Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 31 September 02 >

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 merge to Types of public housing estate blocks in Hong Kong. ✗plicit 23:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concord Block

[edit]
Concord Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The houses aren’t notable, I have tried speedily deleting this article but it was removed. The article is not sourced properly and there is lots of unsourced paragraphs. The only sources are primary sources (housing authority, floor plans, etc). Just because they have a Wikipedia article in Chinese it doesn’t automatically make it notable for the English Wikipedia. Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting the article or merging it to Types of public housing estate blocks in Hong Kong. Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30-Story Cruciform Block. The article seems to be in the same style as that article, down to the references used - I wouldn't be surprised if they were created by the same person. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selective) > Types of public housing estate blocks in Hong Kong Djflem (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Pooch and the Pauper

[edit]
The Pooch and the Pauper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 1 September 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) 08:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Date with the President's Daughter

[edit]
My Date with the President's Daughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 1 September 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 Stephen Brooks (academic). ✗plicit 23:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postclassical realism

[edit]
Postclassical realism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this concept exists, it doesn't have any traction and does not deserve its own article. A brief mention might be made on Neorealism (international relations) and Realism (international relations). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 1 September 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 00:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scout Leaders Rescue Squad

[edit]
Scout Leaders Rescue Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. There's barely any coverage of this; and what is there is really routine, trivial coverage from local sources (so not even enough to meet GNG), nothing to show that this is a truly notable emergency service which stands out from the rest... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 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) 08:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Matheson

[edit]
Rob Matheson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO as no sources were found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmomusico (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 2 September 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 23:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Greco

[edit]
Roman Greco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist. The whole of this is based on one single website; which seems of dubious reliability (it's WP:SPS by somebody who does not appear to be any form of authority in art history). I can't find anything else. Fails WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of WP:RS. It is basically WP:OR at this point. Theredproject (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft There is a slight chance he may be notable, but for me search did not return anything and it's almost not possible to search something, taking into account his name consisted of two words that 100% return antique greco roman culture. Additional problem is that he died before WWW era and I assume if the notability can be proved, it has to be done with newspapers and magazines from archives, which would be predominantly in French. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no indication that this artist meets our criteria for notability GNG or NARTIST. The article is written in a strange tone, almost like it's a family memorial page with a lot of unsourced personal detail. I understand Arthistorian1977's point about pre-WWW references, and the possibility of draftifying which is a possibility. However given the state the article is in at this time, it makes more sense to delete it. If sourcing is found at sometime in the future via hard-copy books or digitization of newspapers, it can be recreated. Netherzone (talk) 17:28, 8 September 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 00:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ministry of Archers

[edit]
The Ministry of Archers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM. Has two reviews from non-notable looking publications, but that's it, so I thought I'd bring it to AfD. Been in CAT:NN for almost 11 years. – DarkGlow • 23:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 1 September 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 00:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kempson

[edit]
Michael Kempson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist who fails to meet WP:GNG. The whole of the sources in the article are either closely affiliated with him (own website; profiles from institutions where he has worked/is employed..., an interview) or are not acceptable as reliable sources (blogs) or are rather trivial coverage (gallery listings) or non-coverage (links to other artists' websites)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete unless claims can be verified. Overly detailed article about an artist with mostly regional solo exhibitions, none in institutional/museum spaces, and a lot of group exhibitions/fairs. Few secondary WP:RS with SIGCOV. His CV claims dozens of works are in collections, but most of these are non notable, and too small to verify. Of the most prominent, I could only verify one of four, and it is the least significant: Museum of Contemporary Art, Bangkok, Thailand doesn't have its collection online. National Gallery of Australia, Canberra has three works in the collection for which he was the printer, but not the artist. [13] He is in the artbank, though unclear if this meets the standards. [14]. Not in the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts, Taipei [15] If it is to be kept, I think it needs a TNT. Theredproject (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This may be a difficult one to sort out, if the article and/or his CV lists works he printed (but did not create). Being a fabricator for other artists does not mean one inherits their notability. If the article kept, it will need a serious pruning of claims sourced to his website or galleries; or a TNT'ing might be best. He does have several works in the collection of the Art Gallery of New South Wales [16]. It is unclear if the ArtBank is a curated collection, or simply accepts artists donations. For an artist who has been practicing a long time, there seems to be an absence of press about his work. Perhaps he was better known as a teacher than an exhibitng artist? Netherzone (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - His own work (not just work he printed for other artists) is in the collection of the National Gallery of Art [17] - their collection search is buggy, I found this thru Google. That combined with the Art Gallery of New South Wales collection [18] means he passes WP:NARTIST with verifiable work held in several notable museum collections. The article needs an overhaul and would benefit by trimming excessive detail and unsourced/poorly material, but it should be kept. Netherzone (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That’s still only a database listing. The presumption of notability of NARTIST is overridden by the actual failure to meet GNG, and simply suggests that NARTIST, like so many SNGs, is too loose and needs tightening. If you can't find more than that, then this should still be deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • RandomCanadian, He meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST. I've never heard of NARTIST being overridden, since it has a high (not a loose) bar for achievement. Could you point to that policy or guideline, please? Netherzone (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Netherzone Under the "Additional criteria" header (which NARTIST is part of), "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Simply meeting the SNG criteria is not enough if there is not enough evidence that the subject actually meets WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I deepened the WP:BEFORE and found seven newspaper reviews on just the first few pages at Proquest, also found an ABC profile and a section of a book on Australian printmakers. These are not just name-checks, they are SIGCOV. This puts him over the bar of not only NARTIST but also GNG. -- Daily Telegraph:[19]; Newcastle Herald:[20]; Daily Times (Lahore):[21]; The Friday Times (Lahore)[22]; The Friday Times[23]; Pakistan Herald[24]; The Canberra Times[25]; ABC[26]; Section on him in this book: Australia Printmakers in the 1990s[27] -- Netherzone (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per evidence found by Netherzone. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Netherzone.4meter4 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as his art is displayed in major galleries, and there are multiple reviews of his art.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Oxborough

[edit]
Aston Oxborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY, fails WP:NBIO OGLV (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. OGLV (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 08:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked through the sources, there were quite a few there, but it's pretty much routine stuff, nothing extensive, nothing remotely interesting!! Fails GNG if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:GNG requires significant coverage from sources independent of the subject but I can barely find anything outside of Norwich City's own website Canaries.co.uk Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG, even if he fails NFOOTY. And being reserve goalkeeper for a pro side must mean something in my opinion.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per comment above. Finch14 (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GNG is the only relevant guideline here and it is definitely not met. JoelleJay (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG - there's lots of coverage, which isn't surprising as a backup keeper for a top Championship team. Such as this. Nfitz (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is that significant coverage? The sum total of info on him there is

      The 20-year-old goalkeeper visited Youngs Park to present end-of-season awards to the Aylsham under-12s and give the club's goalkeepers some coaching tips.
      Oxborough was capped at under-16 and U17 level by England when he was younger and was training with the Canaries first team during the second half of last season.
      City's U23s keeper was also rewarded with a new contract in April, extending his deal until 2020, with the option of a further year.

      Barely 3 sentences covering his youth activity (plus a quote from him and someone else) in a local paper -- almost anyone could achieve that. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I count 6 of 8 paragraphs. Scroll down past the ads. Nfitz (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you mean the quotes from Oxborough himself, which definitely don't contribute to notability?

          'I played my youth football for Hemsby Hornets, a time I will always remember,' the City youngster said of his visit. 'It's great to see youngsters here at Aylsham celebrating their season.
          'I didn't have facilities like these at Youngs Park when I was playing at this age so the boys and girls are very lucky.'

          Or the quote from the U16 player that just namedrops him?

          'Aylsham will always be my club and it was great to join in with all the young goalkeepers,' said Blair. 'It is good to see that the club hold training sessions for goalkeepers. Big thanks to Aston for supporting them this evening.'

          JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL.4meter4 (talk) 15:55, 8 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artemano Canada

[edit]
Artemano Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable furniture retailer. Doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. PepperBeast (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 1 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artists for Charity

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Artists for Charity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Received a little flutter of coverage in 2009, but not enough for WP:GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see any past or present indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first AFD happened in 2006 prior to a bunch of news coverage of significance. The Washington Post article from 2012 is quality RS and the most significant source. And there is another Post article from May 15, 2016 I found entitled "For Ethiopian expatriates a rough homecoming" which also features Tamerat and her charity. In addition the article contains several sources from 2009 that are quality RS as mentioned by the nominator above. Altogether, this is enough quality RS over a period of seven years to show sustained significant coverage. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Washington Post articles are enough for significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:40, 8 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harun Rune

[edit]
Harun Rune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician, no reliable source coverage to speak of. Apple Music obviously isn't an acceptable source and the two other references are from blogs that simply repost people's press releases or review music for pay [28][29], so are not reliable or independent. No other usable sources found through WP:BEFORE. This is possibly A7able, but someone's been trying really hard to get this page created, so might as well send it to AfD to put it to bed once and for all. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 1 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of christians in North Korea

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Persecution of christians in North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a POVFORK of Human rights in North Korea#Persecution of Christians and Buddhists. It may be possible to write a stand-alone article on Persecution of Christians in North Korea, but this is not that article. There are serious failed verification and POV issues with this article. For example, the article claims that Yad Vashem states that there is a genocide of Christians in North Korea, but it is not supported by the cited source (which is not a RS anyway). There is no evidence that the majority of reliable sources consider the persecution of Christians in North Korea to be a genocide, and Google Scholar results indicates that the reverse is the case.

