article lacks reliable, independent, and non-trivial sources per WP:GNG. The only non-trivial source provided is based on a press release [28], while a search for other sources reveals another that reads like it was based on a press release [29].

A third source was found that is independent, and despite being a blog might be considered reliable due to its author possibly being considered a subject matter expert due to their work in the field - but it is a single and trivial source. [30]

The article as it stands is also likely to consist of considerable WP:OR and WP:Fancruft. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:TVSERIES. It aired 26 episodes in multiple nations, which is well beyond the threshold where sources likely exist, regardless of whether or not they're in the article currently. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Were you able to find any of these sources User:Jclemens? I conducted a relatively in depth search for them, but beyond the sources I provided I couldn't find anything of even possible value. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I saw was pretty much in line with what you described above--casting announcements, bare references in articles about the major cast's later careers--enough to substantiate the basics of the article, but not all the details. I don't see where I can rent or buy it, which makes me suspect it probably sucked as bad as its IMDB ratings suggest it did. Problem is, there's plenty of other things named 'stormworld' out there, and so it's hard to say definitively there's nothing there because of all the noise. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:MUSTBESOURCES. We don't keep badly sourced articles just because somebody guesses that better sources probably exist to fix the article with — WP:NEXIST only comes into play if you do the work to show that better sources definitely exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's simply not so. The obligation per WP:BEFORE is on the nominator, which he does appear to have made an effort at. The presumption of notability for nationally broadcast TV shows is there for a reason. This one might be surmountable, but that's not the starting assumption. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The presumption of notability is there because article creators don't always make any effort to find or use the best sources available, so poorly sourced TV show articles are sometimes repairable with better sourcing than was used at first. But if somebody actively makes an effort to find better sources and comes up dry, we do not waive the requirement for better sources and keep it regardless of the lack of viable sourcing to fix it with. So yes, once notability has been questioned, the existence of keep-making sources does have to be proven rather than just idly speculated. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I ran a ProQuest search, in which I found one article that was strongly enough about this show to count for something — but that's not enough all by itself, and all I got otherwise was glancing namechecks of this show's existence in TV listings and a wire service article about Calum Worthy's later career. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets the criteria of WP:TVSERIES as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria of WP:TVSERIES that this meets states that it is "likely to be notable", not that it is notable. Per WP:TVSERIES, we must in fact defer to the presence or absence of reliable sources to make a determination. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria of TVSERIES require reliable sourcing about the series, and nobody's been able to find any. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor show which may have a minor following but lacks any coverage in major sources. "Tv-eh what's up in Canadian television" is not something to hang your hat on. Even the sources that do 'exist' are just cursory summaries which do not establish notability (Australian TV source, for example, is just a blurb). Epguides isn't doing anything for me, either. TVSERIES may convince me if this was a show from the pre-internet days, but it's from 2009 - if there is nothing on the internet it's because this show just doesn't matter. And don't let the size of the article fool you - it's entirely fancruft. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: User:El cid, el campeador said it well. It's less crufty now, BTW. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added 6 references, 5 from main-stream publications, with a couple easily meeting GNG. I'm not sure why User:Bearcat only found 1 source in ProQuest, as most of these were there. I'm surprised I can't find a good Toronto Star one - but perhaps it's lost in the umpteen hits from the TV listings. Nfitz (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I found only one source period, I said I found only one useful source that was actually counting for anything toward establishing notability, and otherwise only got glancing namechecks of this show's existence in coverage that wasn't about it in any non-trivial sense. You didn't find or add any new source that I hadn't seen: Marke Andrews' "Canadian productions get boost from U.S. strike" amounts to "a show called Stormworld is going into production, the end" in a source that's otherwise about the broad phenomenon of Canadian film and television producers trying to fill gaps in US television programming during a US writers strike; Michael D. Reid's "Acting can be dangerous game; Victoria actor has suffered his share of bumps and bruises, but says it's all part of the learning process" glancingly mentions the existence of Stormworld in an article whose subject is Calum Worthy. These sources aren't strongly enough about Stormworld to make it notable if they're the best sources you can find, because they're not saying anything substantive about Stormworld above and beyond the fact that it existed. Bearcat (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Glen Schaefer article in The Province is in-depth, extensive, and easily meets GNG. The shorter piece by Oswald in the WFP is also significant. The show easily meets WP:NTV. I noted a couple met GNG - I'm not sure why focus on other references. I've added a couple more foreign references, though I'm sure that despite WP:N and WP:GNG are both achieved, I doubt they meet your standards. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One source can count toward GNG, but one source cannot "meet" GNG all by itself. GNG requires several sources of the calibre and depth of the Glen Schaefer article, and is not instantly passed just by the Glen Schaefer article all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is irrelevant given that WP:N is easily met. Also one excellent source and many mediocre sources is also good enough to meet GNG - which is merely a guideline, not a black-and-white rule. Though I'm not sure what your objections are to the Winnipeg Free Press article. Nfitz (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as N without GNG, so by definition a thing cannot simultaneously fail GNG yet meet N. The problem with the Oswald WFP piece is that it isn't substantive, and just briefly namechecks Stormworld's existence as a brief coda at the end of an article whose core subject is Better Off Ted. If Stormworld cleared GNG, that would be fine for additional sourcing of stray facts, but it does not help to make GNG happen because it isn't non-trivial coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. You could probably source this with Australia's equivalent of TV Guide alone. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Brave relist considering the amount of time this has been opened, but I feel like there's a chance that a definitive outcome can be reached either way with another 7 days of review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the improvements made by Nfitz since the deletion nomination and the point raised by Jclemens above. I don't think the "TV Eh?" source should be dismissed so quickly, the website has multiple contributors, has been around for over a decade, and evidently has attracted readership based on the comments on that article and their Twitter and Facebook followings. NemesisAT (talk) 19:23, 20 July 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. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Targeting (international health)

