Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 16	August 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete/draftity. Simultaneously closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Ahanchian. Both discussions have clearly found consensus that this person and this case have not been shown to meet our notability guidelines, and as such, there is consensus to delete. However, I rarely decline good-faith requests for draftspace work, and in this case there is a possibility that one notable article may be rescued where two cannot; hence, I'm draftifying. I am going to WP:IAR a little, and require that, given the clear consensus in the AfDs, a) this article/these articles only be recreated via AfC, b) these discussions be linked in a way that the AfC reviewer will read them, and c) some source material be included that is new, substantive, reliable, and independent of the subject. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Ahanchian

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

The current version of this article has a lot of issues, including GNG and BLP sources. This is a new article after another was AfD'ed on 7 January 2011 under the name "Amir Cyrus Ahanchian". Joojay (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. The IMDb sources are not the only sources in the article. There are reliable independent sources which provide significant coverage particularly in the sections on the court cases. Amirah talk 21:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article needs to be restructured then, because the court cases are not currently well highlighted and much of this article is about his career in Hollywood (which has very few RS sources). I see you made another article only about the one of the court cases Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al, is there a need for two articles on this topic? Joojay (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think there is a need a bio article and the court case sources are evidence of notability. If you think the article needs to be restructured rather than deleted then there is a different tag for that. Amirah talk 21:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be deleted, I don't see GNG here. If you think you can prove this, I welcome you to do so. The current sources do not support your statements. This reads like an autobio. Joojay (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which current sources, which statements? Are you talking about the bio page or the awards section of Yellow which I mentioned in my last comment? Amirah talk 23:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't have many WP:RS, and those few it does have are not extensive coverage of Cyrus Ahanchian. The following are not considered RS sources: Net Worth Post, Forbes, Moon River Studios. Also Wikipedia does not use a Google Search box as a citation or as common evidence for a biography of a living person WP:BLP, WP:BLPRS If you remove these citations in addition to the IMDB citations, it leaves us with maybe one or two sentences. Joojay (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are saying, but I think there are enough reliable sources to establish notability if you include those about the court cases. If you can see that the court cases have relevance to his career as an executive producer then they should be counted. The court case section alone is far more than just one or two sentences. I have written about this in my comments below but have not had any response to those comments. Amirah talk 15:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, about the IMDb sources in the filmography. I have compared the pages of other filmmakers who have filmography tables. Most of them don't have any references at all in them. If they do they are very often references to IMDb. The tabulated material in the filmography section is not contentious and as notability is established elsewhere in the article, does not add to the argument for deletion. Amirah talk 15:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article talk page the article has been assessed by WikiProject Biographies as a Start-Class article with 'low' importance, which means that 'Subject is notable in their main discipline'. The article has also been accepted by the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers as 'Subject is notable in their main discipline', project members of Actors and Filmmakers would have a better understanding that the court cases are relevant to the subjects discipline. Amirah talk 17:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirahBreen: these are not my "opinion" on citations being poor, it's clearly written. Large movies, like Yellow have many executive producers, why is this one notable? Joojay (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His involvement with the movie Yellow in particular is notable due to the fact that as an executive producer he was involved in the court case over Yellow and his comments on it were cited in an independent news source about the court case. Amirah talk 17:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (although the article title could be redirected to Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al). I cannot find any significant coverage of the individual to support WP:GNG or WP:BASIC notability, and none of the reliable sources currently in the article support notability of Ahanchian. The impact of the legal case doesn't extend notability to the person (WP:BLP1E). Adding to my statement, since WP:FILMMAKER has rightfully been mentioned and I didn't address it initially: the films that Ahanchian's been associated with don't meet "significant or well-known work or collective body of work". No awards; none of the work has "been the primary subject of an independent and notable work... or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Ahanchian is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", he is not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". Does not meet WP:FILMMAKER. Schazjmd (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The court case was about the person's work, therefore I think it does, but I will look for some additional sources too. Amirah talk 21:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FILMMAKER point 3. The court case itself about National Lampoon's TV: The Movie and it's verdict shows that Ahanchian played a significant role in creating a well known work . . . There are also other well known films which he played a significant role in creating, such as Yellow (2012 film), Cougars, Inc. and Open House (2010 film), as Executive Producer. Amirah talk 22:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me saying User:Schazjmd, I think what you have said above about none of the films having received awards is untrue. Yellow (2012 film) was 'awarded "Best Film" at the Catalina Film Festival on September 22, 2013'.Amirah talk 23:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of that in his article, but thanks for pointing it out, AmirahBreen. As a relatively minor award, it is not sufficient to change my evaluation of his notability against the WP:FILMMAKER criteria. Schazjmd (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference to the Catalina Film Festival award to the article. Also, please bare in mind that the 4 criteria for WP:FILMMAKER which you have repeated above and underlined are an either/or requirement. However, the second Case Law on copyright which resulted from his court case was an important new concept in filmmaking, see Joint authorship. The case itself and his role in the case has been widely cited by peers and successors. Peers include others involved in the legal profession as well as others involved in the filmmaking industry, as we are discussing the role of an Executive Producer which includes legal and copyright work. His experience in court has also been used subsequently in a court case over Yellow. [1] His experiences in court are unique to himself in the industry, and an important asset to him in his role as an Executive producer. If you don't understand that the role of an Executive Producer includes copyright and legal work when required, then please see the Wikipedia article I have linked to. In Ahanchian's case it certainly has done. Your reference to WP:BLP1E above does not stand because there has been more than one event covered by independent sources, both his own court case over National Lampoon and his role in the court case over Yellow. According to BLP1E all 3 of the conditions must be met for the article to warrant deletion, and the first condition is not met. Therefore the impact of the legal cases (plural) do extent notability and the reliable sources on the legal case should also be counted toward WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Amirah talk 10:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some further edits to the article to make the points I discussed above clearer in the article itself. Please reconsider in light of this. Amirah talk 13:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Catalina Film Festival is a major film festival in Hollywood and the award of 'best film' is quite an honour. But nevertheless the film does not need to have been awarded a major award to be 'well known'. It is a matter of opinion, as the term 'well known' is not measured quantitatively. I respect your opinion, but I beg to differ. The film 'Yellow' is well known and the fact that it was awarded 'Best Film' at the Catalina Film Festival substantiates that. Amirah talk 23:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no serious claim to notability here:

He was one of several executive producers (none of the others of which, I note, have merited a Wikipedia article) for the film Yellow (2012 film), which won a "best film" award at a relatively minor (only 10 years running) film festival. At most, this argues for notability of the film (which is actually notable on its own merits, film festival aside), but that notability is not inherited by one of its executive producers. "Executive producer" is one of those Hollywood titles, anyway: it could mean anything from direct involvement and oversight in the filmmaking, such as the budget guy the director has to answer to... or it could be just an investor.
He was part of a non-notable copyright case (Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al is deservedly up for its its own AFD).
He got two scholarships.
He was the youngest guy to get a small business loan from a particular bank.

None of this adds up to notability. It's been deleted once already; I don't see anything in this new reincarnation to suggest that that decision was wrong. Only the creator of both of these articles is arguing for its retention. It reads very promotional, and I would not be surprised if there's a WP:COI going on here. TJRC (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His involve in the film Yellow has been established by news coverage in reliable sources. You have written above what Executive producer can mean, but there is actually evidence of what his role included in this particular case. Yellow was released after the previous deletion. Also, the case of Ahanchian v Xenox doesn't have to be notable itself as a court case to contribute toward notability of the person who was involved in it. Establishing notability of a court case is quite different to establishing notability of an executive producer. The fact that he got two scholarships and a bank loan does not detract from his notability as an executive producer. There is no COI. I would like to move the article back to draft to do some further work on it. Amirah talk 10:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above comment testifies to the notability of the film Yellow, but I don't see the coverage that translates that to notability for one of its producers. Reywas92^Talk 02:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have already answered that above. The notability is established by his involvement in the Yellow court case which was covered by independent sources. This discussion has got quite long and complex, because you don't see it does not necessarily mean that it isn't there. Amirah talk 09:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the statement, "because you don't see it does not necessarily mean that it isn't there", but it should be in the WP article for it to be considered notable (notable, as defined by Wikipedia). And to add it to the article it needs to be reliable sources (reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia). If you can't find any articles to fulfill this, it would need to be deleted especially since this is a living person. Joojay (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I'm confident that more evidence can be found for notability. I would like to move the article back to draft. Amirah talk 10:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot vote twice, which is your vote? Joojay (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Seems notable with multiple films to his credit. Fair multiple roles to pass WP:ENT. One reference I found [2]. 81.133.96.60 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does that reference indicate notability? TJRC (talk) 21:53, 20 August 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. There is consensus to not keep this article. There is no consensus about whether this should be just deleted or redirected elsewhere. This can be resolved as follows: everybody is free to create the redirect (ideally after mentioning the locale in the target article with sources), and everybody else is then free to nominate the redirect for deletion. Sandstein 15:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Hill, Delaware

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

Green Hill is a hummock in the swamp upon which was placed the Delaware Breakwater Range Rear Light, also know as the Green Hill Light. This was eventually taken down and moved to Florida, long before the topos started labelling a spot on the shore as "Green Hill". This spot had by that time been occupied by a Coast Guard station (which is still there), later joined by various nautical businesses and facilities. Delaware Place Names calls it a settlement, but the aerials all say that was never so. There's another Green Hill up in Wilmington that attracts searching, but I'm confident that this was at best a locale outside Lewes. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NGEO and search brings results described above. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It doesn't seems to be notable, and does not meet notability and WP:NGEO. Cheers. Tahaaleem ^Talk 09:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delaware Breakwater Range Rear Light (also know as Green Hill Light) was located at Green Hill, Delaware. Wikipedia:Verifiability is supported by Delaware Place Names (as are references to "dwellings" in the target article). (Aerials would be original research and thus of dubious Wikipedia:Verifiability as a reliable source?) Any information regarding the dwellings, coast guard station, and the maritime businesses which constitute the settlement could be researched and referenced to an expanded history of the named natural feature of the light house location. OR alternatively redirect to Lewes, Delaware, of which it is part, per GEOLAND 2 and Wikipedia:Alternatives to deletion. Djflem (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, as I said in the nomination but perhaps need to make clearer, the Green Hill upon which the lighthouse once stood and the supposed settlement Green Hill are not the same place, and the lighthouse was long gone before the "settlement" name was applied to the maps. The spot was and is an entrance from Delaware Bay into the Intercoastal Waterway, but that happened after the lighthouse went south, and it had nothing to do with this entrance, for it was erected to support entrance into Lewes to the east. And it wasn't on the shore, but was always in the swamp. After the USCG station arrived, the area around it basically ended up as a nautical suburb of Lewes, but there is no evidence that it was ever though of as a town or village unto itself. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This part Lewes, site of the USGC and the Lewes Public Boat Ramp, likely take the name from the nearby hummock on which the lighthouse once stood. (which Delaware Place Names & other references to "dwellings" called a populated place). That said, being within the municipal boundaries the current section (not suburb) of the city whose primary purpose is nautical activities would make redirect to Lewes, Delaware, of which it is part, per GEOLAND 2 and Wikipedia:Alternatives to deletion the best option. Djflem (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lewes, as the article states it is a neighborhood in the town, and ther isn't anything to distinguish it for a separate article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:49, 7 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)} 21:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lewes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Redirect~~ Delete. This locale is not notable and not legally recognized, so it does not meet WP:GEOLAND. However, redirecting to Lewes seems to be preferred by other editors and I don't have a strong opinion here, so I'll go with a weak redirect. Cxbrx (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my !vote to delete after considering Hog Farm's position below. Cxbrx (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not currently mentioned in the article for Lewes, and the reality is that this neighborhood/locale is not significant to warrant mention at Lewes above other ones. Hog Farm _Talk 13:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT (specifically no need) is not a valid AFD argument, especially when the issue mention is Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE.Djflem (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUEWEIGHT. Yeah, Lewes isn't like Kansas City or something where it's impossible to list all neighborhoods/locales due to space concerns, but it doesn't seem to be due weight to mention this, and redirects without mention are generally deleted at WP:RFD. It's a due weight issue, not IDONTLIKEIT. Hog Farm _Talk 15:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid reason, either. Certainly, the sections of Lewes could be handled in the article particularly Green Hill, Pilottown, and the Beach, all of which are distinct.Djflem (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect; this isn't quite the average non-notable geostub. It does seem like there exist a couple references substantiating that Green Hill is something -- not a city, and not a village, and not really a populated area, but it certainly exists, which is better than most of these which end up at AfD. jp×g 11:04, 24 August 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) 22:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HORTON (software)