Quote from the source

Quote from the source (which is an opinion piece, not a reliable source on this topic): Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, called on the international community in 2004 to investigate “political genocide” in North Korea. In response to reports of “North Korea’s use of gas chambers to murder and perform medical experiments on political dissidents and their families” and the “chilling image of the murderers coolly watching their victims’ death agonies . . . all too reminiscent of Nazi barbarism,” the group’s chairman, Avner Shalev, wrote to then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that “the issue is all the more severe due to North Korea’s status as a member of the U.N.”

(t · c) buidhe 21:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has already been nominated for deletion in the past and it was not deleted. I see no reason to repeat this painful process over again. You also say that I have only one source. i actually included many sources, but it appears that someone deleted all but one of them. This is a case of Wikipedia:Over-hasty_Speedy_Deleters and WP:DINC Dunutubble (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are not reliable sources. You seem fairly new here, go read WP:RS. Self-published posts on medium and forbes; as well as opinion pieces; are not acceptable for statements of facts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK it's true that I shouldn't have chosen Forbes, but most of the Citations I had were not Forbes articles. Thank you for giving me that link though.Dunutubble (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but with a deadline for improvements: I understand the topic to be of enough importance to have its own article. I also know there are plenty of reliable sources to support it. However, the article is in very poor shape; it should first have been drafted better before initial publication. I think @Dunutubble: should be given a chance to make those improvements, if s/he is motivated to work on it. If you need guidance on how to make a good article, feel free to ask editors, including myself. Also, let me invite @Finnusertop: to this deliberation since he is also highly involved in Nk in wikipedia.
Also @Dunutubble: the original title of "Genocide of Christians in North Korea" was in my view not accurate nor neutral, and there is a discussion now about deleting the page now even as a redirect. It is laudable that you sympathize with the plight of Christians in NK, and you can within Wikipedia help to shed light on the topic. You just have to do so neutrally, without exaggerations. It is better to describe human rights abuses accurately than overstate them and then lose credibility on the whole issue. Welcome to Wikipedia; it is normal to make these mistakes at the beginning and I went through it as well. I understand it can be frustrating when your work is being considered for deletion etc. I hope you can be part of the community and we can support you with guidance on how to make contributions aligned with the wiki policies. Respectfully, Al83tito (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:11, 2 September 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 undeletion of these articles. – Joe (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Jellyfish Kid (Kamp Koral)

[edit]
The Jellyfish Kid (Kamp Koral) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly unsourced, appears to be mainly a plot, and for the most part seems to be copied from SpongeBob FANDOM. Magitroopa (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasoning, all plot and appears to be copied from Rugrats FANDOM.:

Second Time Around (Rugrats) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Magitroopa (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Magitroopa (talk) 15:40, 2 September 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 Ford E-Series and Ford Aerostar. Note that after the merge is completed, the original title must be retained (as a redirect) to preserve its edit history and attribution; see {{R from merge}}. – Joe (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ford VN platform

[edit]
Ford VN platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is purely WP: OR and shows no proof of its existence. I can tell you, that it doesn't exist on a corporate level. Someone here definitely made it up and never provided any citations to back it up. Carmaker1 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the two content sections to Ford E-Series and Ford Aerostar respectively, then delete this title. The two vehicles/platforms are unrelated and there's no reason to have them combined in the same article and therefore no reason to keep this article title since there does not appear to be a "VN platform" as such. --Sable232 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now at least) After digging through the history, it looks like the VN58/VN127 text has been a part of things here since this was created back in 2004; VN1 was also added a lifetime ago. (My primary contribution here was expanding the text beyond two sentences). Will this article move past the point of being a stub? No, and it doesn't need to be expanded beyond its current state (barring any changes in production down the line). Should it need some improvement in its source content? I do agree with that; at this point, finding sources to back this content (that aren't Wikipedia copypasted...) will be challenging. This is the direction I would move towards first. -SteveCof00 (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:45, 1 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen A. Chang

[edit]
Stephen A. Chang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deleted through prod, and then recreated. Working actor, but with no real significant roles, fails WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 01:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 01:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's very hard to say where the article fits here. On one hand, the actor had appeared only in three feature films, and even that was more like a cameo or supporting role. On the other hand, he voiced a video game, and many actors don't have time to do that. My feeling is that if we will delete it - somebody will recreate it, sooner or later.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tebobonga

[edit]
Tebobonga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti (it is only a very small house clinic for one nurse). Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain:: you have a very weird notion of settlement notion: this is only the name of the clinic (Tebobonga Dispensary/clinic: 1 clinic, 2 wards, 2 cooking houses, 2 toilets) and not of a village or a settlement. But perhaps you have no idea about the settlements and kaainga in Kiribati?--Arorae (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could not verify the existence of a settlement with this name. The two sources are an entry in a list of medical clinics and a magnetic declination calculator that appears to be bot-generated; these fail the WP:NGEO sourcing requirements which specifically exclude maps and tables from determining notability. Even if this is confirmed to be a settlement, it would fall under Populated places without legal recognition which need to meet GNG per WP:GEOLAND #2. –dlthewave ☎ 17:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:36, 1 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mio Destino

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mio Destino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very few sources, some dead, not sure notability is established, can't find significantly more on the web, tone possibly promotional. BlackholeWA (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 2 September 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 23:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Dumbo

[edit]
Ken Dumbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I'm surprised this draft was approved as an article. Based on the sources cited in the article, I don't see how Dumbo is notable. Many of the sources are the Daily Mail, which isn't good for much except gossip and tabloid material. Many of the sources concern Dumbo's relationship with a female comedian, who herself is not notable, and whether the relationship is real, a social media scam, or who knows what. Only one of the awards is cited, and that citation is the Daily Mail; reading it, you quickly see that the award is not important except maybe as an advertisement. The article was created by now-blocked socks, and my guess UPEs. Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zambia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 September 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 23:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Azad Asif

[edit]
Adnan Azad Asif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Sources are unreliable and trivial mention. ~Yahya (✉) • 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ~Yahya (✉) • 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~Yahya (✉) • 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afc was rejected by User:GoingBatty, i don't know why it was moved to main namespace. Anyway, Delete the article. As i understand Bengali, i can say this: information presented in this article aren't present in the sources. Probably original research or the person himself created this. A part from 2nd and 12th source, none of the sources are about this person or talk about this person (no significant coverage), all the sources are passing mentions/trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG & WP:CREATIVE. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:20, 2 September 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. Upgraded to CSD (non-admin closure) MoonlightVector 20:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Christians in North Korea

[edit]
Genocide of Christians in North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly false, also violating WP:npov MoonlightVector 19:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI see no reason to delete such an article. This is a well-documented and significant event which deserves to be kept. And how is it false? I added many citations to reliable sources. Of course it's real. Dunutubble (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welp good... i Caught you out. MoonlightVector 20:05, 1 September 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 topic passes the WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Meaning

[edit]
On Meaning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. Searching Google, Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, Newspapers.com, and the Internet Archive yields practically no sources. It’s difficult to formulate a search query for such a generic title and I’m not confident that I adequately searched for non-English sources so someone might be able to find some sources to save the article, but I doubt it. Currently cited sources are almost entirely passing mentions of the show from sources of questionable reliability. The host might be notable, but the show does not WP:INHERIT that notability. The page is an orphan—no other Wikipedia pages link to it—and as far as I can tell there are no good redirect targets. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is no longer orphan. It has been covered by Channel 20 (Israel)[1] which is the one of the biggest TV channels in Isreal. All of its chapters appears on the channel's website. It was also covered by Arutz Sheva[2] which is also a big media network in Israel. All of its chapters appears on the channel's website. The large amount of downloads (400,000 and more) and getting to the finals in Geektime's podcasts contest are proof notability.Ofir michael (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ On Meaning - Channel 20
  2. ^ www.inn.co.il
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 2 September 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TV Mall