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

Non-encyclopedic essay. PepperBeast (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 16 July 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. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty Sport

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

Fails WP:COMPANY and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Just trying to list who they sponsor and advertise the page. Wonder if creator has a WP:COI. Lot of references just link to say that the company sponsors them and isn't about the company. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 02:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 02:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find only one article with more than a mention [31] and I don't think that is enough for general notability, nor that required for a company. Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant mentions (or mentions at all) after googling the company. Nexus000 (talk)
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:33, 17 July 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. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Partnership for Sustainable Tourism

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

Does not appear to meet wp:gng. PepperBeast (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? One article was all that I could find on a Google search. Said article was short, but dedicated to the subject. No new information has been produced on the subject. Take this with a grain of salt, as there are sources I don't have access too. Mr. Holup (talk) 21:31, 16 July 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. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Omran Alshamsi

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

There is virtually nothing that pops up when the name is Googled. There is nothing to indicate notability in English language sources. The page has been tagged with all kinds of problems since 2017 but no one has appeared to be able to fix it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: I agree that no reliable sources seem to exist when searching the subject's name in both English and Arabic; most seem to be promotion pieces, primary sources, or just business account profiles. Minnow for the nominator for failing WP:BEFORE by explicitly not checking for other language sources before nominating. Curbon7 (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Update: I am now convinced this is notable, per Alexandermcnabb. Curbon7 (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Once again, WP:BEFORE should have been applied. Article now cleaned up, notability clearly established as per WP:GNG - a highly influential figure, holding a ministerial rank appointment at national level, the chairman and CEO of one of the world's top ten telecoms companies, head of the largest university in the Emirates and also of the country's leading university academically, a prominent UAE figure in telecoms, banking, real estate, education and philanthropy. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following the improvements by Alexandermcnabb. Notability is now clear. Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 16 July 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. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Audio Theatre Festival