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

Completely unnoteworthy software where the only information about it is on the github page, doesn't even pass a single sliver of notability whatsoever. The article is uncited, probably because it's impossible to cite it. The page is also written like an ad/promotion --Tautomers_{(T C)} 21:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional and has exactly zero citations to reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am a retired Quantum Chemistry. Some programs in this field are notable. This one certainly is not. It has no reliable sources and I doubt any can be found. --Bduke (talk) 01:59, 18 August 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) Jack Frost (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Golden

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

Being the person on a particular radio station who was the first on that radio station to report the Kennedy assasination is not a sign of notability. The one source is a caption to a picture in a books that is exhaustively about the radio station he worked for. I searched for additional sources in all the listed possible source leads connected with the 10-year-old notice on the page of being of unquestioned notability, but I did not find any other sources. Everything else that showed up was about other Jerry Golden's in other places and times. This guy was a local radio personality who is just plain not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Assassination of John F. Kennedy or somewhere within the article. Falls under WP:1E for being known for covering JFK's assassination. SBKSPP (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Except his coverage was on one local station in one local market far from the scene. His coverage has no relevance to the event itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The characterization of Golden as an announcer "on one local station in one local market" is misleading. He was one of the leading personalities on WLS, a 50,000 watt megastation whose signal covered five states and much of the Midwest. Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BASIC with sources presented by CBL. SBKSPP (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – the best I could find is this, which isn't enough on its own. (Multiple sources are needed, and it's arguably too local to be significant.) I don't think a redirect would be helpful given that Golden played no noteworthy role in the assassination and isn't mentioned in the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm somewhat chagrined to see how many sources I failed to find. The coverage below is more than adequate to meet WP:BASIC, particularly considering that "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The first and second sources below each constitute sigcov on their own, and the third, fourth, and fifth ones are easily enough to push Golden over the notability finish line. Good work, Cbl62. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for far more than his broadcast of the Kennedy assassination. Had a 35-year career as a leading voice of Chicago radio (see here) and has WP:SIGCOV of the type required to pass GNG. In addition to the item referenced by @Extraordinary Writ: ((1) here), my searches turned up (2) this comprehensive biographical piece from the Chicago Tribune. See also (3) this, (4) this, and (5) this. Cbl62 (talk) 17:57, 20 August 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 13:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry L. Mills

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

Declined CSD WP:G11. I am not finding any WP:GNG sources about this person. There are sources that quote this person, but that doesn't establish notability. Aside from GNG (and WP:NBIO), I don't see evidence that their publications meet WP:NAUTHOR notability. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few passing quotes, burried in the 8th paragraph or so in articles, do not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – there doesn't seem to be anything that would contribute toward GNG notability: being quoted in the press doesn't provide significant coverage, nor does a single-sentence trivial mention. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:44, 26 August 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) 22:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Dul

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

Neither the Torneo Federal A (regionalised Argentine 3rd tier) nor the Malaysia Premier League (2nd tier despite the name) are listed at WP:FPL so there is no evidence of WP:NFOOTBALL here; also supported by FlashScore as well as Soccerway. No other databases seem to have Dul.

In terms of WP:GNG, I was unable to find any significant coverage from the cited sources nor from Google searches or even when searching through Argentine sources and Malaysian sources. All I could find was this transfer announcement, with two sentences about him, that does nothing to establish notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:24, 22 August 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) 21:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Arnold (singer)

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here is as a member of a band, which is not an "inherent" notability freebie in and of itself -- in order to qualify for a standalone article as a separate topic from the band, he would need to establish his own independent notability by either (a) independently passing WP:NMUSIC for a solo career after the band ended, or (b) independently passing WP:GNG on the volume and depth of reliable source media coverage about him (as opposed to just mentioning his name in the process of being about the band as a whole.) But there are no properly cited footnotes here, and instead three straight "external links" are the only references -- but two of those three links are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and while the third external link was an actual news article about him, it takes a lot more than just one reliable source to get a person over GNG. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything new, which says more about me than him. Not notable. Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not notable. Schwede 66 07:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find anything indicating notability NealeWellington (talk) 02:18, 24 August 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 13:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art into Acres