[edit]
TV Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was formerly a South African teleshopping network on satellite (allegedly the 'first ever' in that country, which is questionably sourced), but less than two years later was thrown off that service; since then its only existence has been as a YouTube/social media channel with less than 2,000 subscribers, thus it's lost its claim to the bare WP:N/WP:BCAST it ever held, if any. Also to be considered that the network was a part-time effort and has never carried a full-time 168-hour schedule in a week, even as a programming loop. PROD was rejected, but no incoming links from any other articles. Nate • (chatter) 22:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A topic does not lose its notability by its death or disestablishment. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The network still exists as a YouTube channel, and has never filled a 24-hour broadcast day with content. Unless this was a network from before the age of digital satellite or cable where it had to be limited by channel capacity or is a sports network, we generally don't have articles here for part-time channels, especially shopping networks that carry little original content (most of the network's content is DRTV ads and products imported from the States and the UK). Nate • (chatter) 02:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain. Once a threshold of notability has been met it can not be unmet. The fact that a particular company at one time met BCAST means it always has made that benchmark, even if it currently does not meet that criteria. As an encyclopedia we look at the entire history of a topic, not just it's present state. That said, I didn't take a look at sourcing for this topic, so I am not judging my keep vote based on whether the topic meets GNG, but merely responding to a flawed nomination rationale.4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But the network originates none of its own content. We usually have shown little patience with infomercial channels, especially ones that have an extremely low viewership. No new links have been added in the last two weeks; this is a literal orphan article. Nate • (chatter) 03:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, flawed arguments. Being an orphan does not qualify an article for deletion or impact it's notability in any way. De-orphaning articles is a simple matter of wiki linking articles into the encyclopedia which is easily done with television stations by finding relevant list articles. I can't comment on the no original content claim. Usually infomercial channels film their own infomercials, so it would be odd to claim it has no original content as an infomercial itself is original content. Were they importing infomercials from outside and simply leasing out their channel space? If not BCAST has clearly been met. Lastly, what's your evidence of low viewership when it was on satelite TV?4meter4 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I...need to cite the fact that a shopping channel has low viewership? I have already cited that the YouTube channel has less than 2,000 subscribers, their Instagram is <1,400 followers, and their Twitter is <1,000 followers. It should be self-evident that it's low-viewed solely on that, and shopping channels never subscribe to ratings services. And they import most of their infomercials from the UK and US, just adding in a local voiceover where needed. Nate • (chatter) 21:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Once notable, always notable" is relevant if the topic was once notable, but I see no indication that this minor infomercial channel ever was. – Joe (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication from sources that it ever was notable and that is despite being an English language media platform. Only sources I could find were primary, press releases and blogs ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:13, 10 September 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. While this is numerically even, multiple "delete" !voters have made the point that the coverage consists only of passing mentions. This is borne out by the sources provided here, and has not been rebutted. One "keep" voter argues that NSOFTWARE may not reflect the current reality of source material; while this might be a valid argument in general, a specific AfD is not the forum to debate this, and in this discussion it doesn't carry much weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SigmaXL

[edit]
SigmaXL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from the links to the company's own website, NONE of the references indicate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Meltzer (talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notability is supported in the following references:
  1. . S. Tereza and N. Darja, "Software support of nonparametric control charts," 2018 19th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC), 2018, pp. 456-461, doi: 10.1109/CarpathianCC.2018.8399673.
    "SIGMAXL: It is a leading supplement of MS EXCEL for the statistical and graphical analysis. This tool was designed to be cost effective, efficient, but easy to use. It is ideal for training of the Lean Six Sigma or for use in the courses of statistics at a university. An example of the SigmaXL work environment is in the figure 7."
  2. . Sara Fontdecaba, Pere Grima & Xavier Tort-Martorell (2014) Analyzing DOE With Statistical Software Packages: Controversies and Proposals, The American Statistician, 68:3, 205-211, DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2014.923784.
    "This article studies and evaluates how five well-known statistical packages—JMP, Minitab, SigmaXL, Statgraphics, and Statistica—address the problem of analyzing the significance of effects in unreplicated factorial designs."
  3. . Williams, B., Sayer, N. J. (2012). Lean For Dummies. United Kingdom: Wiley.
    "Excel can be programmed to do more, and add-on products like SigmaXL (www.SigmaXL.com) will provide nearly all of what mere mortals will ever need." (page 207)
  4. . Morgan, J., Brenig-Jones, M. (2012). Lean Six Sigma For Dummies. United Kingdom: Wiley.
    "For more complex statistical analysis, try the Excel plug-in SigmaXL which lets you produce a variety of displays including SIPOCSs cause and effect." (page 18)
  5. . Bass, I., Lawton, B. (2009). Lean Six Sigma Using SigmaXL and Minitab. United States: McGraw-Hill Education.
    "Since Lean Six Sigma is data-driven, any project conducted using this methodology will require the use of some software. We elected to use SigmaXL and Minitab. Most organizations use Microsoft Excel to organize and analyze their data. Excel is equipped with a substantial amount of tools for descriptive statistics and probability calculations but it still lacks capabilities for more complex data analyses. SigmaXl is a powerful statistics software suite that adds those capabilities to Microsoft Excel." (page 2) 🖉]] 3:30, 26 August 2021 (ET)
Above made by Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:1D60:27AC:BD9C:2FDB:DDD7:B42F. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all of the sources cited above are offhand mentions and well short of WP:SIGCOV. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Source #2 is the prestigious journal, The American Statistician, which states that SigmaXL is a well known statistical package. Source #5 is an entire book published by McGraw Hill that utilizes SigmaXL software throughout. 15:27, 2 September 2021 (ET)
Above comment made by user whose only contributions are to his user page and this afd. Seddon talk 22:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep passes WP:BASIC, and while the article currently is somewhat promotional that can be fixed. There is increasingly a need to upgrade WP:NSOFTWARE a guideline, given that tertiary about software will not be written the same way as books or other products. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, coverage supports that this software meets WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Keep suggestions offer nothing of substance: The subject of the article may be "very well known" in a specific "community," such as computer programmers, but this means nothing on its own. We need specific, third-party sources that support notability; not opinions. Other suggestions to Keep only claim "there are sources out there" but, again, this on its own simply won't do. Others offered the fact that prestigious and notable publishers "use" SigmaXL, but, again, this offers nothing in way of notability support: Where are the texts? The only offering of supporting sources came from an ISP whose only contribution has been to the article under consideration. In itself, this is, of course, not an issue, but the sources offered have, for better or worse, nothing more than passing mentions as part of lists (e.g. Tereza), name drops (e.g. Williams, Morgan), manuals (e.g. Bass), and so on. A gallant effort to invent notability, certainly, but there's no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources provided acknowledged this plugins existence but not it's inherent notability. Lack of significant coverage. Seddon talk 22:28, 12 September 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. Based on the source analysis, I do not believe this meets GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AscentialTest

[edit]
AscentialTest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. My web search (read: WP:BEFORE) showed no additional, unconnected sources, so unfortunately it cannot be shown that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I disagree. I'm not sure what exactly you want with regard to independent sources but there are several on the page--all from independent sources not affiliated with Zeenyx Software. Could you please provide a better reason than, "showed no additional, unconnected sources, so unfortunately it cannot be shown that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails"? I don't understand exactly what you are looking for? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjt2470 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Walter but I still do not agree. I have eight citations, all from independent sources that meet your WP:GNG "Significant coverage," "Reliable," and "Sources" definition. These are all from companies that may (or may not) have a relationship with Zeenyx but they are independent. You keep saying "My web search showed no additional, unconnected sources, so unfortunately it cannot be shown that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails" and yet I have eight independent sources that tell a different story. Can you please explain what exactly you mean by your statement? What sort of web search are you doing and what are your expectations regarding "unconnected sources?"
  • Comment Here are the citation explanations: Citation #1 Matryxsoft.com is an independent authorized reseller that sells multiple QA-related tools. Citation #2 This company is an independent authorized reseller that sells AscentialTest, you may be correct about this citation and I will remove. Citation #3 Dr. Dobbs is an independent evaluator dedicated to software development/test. Citation #4 IT Central is an independent product review site (some of these reviews are quite lengthy). Citation #5 Gartner Peer Reviews is an independent product review site. Citation #6 QA TestingTools.com is an independent QA focused portal that reviews many QA tools. Citation #7 Atlassian Marketplace, this is the plug-in you mentioned and there is a plugin available with a review from Atlassian. This is still independant and owned by Atlassian. User can view several plug-ins that do the same thing to compare. Citation #8 AscentialTest by Zeenyx Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine by Bruce Armstrong, August 01, 2013 (an independent review article by a published author). If I remove the citation #1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 would that satisfy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjt2470 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resellers and Atlassian Marketplace are not independent of the subject; they only make money when they sell the product. Dr. Dobbs is fine. IT Central is one of those unreliable sources as there is no author of the "review" and their about us page claims the site is a "crowdsourced knowledge platform" and no, that does not meet RS. Gartner may be a RS (although you do have to pay to be considered), but their peer reviews are user-generated and in no way reliable; one of the databases I discussed. qatestingtools.com again suffers from a lack of an author, editorial board, and anything else that would make it a WP:RS. The short review by Bruce Armstrong is a blog and not a RS. One RS. One source does not equate to sources, and so fails general notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Walter has done an excellent review of the various sources, and made it clear that WP:THREE is not met. My own search has not turned up anything better; as such, delete. BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Walter Görlitz's source analysis.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 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 Liane den Haan. Content remains in the history if there's anything that isn't already on that page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fraction Den Haan

[edit]
Fraction Den Haan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dutch member of parliament (MP) Liane den Haan left her party (50PLUS) in May 2021, and she continued as an independent or "partyless" politician. As all MPs in the House of Representatives have to belong to a parliamentary group (fractie in Dutch and incorrectly translated as "fraction" in this article and its title) for voting purposes, Den Haan leaving her party triggered the automatic creation of her own group Fractie Den Haan. This parliamentary "group" consists of Den Haan an no one else, and it is not a political party. Since it is just the name under which Liane den Haan operates in parliament, I do not think it justifies an article of its own. Information and the logo could easily be placed on Den Haan's own page, since anything about this "group" necessarily concerns her. Tristan Surtel (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Tristan Surtel (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tristan Surtel (talk) 16:35, 1 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CILICANT

[edit]
CILICANT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company fails NCORP. There is no significant coverage. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are suitable and I cannot find anything better. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AcoustID