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The book currently being referenced as far as I can tell is only being referenced because it won an award from NATF. That leaves the Richard Fish sources, who from what I can tell has been a part of NATF almost every year but I can't tell if he worked at or just attended the events. Regardless I would question whether he is truly independent of the subject. It's also worth noting that "multiple sources are generally expected" and that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So even if Richard Fish is independent of the subject it would generally be expected that there are other sources out there, and so far I have been unable to find other independent and reliable secondary sources that have more than a trivial mention. If someone has access to newspapers.com they might find some non-digital sources that I'm unaware of. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As you suspected, the good stuff is hidden away in old newspapers. I found a few sources in ProQuest which I think constitute a pass for WP:GNG:

"All Ears and Imagination / Resurgence of radio plays is sweet sound to Hempstead couple" by Peter Goodman in Newsday, 24 September 2002. 818 words discussing the event, its organizers, and a bit about its history. Mentions a festival grant from the NEH for $10,000, and that the NATF has more than 200 members.
"This weekend's audio theater workshops offers the chance to see radio performers in action" by Ray Routhier in Portland Press Herald, 3 November 2002. 1991 words, a little bit promotional at the start (eg where the event is & how much it costs) but then goes into more detail about the event, how it was founded, and its ambitions for the future of radio theatre.
"Drama for the Ear and the Imagination" by David Cote in the New York Times, 17 August 2003. A 2163-word article about radio theatre, of which 321 words (three consecutive paragaphs) discuss NATF.

I'm not finding much more than these (though searching for MRTW would probably turn up more), but I think they show sufficient coverage for basic notability. They're all original reporting and non-trivial coverage, which do more than simply promote an event. It's not incredible stuff but I think a decent article could be written from it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG per L's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 06:23, 17 July 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. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rayhan Asat

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

Fails WP:GNG. The person is not high enough up in the Atlantic Council to be notable, and there doesn't appear to be any in-depth coverage of her. Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In depth coverage? Do you refer to her not being mentioned enough in the press? If so, see New York Times, the Guardian and CNN for a few examples. In addition a large range of well known media outlets publish her opinion pieces because she is intrinsically involved in Uyghur human rights activism in the United States. She is one of the most prominent Uyghur activists, has regular correspondence with US senators and only a few weeks ago discussed the Uyghur Genocide and her brother with the US Secretary of State. DolphinSassoon (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DolphinSassoon: A friend of yours?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep ~~(maybe move)~~ due to in-depth coverage but potentially move to the topic at hand, such as Internment of Ekpar Asat. Otherwise it would be WP:BLP1E since the coverage is not about her but about her cause and her brother. --hroest 18:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLP1E applies only "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual", and the sources below demonstrate that she has not otherwise remained and does not appear likely to remain a low-profile individual. She appears to be covered by multiple independent and reliable sources over time due to her multi-faceted advocacy and its various impacts, with biographical and career information that can further develop a BLP article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, I changed my vote and removed the suggestion to move. --hroest 14:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, per WP:BASIC and the WP:SUSTAINED coverage that includes the sources noted above, including the 2021 coverage from CNN that is focused on her, and e.g. How Beijing silences Chinese voices against oppression of Uyghurs (Los Angeles Times, 2021, her advocacy efforts and biographical information), Ahead of G-7 and U.N. talks, political dissidents and human rights activists press the plight of victims (Los Angeles Times, 2021, includes "At the summit, Asat described her brother’s plight as part and parcel of what’s happening to Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in China..."), Rayhan Asat speaks at 2021 Geneva Summit (Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy, 2021), 'Nowhere to be found': Harvard coalition says US must fight to free young Uighur (Guardian, 2021, including a focus on her and biographical information), Missing and incarcerated: What is happening within China’s borders? (ABC News, 2021, includes a focus on her), Opinion: China brings its cruel crackdown on Uighur advocates to the U.S. (Washington Post Editorial Board, 2021, quoting her advocacy), The next major Jewish action is on behalf of Uighurs (The Forward, 2021, begins, "When Rayhan Asat attended a Passover seder last month, its contours seemed familiar and different at once — especially the tradition of leaving a seat empty at the table", and includes information about her advocacy), Hearing mulls 2022 Winter Olympic boycott over China human rights record, (Catholic News Service, 2021, her advocacy), Harvard-educated lawyers join Uyghur alumna calling for her brother's release (CNN, 2020, includes a focus on her advocacy efforts), Uyghur lawyer describes brother's imprisonment in China (The Hill, 2020, focused on her advocacy), China uses technology to wipe out Uighurs (Asian News International, 2020, her advocacy), Activists urge Canada to recognize Uyghur abuses as genocide, impose sanctions on Chinese officials (Globe&Mail, 2020, her advocacy),China-Sensitive Topics at US Universities Draw More Online Harassment (VOA, 2020, "as Uighur attorney and advocate Rayhan Asat appeared before the student group last Friday, her screen was taken over as hackers wrote “fake news” and “liar” on it", and some biographical/career information), U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Chinese Officials Over Mass Detention of Muslims (New York Times, 2020, quote of her advocacy, with context), How Disney's 'Mulan' became one of 2020's most controversial movies (Los Angeles Times, 2020, quoting her advocacy). These are more than trivial mentions about her, and per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Beccaynr NHCLS (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also as per Beccaynr. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:36, 17 July 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. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baladur