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

The articles is entirely composed of name dropping of people who have contributed to the project. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are almost entirely about donors, not the project itself. No demonstration of notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources are from the donors to the organization, which are not WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 25 August 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hope Line

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

Unsourced for 9 years and apparently non-notable. My own searching finds some passing mentions and directory listings, but nothing that meets WP:SIRS. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: we already have Francisco Garmendia, this could be merged into that, with a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a number of citations. I found it's legal name which produced a number of solid sources. The Hope Line sounds like a good organization, to be honest. I believe it is notable. --Wil540 art (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those are sources I found when I did my search and dismissed as not meeting WP:SIRS. The NY Times article is pretty good (even if it's more about James P. Broderick than about The Hope Line), but that's the best of the bunch. One of the refs is just a link to a photo??? The BronxNet ref is a classic passing reference; it just mentions The Hope Line in a list of agencies. I don't have access to Disaster Psychiatry so can't say anything about that. The Bishop Garmendia reference is a page on the founder's own website, so not independent. The Bronx Free Press story is questionable. As far as I can tell, this is a blog post, so probably not a WP:RS. The nonprofitlight.com ref is a directory listing ("Data for this page was sourced from XML published by IRS (public 990 form dataset"). And catholiccharitiesny.org is the parent organization, so again not independent. With a couple more sources like the NY Times article, I'd be happy keeping this. As it is, it's pretty marginal. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You make good points. I added a couple more sources. --Wil540 art (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, my comment about the sources not meeting SIRS does not apply to the NY Times source. That's one that I didn't find myself, and I do thank you for locating it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 17 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) 20:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that additional sources have been added to the article since nomination and should be evaluated
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 23:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources in the article or in searches. Coverage that is significant is either not reliable or not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Garmendia was formally recognized and honored by the United States Congress in 1997 for his work with The Hope Line. I added the congressional record to the article's sources. That and The New York Times piece indicates some substantial RS.4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're exaggerating the significance of this. The appropriate section of the Congressional Record for that day is [3]. Garmendia's congressman read the tribute on the floor. There was no vote or anything formal like that; just a routine reading of something into the record by a member. Probably to a chamber that was empty except for the clerks. These things are routine and are done as a service and a courtesy to constituents. That same day, a volunteer arts organization was recognized for their 45th anniversary, a junior high school social studies teacher was recognized for having won a fellowship, a member read into the record their monthly newsletter on foreign affairs, and the 50th anniversary of George C. Marshall's commencement address at Harvard was noted. In any case, this is WP:PRIMARY, and makes only a passing reference to the subject of this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith Thanks for clarifying this through a better contextual lens. I found it through my university library in a segmented portion and I didn't realize that this kind of thing was not unusual. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:07, 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 no consensus with no prujudice against speedy renomination. Only !vote was by an editor who disclosed a connection with the person in question. No other views expressed despite 2 relists. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tandy Trower

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

Promotional article, most text added by a series of SPAs. The purpose appears to be to publicise his robotics company. Grandiose claims of notability and considerable biographical detail, but a paucity of independent third-party sources to back any of this. A WP:BEFORE shows passing coverage of the robotics firm. We don't have the necessary depth of coverage in independent RSes to sustain a BLP here. PROD removed by one of the SPAs, but adding a few new sources that were still not independent RSes. David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I have known Tandy since 2006 and can confirm his career since then. I worked in the Microsoft Robotics Group. I did some of the editing for Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio on Wikipedia but I am not an experienced Wikipedia author. (Just look at how many edits it takes me to get things right!) Tandy asked me to create a page for him as a favor (quite a while ago). He provided much of the content.

Facts:

Tandy worked at Microsoft from 1981 to 2009. See citations in the article for History of Microsoft 1981 and The 20 Year Club.

He was asked by Bill Gates to investigate Robotics and later appointed as the General Manager of the Robotics Group. See the citation for the Scientific American article written by Bill Gates in 2008.

As a GM he routinely interacted with the press and was the spokesperson for Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio. Google "Tandy Trower".

Tandy formed Hoaloha Robotics to develop robots for elder care and is still working towards that today.

Claims:

Tandy's claims of his early work are difficult to substantiate because they pre-date the Internet and Microsoft does not attribute work to individuals, e.g. his work on design guidelines for Windows applications, his specs for Windows 1.0 desktop apps. These claims might have to be removed from the article.

His claims regarding Robotics are accurate and his position at Microsoft made him a notable person in the industry at the time who was sought after for commentary and interviews/podcasts.

Summary:

I propose that the article be retained, possibly with some material removed. I ask for guidance on that.

Trevor Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorTaylor (talk • contribs) 00:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise I had to sign my comments. This is all new to me. TrevorTaylor (talk) 22:49, 13 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) 20:37, 17 August 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PriceOye

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

Fails NCORP. Lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The sources I could find were either routine fundraising reports (mere six-figure rounds, by the way) or non-independent promotional articles like this one. M4DU7 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:32, 26 August 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 Milk & Kisses. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violaine

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSONG. Has one charting position but has received no significant coverage from reliable sources. Been in CAT:NN for over eleven years. – DarkGlow • 20:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but should at the least, be merged to Milk & Kisses. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~B-but, Cocteau Twins were the greatest band on earth evah!!!111eleven~~ I agree with the nominator. Looking back to when some obvious Cocteau Twins fan-crufter - and that would be me - created the article in 2010, at that time there no indication that it met WP:NSONG. And in 2021, it still doesn't pass that test. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Milk & Kisses. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. The charting can be covered in the album. SBKSPP (talk) 03:02, 21 August 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 Boyz II Men discography. Sandstein 15:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winter/Reflections