[edit]
AcoustID (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It fails WP:NMUSIC as per article. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Extremely curt nomination with no evidence of WP:BEFORE. While the claim is it fails WP:NMUSIC that assumes is is in-scope for that criteria, I'm not immediately convinced it is. On quite interesting note is MusicBrainz has a specific mention at NMUSIC, and then at the MusicBrainz article AcoustID and Chromaprint are specifically mentioned (albeit uncited) in the context of fingerprinting. Should a competent and diligent BEFORE have picked this up, and perhaps also that the Chromaprint algorithm is perhaps the more important related topic. In all events nom. seems in good standing, albeit seemed to have a high rate of reverting problematic edits, possibly an indicator of automation, and their talk page had lots of unsigned (by others) discussions. In passing note I've added (Chikanbanjar, 2017) to the article and claim RS towards GNG/SIGCOV Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Djm-leighpark and WP:HEY. While this is a music related topic, it doesn't fit under any of the NMUSIC SNG descriptors. It also doesn't fit under WP:NCORP as it's not tied to a company and is an open source free web service. As such, our default policy guideline in this case is GNG and I agree with Djm-leighpark that SIGOV has been met with the addition of the sources recently added. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep; easily passes WP:SIGCOV in this case. Worth looking at WP:NSOFTWARE which isn't a policy, but relevant as well if it didn't pass GNG. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:15, 10 September 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. I discounted the sockpuppetry. I advise our unregistered friends to familiarise themselves with the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia, in particular the need for evidence from reliable and independent sources to show that the topic has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. Economic Model

[edit]
H.R. Economic Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Economic theory lacks breadth of coverage- all sources are related to its creator. Merging may be an alternative, if a suitable target can be found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, due to improvements MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Unwithdrawn by nominator, sorry for the back-and-forth. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I myself am doubtful this article can be merged into another, as the contents are vague and the sources of doubtful value (with multiple grammar errors and nonacademic backgrounds). I additionally question this article's notability in the face of such criticism, and for these reasons support deletion. --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which references in particular do you think are key to establishing notability? MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:After adding the more references by creator and as per WP:HEY.Johnson Wagart (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Spicy (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopedic: read the contents, sucg h as "H.R. Economic system provides the aforesaid intellectual capability to Humankind ..There are various types of economic systems are available in public domain, Whereas Capitalism & Communism are consider as two major Economic systems. Adam Smith is called father of Capitalism[6][7] and Karl Marx is called father of Communism. " Even if this were put into idiomatic English, it's at the level of a primary school.. There are no significant third party sources. 1. and 4 are by the inventor, 2 &5 are press releases where the inventor is simply quoted , 3 is not actually about the subject though it happens to contain the words Human Relations as do tens of thousands of other articles, 6, 7, & 8 are not about the subject. MrsSnoozyTurtle, please look again. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks DGG for looking into this in more detail. I didn't want to drag this out if there was little support for it. But you do raise some very good points, so I have un-withdrawn my nomination. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per my opinion, an introduction of new economic system is a notable concept to me, meanwhile its true and fair statement against Communism and capitalism both are major economic system and other economic systems as socialism, mixed economy and others has been developed from the root of either Communism or capitalism (as per universal truth of Economics). Meanwhile to use the words as Primary School against any creator is like to feel inferior complex to creator. While statements of creator are true, reliable and used simple English words for batter understanding to common man. Although we have to mind the statement of Hon'ble CO- founder of Wikipedia “Larry Sanger” as the Wikipedia taken over by left during mid July 2021. Passes WP:GNG 202.179.75.252 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Spicy (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After analyzing the entire article and its references and the above comments the topic seems notable. Passes WP:GNG.DJRSD (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Spicy (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With all due respect, there is something strange about the keep opiners here. I noticed that Benny Crude, JeepersClub, Johnson Wagart, the ip and DJRSD all signed their posts without a space before the username. Benny Crude is a new user and the creator of H.R. Economic Model. JeepersClub became active on 25 August and is already a quite prolific AFD contributor. Johnson Wagart was active for two days in June 2021, then returned on 28 August to !vote in 10 AFD's in 9 minutes. Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In light of Geschichte's comment, a few more !votes from experienced contributors would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gibberish and publicity stunt. Citations present in the article that are actually about the subject, is either a publication in a pay to publish journal with no academic value (ref 1) or are non independent PR pieces. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete There is no doubt that reffrence no.1 has less academic creadivili but in this matter I show that first article of H.R Economic model was published in may 2020, by ABP Bareau, (seem as organic article) , recently WIPO publish article on H.R Economic Model at 10 june2021, its truth that that any University required time for P.H.D research upto 5 years and more and valuable research paper may take upto 2 years for publication . Whenever low academic value research paper. Publish the research article immediately. Therefore either we have to wait for next some period for any reputated university research paper or sock delete ( as per decided by administrator). 49.205.235.231 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dear friends- Still, I am not belong to Wikipedia community. I don't know whether it's good or bad ethical behaviour to post comment over here, even that I am not familiar with Wikipedia notability guidelines, my grandson help me to post a comment herein, With profession, I am being a Economics professor from CCS University Meerut since 1992, during last month, I assigned an assignment to B.A Economics students, on topic, Mankind may be get rid from poverty through H.R. Economic Model, and suggested them to got idea form Wikipedia references. My students raised complaint to me about deletion of this page thereafter I read the comment seriously. thereafter from my side (if applicable) HR. Economic Model is really serious and debatable concept among the Economics community. we are try to map out the actual picture of this Economic technology, even that inventor of HR Economic Model release the only 10% part of information, and 90% of information is still awaited for a public domain as mechanism, valuation formula, Coefficient formula etc. from my side, it's my humble request before Wikipedia, please don't remove the primary source as WIPO link, which is still required to understand the this Economic Model. Whenever another secondary sources are available at Google search, therefore no issue if removed. My further request to Economics community to make arrangement for open platform as Quora for discussion purpose to map out this Economic System. 2409:4053:2D16:5D24:0:0:5F0A:1008 (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without prejudice- From the all above discussion, it's my opinion (would be wrong). HR Economic Model is more emphasis towards Economic community rather than general Wikipedia community, therefore we have to requested for intellectual Wikipedia person from Economics field to provide the opinion upon basics and principles of H.R economic model. if intellectual person of Economics field have opinion for deletion, then we have delete the page or a vice versa. In this rare case, we have to more focus upon material not source. 42.111.0.71 (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment :- I have designated as Wikipedia administrator, IP blocker, etc, with approx. 1m edits, joined Wikipedia since 2009. Due to high level intolerance behavior in this AFD discussion, first time I am bound to make comment through IP address, whereas case is simple, a group of School friends, whereas all are Wikipedia confirmed users, discuss a topic in a group, and became agree upon the common point, thereafter put there common point on Wikipedia afd platform simultaneously, and all are blocked on the impugned ground as they were not active at Wikipedia platform, commented simultaneously, were active on same period of time, whenever comments would be easily rejected by administrators. Now discuss the topic of notability, As per my opinion, in the series of UNO, WHO, UNSC, World Bank, WIPO is considering as organization of 193 countries, every statement of WIPO website is administrable before all Supreme Courts, Universities, and every educational institutions of 193 countries worldwide, Therefore WIPO reference link is sufficient for notability of this article, Meanwhile the claim of H.R.Economic Model shall be validated before Worldwide, still any University or any economic institutions still denied with logically, as per legal se. 61.2.16.132 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Geschicte, Under respect and regards, as per my opinion, your reply was completely illogically, if any logically fact available, kindly add in proper manner in AFD, now it's my advice to you, read the All statement upto initio to understand the ground level of this Article, from my observation, HR Economic Model is not a just Economic system, seem to be is an organised community, who strong believe that human resource is an asset, therefore every person worldwide has its own value and HR Economic Model provide the intellectual capability to valued it, and aforesaid value is convertible into money or a liquidity. they have strong believe that, if every person has its own monetary value, and further utilize monetary value in the economic activity, thereafter no capitalism is required and mankind shall be get rid from poverty, On the other hand, I don’t expect, for this community is required Wikipedia platform for publicity stand. because of, they are seem to enough competent to gain publicity from other sources, example as, this community has been passed 1st Stage as WIPO, and It might be possible to approach 2nd Stage for World Economic form soon. Now a simple question to you, reply logically ,if this community arranges an conference at International level or World Economic platform, passed the statement on that platform, for any reason like as a Wikipedia has been hacked by left or a capitalism , therefore H.R Economic Model never be acceptable at Wikipedia platform, in that case, how will you defend the Wikipedia's credibility, reliability and integrity at World Economic Platform. Whenever is true that aforesaid statement shall be a high-level publicity stand? 2405:204:3486:487E:81B8:72C7:EBFE:EC80 (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Geschichte's comments. It seems that you (the IP editor) are judging this article based on personal biases rather than Wikipedia's policies. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP, are you saying that Wikipedia is the main platform to diffuse information about the H.R. model? This affirms my notion that the page tries to promote an idea that has not gained traction in the outside world. Geschichte (talk) 14:12, 8 September 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 Barclays Center. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of concerts at Barclays Center

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of concerts at Barclays Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A running list of events at a large venue seems like a WP:NOT issue. We don't need to be an extension of the venue's website. Also difficult to find non-promotional material which treats all of these as a group. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:18, 1 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I men's soccer players with 7 or more goals in a game