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per two full-length reviews at Rediff.com^[2] and Zamin Ryot (Mainstream Telugu newspaper).^[3] -- Ab207 (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://zeenews.india.com/television/athar-siddiqui-set-to-play-antagonist-on-tv-2229230.html
^ Rajmani, Radhika (14 August 2008). "Review: Baladoor". Rediff. Retrieved 16 July 2021.
^ Rahim, Alluru (29 August 2008). "బలాదూర్: పరమబోర్" [Baladoor: Very boring] (PDF). Zamin Ryot (in Telugu). p. 12. Retrieved 16 July 2021.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Have 2 reviews from major publications making it pass NFILM. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 10:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2 full length reviews in sources that meet requirements Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well developed, has at least two reviews from reliable sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 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 programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sitak ni Jack

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

Article about a local TV show which seems to have no indication of importance I can't find any sources that really discuss this program. Author had a chance to improve it and add sources in the draft space and has instead decided they would rather it in article space without any proof of notability per WP:TVSHOW. Currently fails WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:19, 17 July 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. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Johannessen

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

This was nominated for speedy deletion by an anon for being a vanity article and reasonably removed as not meeting the criteria. However, the anon had a point - the person is spuriously notable, the article is terribly sourced (including any of the claims to notability), and the writing is more promotional than anything I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all I could find were passing mentions, with the exception of one article in the Canberra City News, which rather ironically makes reference to the promotionalism of his Wikipedia page. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with above, could only find passing non-notable references. Section 6 is a blatant ad for his legal firm. Teraplane (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have made significant edits to the page in an attempt to meet WP:GNG including substantial removal of inappropriate content and the addition of several new sources (some of which are online and some of which are via the Newsbank database of Australian newspapers (broader and deeper than Google) and require access to the (or a) database to read in full). Nonetheless I don't think this passes GNG but worth the community re-assessing. Cabrils (talk) 21:58, 21 July 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.

[1] ttps://zeenews.india.com/television/athar-siddiqui-set-to-play-antagonist-on-tv-2229230.html

[2] Rajmani, Radhika (14 August 2008). "Review: Baladoor". Rediff. Retrieved 16 July 2021.

[3] Rahim, Alluru (29 August 2008). "బలాదూర్: పరమబోర్" [Baladoor: Very boring] (PDF). Zamin Ryot (in Telugu). p. 12. Retrieved 16 July 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]