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

Does not satisfy WP:NALBUM. Has been in CAT:NN for over eleven years, hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 20:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boyz II Men discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boyz II Men discography per above. Fails WP:NALBUM and GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:16, 25 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apartment (Bristol band)

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NBAND. No chart positions or significant coverage on their career. – DarkGlow • 20:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:11, 17 August 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Monro

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN/WP:BASIC. No coverage outside of mentions in band coverage. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cat Empire. The biographical tidbits in this article are non-notable and his activities outside the band have received none of the coverage required for individual notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. He's also a programmer. He is mentioned in the Speaking clock article because he is also notable for creating a web-based simulation, Online Time Service Home Page, of the Australian "Talking Clock" 1194 service, described here: Silva, Kristian (2019-10-16). "When Telstra shut down the Talking Clock, one man took the time to salvage it". ABC News. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist chasing more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The article is about his work with the clock which makes multiple things he is known for. Article does need to be cleaned up. FiddleheadLady (talk) 12:33, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Martin

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR/WP:BASIC. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack the multiple indepth reliable secondary sources independent of the subject needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is little more than a stub. It has not changed much since 2013, suggesting that Martin is not widely known. Dimadick (talk) 06:31, 21 August 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 Threshold (band). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McDermott

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:BASIC. Been in CAT:NN for ten years, hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Threshold (band). He was with several bands, but Threshold is the only one deemed notable enough for an article here. (One of the others was redirected.) Threshold is the only band for which his achievements received any coverage, including reports about his unfortunate early death. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Obituary mentions of Threshold (band) point to that being the proper place, as there are no sources to indicate individual notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:21, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Lee Rock

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

Does not satisfy WP:BASIC. – DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need way more sourcing than this to show a drummer is notable enough seperate from their band to justify an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He was in two notable bands, which causes a problem because there is no perfect destination for a redirect. Even so, this individual article adds non-notable biographical tidbits and is dependent on the achievements of each band which are already covered at their articles. He has done nothing notable outside of either of them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Music says "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Being in two notable bands would meet this imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the first sentence of that guideline states that the person may be notable if any of the following conditions are met. This musician just barely meets that criterion but he has nothing for any of the others because he has never done anything notable beyond performing with those two bands. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: Musicians don't have to meet every criterion, only "at least one of the following criteria" according to the guideline. He's not the most notable musician on Wikipedia, but notable enough to meet guidelines. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree to disagree on whether being in two bands is enough, but I absolutely did not say that this guy has to meet every criterion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well how many criterions do you think he has to meet? I figured one was enough because that's the established guideline. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also thinking about the quality of the encyclopedia. What do we learn from an article on Derek Lee Rock that has reliable and verifiable sources? He was in Suburban Legends which we already know from their article, he was in Melee which we already know from their article, he does some other things that have received no notice, and he twirls his sticks while playing. I repeat that the notability guideline says that a person may be notable if any of those criteria are met. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather than a simple rote check off of criteria, I'm onboard with the may be notable argument above from DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS), especially when one considers one of the bands he was with, Suburban Legends, was a rotating door of musicians to fill the shift work needs for multiple daily shows at a theme park. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:55, 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Boaters

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

Not yet notable. Future TV show that hasn't been produced or aired yet. ♟♙ (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia doesn't host TV pilot pitches...which this is. This is a WP:CRYSTALBALL article. Nate • (chatter) 22:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being notable. No references to support the article. scope_creep^Talk 23:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a speedy delete as it is nothing more than advertising for a show just greenlighted yesterday and the only source of information is a Facebook page to which readers are advised to read for updates. Spam, spam, spam. BostonMensa (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Unable to find anything through Google other than this article and and their Facebook page. I clicked on the link to the production company band the show isn’t even listed. This article should be a speedy delete based on both spam and inability to independently verify. BostonMensa (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. Aside from the highly promotional tone, the main author Avsafety (talk · contribs) has declared a COI on the related topic The Aviators. That article was massively cleared due to its promotional tone and lack of references. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not for promotion, nor is it a crystal ball. There is a complete lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources which would meet the hurdle of the GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah this definitely isn't up to being a Wikipedia page. If it ends up being made someone else can always remake it! BuySomeApples (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holland (band)

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

Do not appear to satisfy WP:NBAND. Minor mentions in a couple of sources, but no significant coverage. No charting songs or albums. – DarkGlow • 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael_Angelo_Batio#Holland,_the_Michael_Angelo_Band_and_Nitro_(1984–1993). Geschichte (talk) 18:27, 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) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think the redirect suggested by the previous voter is necessary. For this band, since they were active in the 1980s it's possible they were covered in old hard copy publications, but I can find nothing via a Google Books search. They are discussed sometimes by 80s metal fans in social media, but otherwise they are only ever mentioned as an early endeavor for the one member who was in a different notable band later. There's just not enough on this band to justify an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:45, 25 August 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) 06:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up the Neighbourhood

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

Does not satisfy WP:NALBUM. – DarkGlow • 19:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Holland (band)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Holland (band) is also discussed for deletion, and might be redirected to its sole notable member, and album->member is not a suitable redirect. Geschichte (talk) 18:28, 24 August 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 The Triffids discography. ✗plicit 13:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Brabham (album)

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM; been in CAT:NN for ten years, hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Triffids discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Triffids discography. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:17, 30 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Driven Under

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSONG. Had three chart positions but has no coverage in reliable sources. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 17 August 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 To Hrono Stamatao. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hronia Polla

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG; been in CAT:NN hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 19:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to To Hrono Stamatao. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:58, 21 August 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 Freaky Styley. RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood (Africa)

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG; been in CAT:NN hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 19:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freaky Styley. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freaky Styley due to failing the requirements of WP:NSONG. The song has inspired some fan trivia, but nothing beyond things that could be mentioned briefly at the album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 22 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made in the Shade (song)