[edit]
List of NCAA Division I men's soccer players with 7 or more goals in a game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a statistics database. While a extremely rare occurence, 7 goals in one game in NCAA seems like a quite arbitrary topic. Why the cutoff at 7 when 4, 5 and 6 are also very rare? The navigation template at the bottom also contains redlinks for "at least 15 points", "30 saves" and other weird cutoffs. Furthermore, no entry in this list is newer than 26 years old, and given how soccer functions, its potential for growth is very limited. Thus, the small list can also be merged somewhere as an WP:ATD - though the issue with arbitrariness persists. Geschichte (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:37, 1 September 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. Title ambiguity is not a valid WP:DELREASON. Concerns about promotional tone and lack of secondary sources were raised but addressed through editing. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trustmark

[edit]
Trustmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causes confusion with the company "Trustmark Corp." of which there's no page. Pearsejward (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Potential confusion with another company with a similar name is not a reason for deletion, but rather for renaming. The company appears to be notable, and so does the other Trustmark, a holding company for a bank. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but either consider renaming to clarify which of the two companies this is, or create a stub for the other one, and a redirect at the top of each article, making readers aware of the existence of the two, and giving them an easy route from one to the other. In view of the fact both are holding companies, it might be easiest to adopt the latter. Elemimele (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. is there some sort of hatnote for this case?Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The draft about Trustmark reads like an advertisement; in addition to that, there are no references cited that are independent of the subject and reliable. If there is extensive news coverage or independent sources covering the subject, it needs to be cited in the article. Multi7001 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. There are a ton of articles on and about the company in the Chicago Tribune archives (over 500 hits), some of them flattering and others critical. I added three articles, two on charitable programs and one a critical look at the company which was an early important case in the application of the Affordable Care Act. Two of those articles made the front page of the Chicago Tribune. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Gannon

[edit]
Rocky Gannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NBOX. My before search mostly found newspaper fight schedules/results and two articles from a local newspaper and a Las Vegas news site. The best I could find was this short article detailing a fight. None of which can be classified as significant coverage. 2.O.Boxing 13:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 13:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 13:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 13:47, 1 September 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. The argument that there is no treatment of this group of people as a group, particularly because it is an everchanging group, is a persuasive one, and those arguing to keep have not addressed it. A radical reworking of the topic of the list is outside the scope of the AfD, but if someone wants to work on such, they may request a draftspace copy. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living silent film actors

[edit]
List of living silent film actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTTEMPORARY. There are only three actors on the list and the youngest included actor is 92 so in a few years this list will be empty. If a topic won't be notable 20 years from now then it's not notable today. pburka (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to this argument any "list of living people" article should be deleted because eventually they will all die. A discussion on whether or not these kinds of lists should exist can happen elsewhere but not here. I don't think the nominator has given a valid reason to delete this article. Rhino131 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The valid reason is that the topic is not notable. If we agree that the list will eventually become empty and be deleted, then we are saying that in a few years it will not be notable. Since notability is not temporary, the topic was never notable and should be deleted immediately. pburka (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is determined by existing sources, so I would argue the topic could be notable even if the list is empty. If the community decides the topic is not notable based on sources, that's fine, but I'm not swayed by the NOTTEMPORY argument. Rhino131 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, but what sources discuss the group of toddlers who were in a movie in 1929 that are still alive???? All sources here are about their appearances, nothing about this group or the importance of a 92-year old former extra! This is entirely arbitary, one could select any sort of occupation or event and give the oldest remaining unrelated individuals, but that's not a notable list. Your !vote contests the nom but is not a valid reason to keep the page. Reywas92Talk 22:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhino. As a side note, this list should be re-worked to the longest living list of actors from the silent era, to avoid it becoming empty in the near future. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really interesting how long they lived, when they are known for something else? Seems somewhat trivial... Geschichte (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that that's utterly trivial. There are some other "Longest lived..." lists, but we shouldn't have that for any arbitrary subset of any occupation. Moreover, that's a totally different concept, since this were child actors to be alive now, but that would include then-adult actors who died long ago. Looking forward to wasting time on another AFD when this is soon empty! Reywas92Talk 04:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds that notability is not temporary and this could easily be empty by the end of next year since there’s only three people in their 90s on it. Whichever one survives longest could potentially be given credit on their individual page after they die. Dronebogus (talk) 16:22, 6 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Tagat

[edit]
Anurag Tagat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. All the references are by the subject and none are about the subject. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 1 September 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Bolding

[edit]
Hayley Bolding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-referenced promotional article. Non-notable person who founded non-notable organization. Hardly any information about her other than profiles such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and associated websites. She is supposedly "2013 Australian of the Year", but the on the list of Australian of the Year Award recipients, Ita Buttrose is the recipient. Must be two different awards, and Bolding's award is less-notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification - she was nominated for Young Australian of the Year (not Australian of the Year), and she didn't win. Instead, she was named Young Victorian of the Year (a lesser honour). By virtue of that win, she was automatically nominated for Young Australian of the Year. St★lwart111 06:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I don't think the award makes her notable, and making it sound like something it isn't is just dishonest. Of the three references that can remain (I trimmed the ones that were hard-links to things unrelated to her and the like) we have a couple of instances of local coverage (the most substantive from her home town) and an "also" paragraph in a publication from India (that I am not familiar with). There's something there, but not enough to get over the line. St★lwart111 06:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This article doesn't—in its current state—satisfy WP:GNG. But, per other editors, there does appear to be something there. With further development, there may be a stronger indication of notability. I think that makes a reasonable case for WP: FLEXIBILITY. I'd support retaining the article for now. In the event that the article fails to develop a better indication of notability, it'd be a strong candidate for a future AfD. -- ExParte talk 06:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but we require the subject to be notable, not the article, and we require the subject to be notable before we create an article about them. If the subject isn't notable then we should not have created an article about them. If we did create an article about them when we shouldn't have, we should delete it until such time as they become notable. We should be flexible, sure, but I don't think we should reverse that process entirely. St★lwart111 07:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:24, 1 September 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 procedural close. Given the SPI investigation outcome, it is clear that the nomination was made in bad faith by User:DJRSD.

If a rough consensus holds that the nomination was made in bad faith, the page may be speedily kept.

To maintain integrity of the AfD, I am closing this discussion without comment on the discussion and users may renominate without prejudice. Seddon talk 23:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oneindia

[edit]
Oneindia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable news portal only to create for earning money from Advertisement. Lacks significant coverage with in-depth information and also fails WP:GNG. DJRSD (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iamrajdeepdas, What is a joke in my contribution history? And on what ground you put 'strong keep'? Please clarify. DJRSD (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a sockpuppet, DJRSD, you are worse than a joke. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @DJRSD: Your contribution is showing that you're tagging useful pages for an AfD . In this case, the ref list for the OneIndia article is less but this donesn't mean that this subject is meaningless. OneIndia is one of the largest news portals following by the Times of India, Indian Express, News18 and similar big news organizations. Sometimes the subject is strong enough to demonstrate its notability. And you have already received notice for this kind of contribution history [34]- Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tayi and Iamrajdeepdas. Borderline, but there appears to be enough coverage.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing by Tayi Arajakate is pretty thin (as in short and not very detailed). It's not in depth enough to count as significant coverage in my opinion. Further, some of the sources are not even about the portal itself but about mergers and acquisitions of the business arm of the company. As such, WP:NCORP does apply. The portal is a product of the company which operates it, so we have to weigh sources accordingly. There's really not enough content about the portal itself to pass SIGCOV, as we are blending two essentially different topics. You can't use articles essentially about the finances of the business/corporation side of the organization operating the portal without looking at NCORP as a guide.4meter4 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there are simply not enough sources out there with anything substantial or specific abt this web corporation. Claiming simply that "there are many sources" simply won't do: The proof of burden is on those who claim enough notability is out there. -The Gnome (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep; I don't know what WP:BEFORE search yielded or if people know these sources already but I found the following sources. Another possibility is to redirect these to a non existing Greynium Information Technology and include the various portals/brands it owns. See the following sources:
  • Chanchani, Madhav. "Dailyhunt picks up stake in OneIndia". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  • "Oneindia Founder and Managing Director, BG Mahesh, calls it quits - Exchange4media". Indian Advertising Media & Marketing News – exchange4media. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
(Unclear how reliable/independent Exchange4Media is) ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links proffered above by Shushugah are extremely weak: Two are about another corporation interested in OneIndia or buying shares of it (here and here), while this link (to a publication assessed by Shushugaha as of doubtful reliability & dependence) is about the corporation's managing director and not our subject. We still have nothing - and not for lack of trying to find something. -The Gnome (talk) 16:11, 12 September 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 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tran

[edit]
Paul Tran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an orphan that does not clearly qualify under WP:GNG. None of the page sources are trusted WP:RS/PS sources, several are primary in nature, featuring interview content, and most are also promotional WP:PROMOTION in nature. NB: The page was created by a user blocked for multiple account abuse WP:SOC. Iskandar 323 (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar 323 (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:17, 1 September 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 10:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation

[edit]
Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP/WP:SIGCOV. Found one independent source (apart from the one cited) mentioning the creation of an ambulance service, based on an Instagram post by the organisation. draft exists (by the same author), but was declined. Article was redirected to Tariq Jamil#Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation but this was reverted by the author. Kleuske (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 09:16, 1 September 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 10:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azamat Abdoullaev

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Azamat Abdoullaev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person as per WP:BIO, page contains substantial amounts of WP:Patent nonsense, seems to have been self-authored (WP:COI), and was previously deleted unanimously: see here. The only reason I put it forward through articles for deletion and not WP:PROD is that there was already a contested WP:PROD in March. Jackcrawf3 (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 1 September 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 10:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Navyug Mohnot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO as the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. M4DU7 (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:46, 1 September 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 10:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Landry Romeo Goore

[edit]
All prior XfDs for this page:


Landry Romeo Goore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been sat in CAT:NN for 11 years now and has never had a reliable, independent source to verify any of the info. The two sources provided are the website for an academy that he attended (not independent or reliable) and a fan-created hi5 page (a social media site similar to MySpace). For a BLP, these sources are not acceptable. I have tried searches under multiple names including "Landry Romeo Goore", "Goore Landry Romeo", "Landry Romeo" and "Landry Goore" and been unable to find anything that isn't a direct mirror of Wikipedia itself.