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG; been in CAT:NN hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 19:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:26, 17 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Divorce

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG; been in CAT:NN hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 19:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the song: [4], [5] and [6]; and a few which briefly talk about the song: [7], [8] and [9]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, enough new sources, especially book sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:31, 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 12:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:25, 28 August 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 Fiji–United States relations. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Woltz Skiff

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

Ambassadors are not even default notable, let alone acting heads of an embassy for which we have no indepdent sources, just employer published information, and even that just amounts to extremely passing mentions with no substance John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fiji–United States relations. My searches don't reveal sufficient WP:SIGCOV to warrant a stand-alone article, but per WP:DIPLOMAT, Skiff's status as the first U.S. head of mission in Fiji when diplomatic relations and the embassy were established in 1971 warrants mention in the article on Fiji–United States relations. I've added such mention there. Cbl62 (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cbl62. Diplomats are not "inherently" notable in the absence of a properly sourced pass of WP:GNG — if you have to rely mainly on the US Department of State's own self-published content about its own staff because media coverage about his work in the role is nonexistent, and you otherwise have to use a quick glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that wasn't about him and a wedding announcement to get any actual media sourcing into the article at all, then he hasn't cleared the bar. It's a significant enough role to include their names in lists, but not necessarily significant enough that they would each require a standalone biographical article without regard to sourceability issues. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 24 August 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 Expecting to Fly (album). Vanamonde (Talk) 06:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetonic

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG; been in CAT:NN for ten years hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 19:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Expecting to Fly (album). ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 19:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Bluetones were one of the UK's biggest indie bands at the time, both with music critics and the public (indeed, the parent album went straight in at no. 1 on the UK Albums Chart) and I'd put money on this single having being reviewed and covered in NME and Melody Maker at the time. It was the NME critics' no. 20 single of 1995 [10], and no. 13 in the equivalent Melody Maker list [11]. I accept that there are next to no reliable sources at the moment apart from the UK chart position, but if this isn't kept, a redirect is definitely the better option for now, because I strongly believe this can be resurrected in the future with more sources from print publications. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Expecting to Fly (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. The sources presented by Richard can be discussed in the album. SBKSPP (talk) 02:56, 21 August 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 The Fading#Discography as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 19:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos in Flesh

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

Independently released (i.e. not on a record label) EP. The article cites one "review", just a points rating with no rationale, which in other words doesn't count as coverage. Geschichte (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any sources about this band either. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found to be not notable, after a thorough search. gidonb (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Fading#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Objecting to the suggested redirect as The Fading is not primary to this song title. Delete and dewiki is the best way forward. gidonb (talk) 07:28, 22 August 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 delete. The page was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as unambiguous promotion and a copyright violation. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sintax

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

Written like an advertisement and fails WP:NBAND. Geschichte (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Band of niche interest. I do not see a breakthrough as of yet. Fails WP:NBAND and the WP:GNG or, with a positive twist, we can call it WP:TOOSOON. Geschichte, thank you for nominating!!! You may want to open your arguments with and focus on the NN claim as this is the important one. Articles can be fixed. For future nominations... gidonb (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from their total unnotability, this is not a Wikipedia article in any way. Wouldn't be surprised if this is copied from somewhere (most likely a festival site or the band's site or something along these lines). COI also applies, as this was the only edit of the creator before he vanished into thin air. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G11 / G12. The page is so blatantly promotional because it's copied wholesale from their website; I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Jack Frost (talk) 10:36, 22 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Count to Ten (film)

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

Does not pass the GNG as far as I can tell – the only reference listed gives it a passing mention and no more. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film was selected to compete for the Golden Lion at the Berlin Film Festival. I found some coverage in Spanish, and if my Spanish was any good (which it isn't), I'm sure there is more. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I can speak Spanish – do you mind telling me what the sources are? Mover of molehills (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this 2016 La Nación report on Oscar Martínez career, or this 2020 interview with director Oscar Barney Finn. Darius (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user Lugnuts.--Darius (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it competed for the top award at the Berlin Film Festival.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stephens (musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable session musician/sound engineer, fails WP:MUSICBIO, all sources are trivial, simple credit lists, or unrelated to the subject. Question-mark promotional, subject is barely mentioned in any of the articles about bands he has been in. Was previously nominated by User:Instawisdom in January 2012 but closed with no comments. No independent sources have emerged since then. Jdcooper (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jdcooper (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EMF (band). KidAd • SPEAK 21:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he is a member of a late-period nostalgia version of EMF, having joined about 20 years after their last album. Joining that operation is not particularly notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately this process is tough for this type of journeyman musician, who has played for/with a whole bunch of notable bands but has never received reliable music media coverage in his own right, and is only ever briefly mentioned as present for whatever band he's with that week. Not enough for a standalone article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:11, 25 August 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. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet the higher standard needed for a BLP. Seddon ^talk 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Winslow

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

Isn't notable besides being the first ever female UFC referee, and one of the worst MMA referees ever. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 16:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nominator. Furius (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. "Per nominator" means you agree with the nomination, but your vote is the opposite. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's his way of saying that the topic's '1st ever female' and 'worst ever' statuses, as acknowledged by the nominator, already prove the subject is notable – a lazy and derisive dismissal of the nomination, with no attempt to back his own argument with sources. Avilich (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every claimed first x to do y makes one notable. We actually need reliable secondary indepdent sources covering it to show it is something that is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard - this comment was made by a now-blocked editor (for sock-puppetry and disruption) just 1 minute after their comment at a different AFD. They couldn't possibly have conducted a search for sources and their track record suggests an entirely different reason for seeking this article's deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor was unblocked at the time he voted and is currently unblocked. That's not a valid reason to throw out his vote, though your point about the speed of his vote is worth considering. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 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) 17:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being the first woman to serve as a referee of a notable sport is absolutely a solid claim to notability in and of itself. But that - and criticism of her - means there is plenty of significant coverage of her including this, this follow-up to that (and this one), things like this, and various dirt-sheets critical of her work as a referee. Significant coverage doesn't mean "significant positive coverage" and while that is unfortunate for the subject, I don't think notability is in question. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - first woman referee in a very notable sport which is very very male-dominated is notable. And infamy is notable - if we say "one of the best" is notable, then so is "one of the worst". --Xurizuri (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you would think being the first woman referee of MMA would be notable, but there are no reliable sources that cover this in any depth. The sources linked above are horrible. A sensationalised headline in the bleacher report, which is basically a published rant from a dissatisfied fighter. The rest are worse. This is a BLP and we require much better sources than have been presented here to justify holding an article on someone. Not to mention given the nomination statement above it is an article likely to attract numerous BLP violations. Aircorn (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:1E. I also endorse Aircorn's comment above. Most of the sources are fluff except for the last one, fighthype, which, as an interview, is not independent of the subject and is too personal to be considered encyclopedic. Avilich (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, although the argument for deletion looks more convincing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where is the GNG coverage? And especially if the existing coverage is negative we need to have strong sourcing for inclusion of that material in a BLP -- which this bio certainly does not have. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I thought it would be easy to show she's WP notable, but there is a lack of significant independent coverage. My search found lots of comments, overwhelmingly negative, but they're from unreliable or not independent sources. I don't agree with the "first x to do y is notable argument", unless the subject meets WP:GNG--and I don't think that's true in this case. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainers in Christian media

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

Prod was contested because "lists are genereallly incomplete, so that's not an objection", yet that was not the main concern. It has no criteria for inclusion. This is better addressed with a category such as Category:American performers of Christian music and Category:Christian music songwriters. If all entertainers in Christian "media" (music, radio, TV, film, stage, etc.) were included, it would be inordinately large as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too vague and broad to include ministers, TV hosts, actors, producers, musicians, et al. Such a weird list, Mel Novak is ordained, but not "in Christian media". Reywas92^Talk 17:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, but because he appeared in film, somehow qualifies. The subject's appearance in film is unrelated to the subject's involvement with Christianity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article does attempt to provide a criterion for inclusion in the list in its opening paragraph, but what strikes me is that it seems to include pastors who "have their own ministry". I'm not an expert, but I was always under the impression that being engaged in the ministry was not the same thing as being in showbusiness (except for "high church Anglicanism", of course), so I'm not clear how this is going to work. Overall, I'm inclined towards Delete unless someone can come up with a clear rule for determining who appears on this list and who doesn't. RomanSpa (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far too broad and vague. ~~Better to have more focused lists like List of television evangelists~~. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the categories we have (some mentioned above) do a much better job of what this list is trying to do. I have queries about what might qualify as "Christian media", especially considering the broadcast of the Papal Mass and the inclusion of prayer before televised football games, but that's probably all moot. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Nitesh003 (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe move some of the info to more specific pages if that's feasible. What is Christian media? Christian rock? Biblical movies? The Chronicles of Narnia?? It seems too broad for an essay, let alone a list of people. I don't see it being a very useful list. Anecdotally it can be hard to pigeonhole artists and entertainers as "Christian" or not (there's disagreement over which bands are "Christian bands" or not), I think that'll be a problem with this one as well. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- when WP was in an early stage of developing, lists were useful as a means of identifying (by red links) articles that were missing; there may still be a place for that on occasions. Today, a list such as this is just INDISCIMINATE information, where inclusion criteria may include the editor's POV as to what (or who) is important. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 23 August 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) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Street

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

Possibly unnotable road that fails WP:GEOROAD. Two of the three sources result to error messages. The only intact source, [12], mentions the road only trivially but mainly discusses the mall (this is better for the article of the mall and not the road). For the two other sources, [13] is probably for a landmark along the road (and perhaps has same problem as the PhilStar's article) and [14] is probably for its designation. It is not listed as a national primary or secondary highway at Philippine highway network. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed the broken references and added two others. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have low expectations for roads and I see a couple of references here. This meets my expectations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been improved since nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I BOLD-ly removed the Greenfield District source, as it does not mention the road itself. Failed citation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-descript road in the financial district. Completely non-notable, it could be anywhere. scope_creep^Talk 23:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG per above argument. SBKSPP (talk) 02:21, 28 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BharatPe

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

The organization fails WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. If you take a close look at all the sources used in the article you’d note they are press releases/announcements and pr sponsored posts. For example see the first source used in the article. Furthermore WP:ORGDEPTH isn’t met. A before search turns up nothing concrete. Celestina007 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 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 Norwalk, Connecticut#Sports. Consensus is for a straight redirect, however article history is preserved if any existing content is appropriate to be merged. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews Field (Norwalk, Connecticut)

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

Non-notable former sports facility, nor marsh. There are not sufficient substantial, independent sources covering the subject. User:Namiba 14:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails GNG. No plausible redirect target as the Connecticut Wildcats article also seems to be on its way towards deletion/redirection. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Norwalk, Connecticut#Sports per below. Reasonable redirect target that already mentions Andrews Field. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Norwalk,_Connecticut#Sports (it seems to have a longer history as a town park/facility) or, facetiously, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. 'We built a playing field and it sank into the swamp, so we built a second playing field ....' See Mother Nature has home field advantage at Andrews Field. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norwalk, Connecticut#Sports. I would support a merge, but there isn't really any sourced content to merge. Deserves a passing mention in the article for Norwalk, nothing more. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 17 August 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 Edgemoor, Delaware. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Rose, Delaware