Article was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goore Landry Romeo in 2010 due to playing multiple games in the Thai Premier League but the sources do not support this claim so there is no clear evidence of WP:NFOOTBALL, even though it's asserted.

As has been established at many AfDs, footballers should pass WP:GNG to have an article but this one is struggling even on basic WP:V. The creator created a very large number of similarly dubious BLP articles (see User talk:Heritagesoccerpro) and this appears to be another one. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this. Since that forum post predates this article then it's likely that he was a real footballer, at least. Whether or not he ever played a professional game or achieved substantial coverage remains to be seen, I guess. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no online SIGCOV for the subject of this article, and it appears to fail WP:V. His compatriot, Marc Landry Babo, who actually played in the Thai Premier League gets SIGCOV in Thai-language sources, so if this person was actually a footballer that played in the league, you would think something would come up in Google searches - but no. Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 7 September 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 10:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North London FC Season 2 Season

[edit]
North London FC Season 2 Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If my research is correct, this is either about a season relating to the video game Roblox or the season of a children's football club of the same name. No sources provided and can't find anything other than YouTube/social media. No apparent WP:ATD available. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:08, 1 September 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 to delete. After two full weeks of debate, the only users recommending a "delete" outcome are the nominator and a user who made 30+ "delete" !votes very quickly all on the same day; the speed of these edits was so high that he cannot possibly have checked the sources. I give the second "delete" !vote zero weight. A close of "no consensus to delete" means that editors are free (and encouraged) to pursue the alternatives to deletion such as merging or renaming the article.—S Marshall T/C 15:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Chauvin protests

[edit]
Derek Chauvin protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Protests in Minneapolis regarding the trial of Derek Chauvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Protests regarding the trial of Derek Chauvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure what this is about. It seems to be about the trial, not the protests. Most (if not all) the protests are covered by George Floyd protests. Looks a tad forkey. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The events (specific protest, arrests, aftermath, etc.) are not covered in George Floyd protests. They they also have too much weight as they were in the former version of the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul article, which is largely about events from May 26, 2020 to June 7, 2020. Protests in Minneapolis related to the Chauvin judicial proceedings are distinct from the initial wave of unrest over Floyd's death, and other racial injustice protests, and worthy of a focused article. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what? If you do not want the article to be deleted, I suggest changing your vote to "keep". KidAd • SPEAK 17:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I am not well-versed in Wiki procedure. My recommendation is to Keep. Thanks for the discussion! Minnemeeples (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with lots of hat notes to the related articles, as this is a sub-article of the Trial of Derek Chauvin, which already has a section about the protests and that article is already a sub-article about Derek Chauvin. This is also a parallel article to George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. The article might benefit from renaming to something like Protests at the trial of Derek Chauvin to make it clearer that this article is not about protests associated with the death of George Floyd, before Derek Chauvin went on trial. I think merging this article with another is likely to place undue weight and add excessive detail about the protests in an article that is meant to be about the trial, rather than the protests about the trial. In many respects this article is about separate contemporaneous public events outside the courtroom, so should not really clutter up the trial article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a keep, but rename option. The article about George Floyd protests in Minneapolis-Saint Paul is largely about events from May 26, 2020 (the day protests started), to June 7, 2020 (when the Minnesota government mobilization to the unrest initially ended). Protests during judicial proceedings and trial of Derek Chauvin were distinct from the initial reaction to Floyd's murder as they were about specific developments in Chauvin's cause (release on bail, beginning of trial, etc.), largely held near the Hennepin County Government Center building (includes the court facility) in downtown Minneapolis, and had a totally separate government mobilization effort ("Operations Safety Net"), had a separate wave of arrests, etc. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're the article creator. Can't you rename it yourself? Love of Corey (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll do that, if that's what's recommended. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A more appropriate title, if you ask me. Love of Corey (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still wrong, as this is about one place, it was not the only place that had protests. It is misleading.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, since there clearly isn't a consensus to delete, perhaps you can take your concerns to the article's talk page so efforts to improve the article are discussed there? Minnemeeples (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh...nowhere in the title does it point to a specific location(s) as being the focus of the article. Love of Corey (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The article was moved to Protests in Minneapolis regarding the trial of Derek Chauvin. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Page has been moved for the third time during this AfD debate. It is now at Protests in Minneapolis regarding the trial of Derek Chauvin. Please stop moving the page around until the debate is settled. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but strongly suggest formal move discussion on talk page. This topic is notable, but there is no consensus on a nameJackattack1597 (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. These protests are noteworthy enough to be covered by Wikipedia. But I don't think an entire page is warranted since they haven't had quite as much impact or as much of an identity as the protests regarding Floyd's killing itself. Songwaters (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal: The main article is already too long as is. George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul is at 139,134 bytes and 55,556 characters. It also primarily covers the course of events from May 26, 2020, to June 7, 2020. Protests during judicial proceedings and Chauvin's trial were distinct from the initial wave of unrest in Minneapolis, and were related directly to legal aspects of Chauvin's case, as opposed to being an immediate reaction to Floyd's murder. If the events are notable, lumping them into other articles makes for some very long articles. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply not notable at all. --RamotHacker (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The events in question are notable and they all clearly pass WP:SIGCOV. While some of the events in the article are unique to this page and deserve coverage, the nominator has raised a legitimate concern over some content overlap with WP:FORK issues. I concur with others that there are better processes to be used to sort this issue out. There really needs to be a discussion on the article's talk page about changing the name of the article to better delimit it's focus. I concur with Jackattack1597 that a formal move discussion would be appropriate. However, before starting that formal process I recommend using the talk page of the article to discuss how to better delimit the article before bringing a formal move proposal. There is a good article in here, it just needs better defining and trimming down of excess material covered elsewhere. The goal should be to establish context but without so much detail that it's a content fork of other articles. AFD is not the right venue to solve an essentially editorial issue.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 8 September 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 Pale Moon (web browser). Vanamonde (Talk) 07:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basilisk (web browser)

[edit]
Basilisk (web browser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software release. Only references are to primary sources and to routine blog posts announcing the initial release. Substantial contributions from what I must assume is someone connected to the project, based on their extensive use of primary sources and non-encyclopedic content. ST47 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it there I don't think so of merging it. Because, Basilisk and Palemoon are different web browsers or application. For my opinion it is just better to leave the basilisk article right there. But in my second idea/opinion you can move the page to the Palemoon, but much better to create different section in the Palemoon's article instead, I mean not merging it. It is just transferring of an article to a section of an article. Adriem914 (talk) 7:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC +8)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This page should not have been deleted. Basilisk is not developed by the Pale Moon team anymore, it is developed by a new team of developers. The page should be un-deleted. 50.110.35.252 (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, since Pale Moon has similar codebase to Pale Moon and both have similar userbase Rlink2 (talk)
This page should not have been deleted. Basilisk is not developed by the Pale Moon team anymore, it is developed by a new team of developers. The page should be un-deleted. 50.110.35.252 (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valuation-based system

[edit]
Valuation-based system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks context. Suggest redirecting to expert system. Andrew327 20:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Andrew327 20:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - no deletion rationale provided. We have an assertion that the article should be redirected, but that's a matter for discussion at the article talk page. Also, "lacking context" isn't a deletion rationale, even if deletion were be suggested. St★lwart111 10:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Saw the query about this on Sandstein's page. There is no independent significant coverage of this topic. All the sources presented are written by one primary author. The author is closely associated with the content on this page. Wikipedia lags behind the science. We are not here to present the leading edge of original research. This is someone promoting their original research on Wikipedia. Hence, I don't think this should be merged or redirected. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion wp:promo. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it appears this page was created by an SPA [36]. So, this has the components of being promotional and having WP:COI issues. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After reading the article and Steve Quinn's comments, I expected to find all of the coverage in reliable sources to be written by Prakash P. Shenoy. Then, I searched Google Scholar and discovered that other academics such as S Quiu, X Ming, M Sallak and W Schön have written extensively about the topic in peer reviewed sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cullen328. A google scholar search does indeed reveal a large number of academic publications either applying VBS or studying VBS or citing VBS (206 to be exact across 32 years of publications in multiple journals and disciplines). With over 30 years of relevant literature, I don't think this is a new or cutting edge concept anymore, but accepted and established and replicated. Rather than being self-promotional, the article rightly cites and focuses in on the seminal author and his work within this conceptual framework, much as we would place Einstein and his work at the center of the Theory of Relativity. As for lacking context, that's an editorial issue that requires improvement of the article. Further, the suggestion to redirect should have been raised on the talk page. It's not an issue that should be brought to AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cullen. In general, a crappy article or one written by a WP:SPA is not a criteria for deletion, but all the more the reason for improvement of said article. I suppose WP:DYNAMITE sometimes applies, but this is not one of those cases. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:09, 10 September 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 List of Mazda platforms. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda B platform

[edit]
Mazda B platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Mazda C platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mazda D platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mazda E platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mazda F platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mazda G platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mazda H platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mazda J platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mazda L platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mazda M platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mazda N platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mazda S platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourced articles, purely original research by simply putting together vehicles with the same first letter model code. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems pretty obvious that Mazda model's (and the related Ford cars) starting with 'B' are generations of the Mazda 3. See WP:SKYISBLUE.  Stepho  talk  11:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:SKYISBLUE cannot be applied here because what I'm questioning here is, does "Mazda B platform" even exist at all? Say I go ahead and create an uncited article called "Toyota E platform", and wrote all Corolla generations there. Why not, because we don't need to cite that the sky is blue right? I shouldn't, because "Toyota E platform" isn't a platform at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andra Febrian (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Nope, it is not "pretty obvious" that such platforms even exist, when there is no trace nor mention of them on a credible website, news source, or database, which can verify or support their existence, in terms of the given manufacturer. WP:SKYISBLUE is not an excuse, which allows for a WP:HOAX of an article to be retained and potentially keep misleading thousands, if not millions of readers who mistakenly take it as credible fact. If we all took that logic on everything, I could easily make up new articles every day on random automotive topics for kicks.
User:Sfoskett created these articles out of thin air over 15 years ago, as they did to the now rightfully deleted Ford P Platform and Ford U Platform articles, which I similarly nominated for deletion on the same grounds and succeeded in removing. I see no reason to keep an article drawn up on a whim with NO independent sources with ANY citations (and tagged as such the past nearly 12 years), as any reason to suggest the opposite is rather transparent and flies in the face of verifiability on Wikipedia. This isn't like saying 2+2 = 4 or H2O = oxygen, so WP:SKYISBLUE is irrelevant.
I thank Andra Febrian for bringing this to attention, as I couldn't make heads or tails of why and how they existed, when (i.e.) the so called Mazda G Platform has never shown up in a Ford-Mazda database/chart in the last 35 years and those midsize platforms were replaced every 2 generations anyway. I recall an issue, where the first D to F segment front-wheel drive Ford platform was inaccurately named D186 for all generations from 1985 through 2006, for no credible reason and relied on as a source for many years by many outside readers, again with 0 citations supporting it. In reality, it was truly broken down into 3 different architectures named DN5 (1985), DN101 (1995), and D186 (revamped DN101 launched 1999). I suggest this Ford article [37] too. Fictional nonsense like this has got to stop, as the end result is a global misunderstanding of a corporate entity and their products by their buyers, enthusiasts, journalists, or any other interested 3rd parties. The fact many of us have our own good-faith contributions heavily scrutinized and dissected, even with less than perfect citations, yet this has remained here so long and never challenged for accuracy/verifiability, borders highly questionable and more.
I thus strongly support deletion of all these articles, as they're misleading drivel, promoting another false (personal) narrative and becoming fodder for lazy journalists to regurgitate and ignorantly report as "fact". Wikipedia has never been a place to create full page articles out of your own personal thoughts. It's a digital encyclopedia, not a journal or diary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmaker1 (talk • contribs)
I did a bit of hunting. While it's not exactly common in user groups, the spare parts suppliers seem to like calling it the B platform. Also, I found a 2014 manual at https://mega.nz/file/mdR1VAjJ#TmDZY8Mbh4BPzyYdlYMAYB7IRjFNGar7Kf9AXdx2FmU and on page 289 it decodes the VIN to show that 'BM' means Mazda3. Not authoritative on its own but it does hit that it's probably right.  Stepho  talk  13:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't dispute the model codes though, it seems like it's all true despite unsourced. Andra Febrian (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but fix Perhaps the answer is to combine these into a single article or a list or something. Vehicle platforms are often things car people want to know about so I would argue the content is inherently what we want to cover but we are lacking good sourcing at this time. Combining into a single list article might be a good way to help fix this mess vs just erase it. Springee (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 1 September 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalanjukittiya Thankam

[edit]
Kalanjukittiya Thankam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Encyclopædius: We don't establish notability by weather the director or cast are notable. We establish by sources. The sources that you provided are not considered reliable.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"He is often considered one of India's most influential filmmakers". You'd expect his films to be notable. Sources don't need to be in English. Most older Indian films have poor coverage online. I have no doubt it received coverage in newspapers at the time being from such a notable director. † Encyclopædius 21:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Encyclopædius: And that quote is coming from where? From you? Or one of many of those YouTube videos? Seriously, in all honesty, I don't have anything against the director. He might be an Indian Martin Scorsese for what I care, but you still need a reliable source for any of it. Spicy Onion and YouTube aren't reliable and the rest are music sites. Even if your grandma made that movie, a reliable source is needed.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His wiki article.† Encyclopædius 16:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Encyclopædius: That's not a source. Every director makes notable and not notable films, doesn't mean that they all should be included. Wikipedia is not a catalogue! Also, please read this and this.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep arguments are quite poor. Notability is not inherited by a film's director or cast, nor is it notable simply for being an Indian Malayalam film. Which specific criteria of WP:NFILM are met?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Explicit mine should probably be a weak keep, which is why I was also fine with a merge, but The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career. appears relevant. Star Mississippi 12:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. WP:BEFORE for a Malayalam movie should include looking at the corresponding article in the Malayalam Wikipedia and copying its references if they do not already appear in the English article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Specifically B7 of WP:BEFORE says: Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:14, 10 September 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. I was the only person in the last seven days of discussion who wanted to delete, and I no longer do. How about that. (non-admin closure) jp×g 19:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippine School, Dubai

[edit]
The Philippine School, Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. No sources seem to exist (that I could find, anyway); article is totally unreferenced. Has a dated {{unreferenced}} in its first revision, which indicates to me it was likely copypasted from a deleted article. jp×g 07:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:13, 1 September 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 10:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Scuderi

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jean Scuderi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. No reliable sources. Seems like self-promotion and has been nominated before. (See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jean_Scuderi) Plus, according to the French Wikipedia, the article of Jean Scuderi has been deleted. (See Discussion:Jean_Scuderi/Suppression) Jefferyhobbs (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:30, 1 September 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 Space travel in science fiction#Methods of travel. Content can still be merged from history to the extent editorial consensus allows. Sandstein 07:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slipstream (science fiction)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Slipstream (science fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't believe this survived three AfDs, and quite recently. Ok, first thing first: we need an article about Faster-than-light travel in fiction or such; it's boggles my mind FTL article didn't even have a section until I just added one right now (no entry listed in Space travel disambig contains anything related to fiction, not even a section). I'll even pre-emptively agree that hyperspace is a separate and notable concept and should stay, ditto for warp drive. But slipstream is a niche sf jargon which merits only a passing mention in the larger, to be-written article, and nothing in our current article seems worth rescuing - it's just a plot summary of 'this term was used in a few works', and as such I suggest for now redirecting this to the section I created in the main FTL article (and I'll add writing a proper 'FTL in sf' article to my to-do list). Lastly, I'll just confirm that I've reviewed works such as following (and add some notes for future writing of the promised article):

  • the SF Encyclopedia (main entry: space travel)
  • Brave new words the Oxford dictionary of science fiction (entry for space flight and space flying on p.200-201; space travel and space travelling, 209-210)
  • Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction (Library Movements) by Don DAmmassa (term space travel used in index, no entry)
  • The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (entry on space travel on p.511-512)
  • The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction by Clute, John Nicholls, Peter (space travel is just a disambig; entry for space flight, p. 2103, spaceships and transportation)
  • The New encyclopedia of science fiction (no entry on space travel, has entry on spaceships)
  • Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (in its entry on space drives, lists about fifteen different concepts - but not slipstream)
  • The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy - I couldn't check this one properly, no digital copy of volume 2 I could find? According to [38], has an entry on space travel, but nothing about slipstream

I'll note that many of them do discuss Slipstream genre (and/or Slipstream (1989 film)), but none has an entry - and actually as far as I can tell, not even a passing mention of (!) - slipstream in the context of FTL travel. It's just a niche term that at merits nothing but a redirect and a passing mention. PS. I'll be stubbing Space travel in science fiction shortly, may likely be a better redirect target than the FTL subsection. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. There is no pressing reason to delete this page. The nominator can write his article, merge in Slipstream (leaving out anything he does not like) and job done. It is unnecessary to hide the hidtory of this page, and the material on it, from future editors, especially as it has survived three previous AFDs. SpinningSpark 07:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spinningspark Just a note for you and other readers that I have indeed "written my(?) article" (i.e. Space travel in science fiction), which now mentions splitstream (you can think of it that I did merge whatever I liked and left out all I thought was irrelevant). Feel free to merge anything else you think is relevant and properly referenced, and can you consider whether redirect as the end outcome of this AfD now makes sense? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a merge, it is hardly even a mention. It's just one item in a bracketed aside of a list of synonyms of hyperspace. That is directly contrary to the results of all the previous AFDs. It is not even consistent with your own sources. So no, redirect is not appropriate, and the structure of the article you have written makes it next to impossible to expand on it. SpinningSpark 07:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with nom's rationale and agree with Spinningspark that in such a case, deletion is discouraged and merging would be better. But I believe that this article is a complete overlap with hyperspace and it is so crufty there is nothing to merge. There only needs to be one article on this concept and it is hyperspace, which covers any FTL in sci-fi that involves leaping through parallel universes. Piotrus' assertion that it is a niche term that is used far less than hyperspace is correct.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have asserted over multiple AFDs that slipstream = hyperspace or that one is a subset of the other, but have offered no sources backing up that claim despite being asked multiple times. In the 2nd AFD I offered this,
The Escapist magazine an article by C J Miozzi, "5 Faster-Than-Light Travel Methods and Their Plausibility" has at no.1 Hyperdrive and no. 4 Slipstream. While Miozzi agrees that "there is no widely-agreed upon definition" of slipstream he looks in detail at the Andromeda incarnation of slipstream and gives a description which clearly puts clear water between it and his earlier description of hyperdrive, at least for the case of Andromeda.
and no counter sources were forthcoming. It's hard to generalise with SF comcepts because authors can make these things behave how they like, but my reading is hyperspace → extra dimensional, slipstream → wormhole. SpinningSpark 08:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the links I gave above have gone dead, here's the archive copies Hyperdrive and Slipstream. SpinningSpark 08:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that since Slipstream has no WP:RS that define it besides just that single (long since deleted) article, it should not merit an article, and there is no proof it's any different than hyperspace. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it hasn't been deleted (not that that affects its reliability one iota) it just now lives somewhere else. SpinningSpark 19:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Slipstream really is a wormhole type travel though, then I vote to redirect to Wormholes in fiction. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Redirecting an article you don't like is backdoor deletion, but even worse, it confuses readers to land on a page that does not even mention the redirect term. SpinningSpark 19:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding a working link to [39]. It's borderline SIGCOV, but I don't think that's enough to build an article on - a brief definition and one example (Andromeda). This can be merged somewhere, and I think the new article I started is best - a sentence there (plus maybe another with examples in the footnote) will be quite enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now.(Updating my opinion to changed circumstances below. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)) As Wikipedia aims to be a collection of all the world's knowledge, it should also cover a sci-fi concept that has no unified definition. The article should provide, as much as possible, an overview over the communalities and differences. Some my be close to hyperspace, but some, as the cited Escapist article says, are not. Just compare both concept and visualization of Star Wars' hyperspace and Voyager's slipstream! I think there is enough material here to justify a stand-alone article. I would not be strongly opposed to a merge to e.g. Faster-than-light travel in fiction, though, but it can't be right to delete what we already have first, and then start from stratch if and when a target article has been started, just as Spinningspark has already said. For future use/the sake of completeness, Slipstring Drive: String Theory, Gravity, and "Faster Than Light" Travel has a short bit in chapter 3, comparing the slipstream drive to the serious scientific concept of a "slipstring drive" and stating why, in comparison to other sci-fi FTL methods, it does not simply disregard the laws of physics. Oh yeah, and despite my misgivings against deletion, thanks to Piotrus for the effort of checking those various encyclopedias. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios I am afraid there's just not enough sourcing. In addition to two paragraphs in the Escapist Magazine SpinningSpark found, you found a single sentence in a book. If this is the best we can do, redirecting this is an obvious choice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: There's also the Heavy.com article. But even if there should be a ruling in the end that these were not enough for WP:GNG, there would have to be an alternative to simply loosing the information about this SF concept by deletion or redirect, actually to the point of WP:IAR. So if you have any plans for a Faster-than-light travel in fiction article, I can only agree with Spinningspark: "The nominator can write his article, merge in Slipstream (leaving out anything he does not like) and job done." Daranios (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios: Barring the usual life and stuff, I hope to start work on such an article in a day or so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to e.g. Space travel in science fiction. I think this could be a nice non-stubby stand-alone article using primary and the found secondary sources, comparing the differences and communalities of this concept, which is used with some differences in detail in various works of science-fiction. However, granted, the volume of treatment in secondary sources is not very great, so I am not averse to treating the topic as a section in a larger summary article. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. The Space travel in science fiction is developing nicely. I've used [40] to reference the term slipstream, also jump drive (that redirects to USB flash drive, btw) and hyperdrive (effectively a redirect to Hyperspace through a mention in a disambig). Leaving the concept of warp drive for the moment (our article is not very promising, but I haven't done research on this), I am not seeing much to justify existence of articles on such niche concepts (as they don't seem to be considered significant enough to warrant their own article in the review works or through GNG in general - we still don't have much on 'slipstream'). Please note that (pending lit review) I'll be very likely proposing (or already did) mergers for Spindizzy and torchship (interestingly, Dean drive seems notable enough to be left alone...). Right now my lit review suggests that the best most of those concepts deserve is a redirect to Space travel in science fiction, where they could be mentioned in a footnote in the form of 'slipstream, the term meaning blah blah invented in work A and popularized by work B' or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Thanks for the work! I think the slipdrive deserves more than a mention in listing and more than a footnote, though. Rather, I think a section for each drive attested in secondary sources would be warranted in the long run. That, however, is more a question of working on the target article than the AfD here. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am done with this article - and still, no slipstream in reliable sources (I am not denying it exists, but it has less recognition that torchships, which, btw, I boldly redirected; see also Talk:Cities_in_Flight#Merge_from_Spindizzy). Btw, found an interesting tool: [41]. Next, if my interest holds, I'll try to improve the article on hyperspace, I think this concept has enough discussion in the sources I saw that it should hold its own. I am still concerned about the warp drive... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - not that there is ample to do here. Add whatever is possible from [42] to the target article and then redirect. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks for stopping by. I'll see what I can do with that source which I forgot about, good catch. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 9 September 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 06:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Kyza

[edit]
Irene Kyza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPROF, WP:SIGCOV. Searches bring back her thesis and teaching info, but no significant coverage. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, sadly. She appears to be on a promising career track but not yet at the point of meeting our academic notability standards. I don't think the Emmy Noether Fellowship is enough for WP:PROF#C2; it is described as a way of boosting research after family leave rather than as a recognition of outstanding scholarship, and with four given in 2020 it doesn't look selective enough. My delete is weak because she also has some news coverage [43] but I only found one story and it didn't provide enough depth of coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:58, 1 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial deaths in the military

[edit]
List of controversial deaths in the military (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Controversial" is inherently a POV term; an NPOV list cannot be created here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are a number of "controversial" topics such as List of controversial video games, List of controversial album art, List of controversial elections, and Controversial Reddit communities. If the basis of the article being deleted is that "controversial" is a POV term, I must disagree as the aforementioned articles must then also disqualify for being valid articles. The article was created as there are growing media reports across multiple armed forces of controversial deaths of members of the military, such as death after reporting assault and/or harassment, or a cause of death of suicide despite evidence of rape and batttery. Sideriver84 (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify The other articles with "controversial" in their names aren't the highest quality either, but this is astonishingly vague and at the least not ready for mainspace without better criteria and being more comprehensive. Pat Tillman's death came to mind as certainly being controversial, but this page is currently far too broad. Reywas92Talk 04:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is too vague, is there a better name you suggest? Sideriver84 (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Am I able to move the page to a draft myself via "move" or do I need for an admin? Thank you Sideriver84 (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When the AFD closes an administrator will move it for you. You can also work on it over at: https://abuse.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_deaths_in_the_military Dream Focus 21:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus:Thank you very much, I will wait for an admin to move it to draft and I will work on it in the link you've enclosed! Much appreciated. Sideriver84 (talk) 00:38, 8 September 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 10:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Church (trailer writer)

[edit]
Tony Church (trailer writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lack coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:58, 1 September 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 10:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Allison (record producer)

[edit]
Matt Allison (record producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record producer, fails GNG. Mottezen (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:21, 1 September 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:CSK #4. The nominator was blocked at the time they made the nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfox

[edit]
Waterfox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination for Deletion I nominate the page to be deleted, it has a lot of primary resources, 1 forum and 1 news article as a reference. User:Adriem914 (User talk:Adriem914) 12:18 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In opposition to this nomination Okay, sure, the article doesn't yet meet Wikipedia's standards for sources. Has anyone tried to count the pages with the same problem? Given those countless examples, that isn't cause for deleting an article about a supported and current competitor to a major web browser. EveningStarNM (talk) 19:17, 2 September 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debashish Sethy

[edit]
Debashish Sethy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this is a case of WP:MEMORIAL. There is no indication of notability prior to death, the incident in which he was killed did not gather major attention, and the posthumous award does not seem to be sufficient to claim notability pass. Soman (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to "Death of Debashish Sethy" or similar; WP:ANYBIO #1 clearly applies to him based on Shaurya Chakra award, but as he is notable solely for his passing, the article should be renamed to account for that. BilledMammal (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as an event it clearly fails WP:GNG and as a biography it fails WP:BASIC, Shaurya Chakra isn't a significant enough award being third highest among gallantry awards and having thousands of recipients. Also do note that, "meeting one or more [of the additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". The article is effectively a memorial and improvements don't seem possible with the actual barebones coverage that is available. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 1 September 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. Due to low participation and inability for soft deletion. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Ganesh

[edit]
Nano Ganesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a mobile application operated water pump system. It has won few awards. I think it is not some major breakthrough technology or revolutionary device. Article looks more like an advertisement than about technology/device itself. The awards and accolades are generic innovation listings and praises. I can not find how this device/application is notable. There is media coverage few years ago but no sustained coverage. The company website itself is not updated since 2015. I doubt that if device is still sold or not. Anyway I think it is generic product. Nizil (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:35, 1 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_September_1&oldid=1043968183"