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

Another "lost in mechanical translation" case, as Delaware Place Names, the ultimate source for GNIS, calls this a "suburban development." As soon as it appears in maps and aerials, it is essentially distinguishable from the adjacent city. At best a city neighborhood, and all the GHits seem to be clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable neighborhood, fails GEOLAND and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article refers to Penn Rose as a community. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edgemoor, Delaware. It appears to be correct that this isn't actually its own thing, but merely a neighbourhood rather than a standalone place in its own right — but if you click on the municipal names on Google Maps to determine where the actual city limits are, the red arrow that denotes "Penn Rose" is outside the boundaries of Wilmington and inside the boundaries of Edgemoor. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Town articles should not even mention such generic subdivisions, so a redirect would not be appropriate, especially without minimal substantive coverage warranting inclusion. The Edgemoor article need not include this. Reywas92^Talk 04:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Reywas92^Talk 04:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect > Edgemoor, Delaware per Wikipedia:Geoland. Djflem (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edgemoor, Delaware. USGS maps show a single house in 1901 and 1904. By 1943 there is a housing development; things stay about the same through 1954, 1967, 1993 and 1997 (a reservoir is constructed atop the hill, and some buildings on its south side). Looking at Google satellite maps, there are a couple rows of houses, a water tower, a self-storage joint, a couple stores... for all the world, it seems like a subdivision of Edgemoor, and if there are no more sources that refer to Penn Rose as a distinct locale, I don't see the basis for an article. jp×g 22:54, 24 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Ellis (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

Actor has only been in smaller playhouse renditions of notable stories but not been part of notable stage productions. They have only had minors roles on any television and movie roles. The references that mention him are either a listing, profile or mentions in the reviews of the plays, therefore fails WP:NACTOR. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet the notability guidelines. Like I mentioned on the talk page, it is not to be confused with the Canadian actor (which the first deletion nomination was about). I know that I shouldn’t compare articles but look at Ben Lloyd-Hughes compared to this article. Both the actors were in Great Expectations (2012 film). Are you going to delete that article? Sahaib (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused are you saying they meet the criteria because they aren't Canadian and shared screen time with someone else that has a poorly referenced article? McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Significant roles: Main character (Anlance) in Dragon Quest Swords, Compeyson in Great Expectations (2012 film), Peck in How I Learned to Drive, Wiktor in The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler, Earl of Chester in Queen of the Desert (film), Aubrey in Parade's End (TV series), etc.Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. He has had multiple credited roles in notable films which, while not leading roles, are significant supporting characters (Compeyson being particularly important). That along with voicing the main character is a notable video game seems to put him on the keep side of the fence. I wish there were better sources to demonstrate SIGCOV which is why I voted weak keep.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am the original author of the piece, and I am grateful for all your comments. Just FYI, Ellis UK Theatre is definitely not "smaller playhouse renditions of notable stories but not been part of notable stage productions" - he was a leading man at Vaudeville Theatre (West End London), and played at Royal National Theatre / Theatre Royal, Bath etc... All his stage roles have been in major UK venues, not what I would call non-notable stage productions in the slightest. Film roles have been both significant and also smaller parts. I feel he is significant enough to be here although I'm relatively new to this space and I am unsure if I am allowed to say keep or not as, of course, I am the original author of the page. BarracudaBaby1980 22:18 (UTC)
I have had a little redraft and inputted some of the theatre credits into the relevant pages. The Importance of Being Earnest in which Ellis played a lead has been added to that page's production history as it is of worthy note. Similarly, I have added Prayer Room in which Ellis had a notable part that was critically written about, that has some wiki listed mentionable actors in it along side him.BarracudaBaby1980 16:24 (UTC)
I have also added a new reference for Ellis Video Game in which he voiced the lead character for English speaking version: Dragon Quest Swords for the Nintendo Wii. BarracudaBaby1980 16:49 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate improvements made to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - I'm convinced by the arguments put forward above and while the article itself still needs more work (it's not quite a matter of WP:HEY) I think there's probably enough to get the subject over the line (just). His role as the "main antagonist" in a high-quality film production of Charles Dickens' Great Expectations lends this argument weight, as do the multiple stage roles which include a number of leading roles. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has appeared in multiple notable filmsJackattack1597 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 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 George Zimmer#zTailors. History is preserved for any content to be merged. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZTailors

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as they're all based on interviews/quotes with related people or based on announcements. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company whose website now redirects to that of Generation Tux (whose article was submitted by a disclosed connected contributor). Both are mentioned in this Inc feature about the founder. Regarding zTailors, the available coverage is announcement-based, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Judging from this PR Generation Tux was envisaged as a front-end to zTailors, so a merge-redirect may be an option, but would I think need coverage of the relationship. In its own right, it fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to George Zimmer#zTailors, the company's founder, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard's suggestion of the page on the founder, which already has some (probably sufficient) coverage of this venture, seems a good redirect target. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I agree that a redirect is a good ATD HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 30 August 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. No rationale for deletion is presented, only for a move. The nominator (and only supporter) was blocked for their various personal attacks. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism

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

There is no schism between Constantinople and Moscow. Constantinople is the head of the Christian Orthodox Church and Moscow is an independent church, like all other, but under the Ecumenical Orthodox Church of Constantinople. There was an attempted Moscow schism on 2018 for reason to oppose the recognition of Ukrainian Church as Autocephalus. Until recently the Ukrainian Church was under the responsibility of Moscow, however according to the Orthodox rules and laws, if a state request to become independent under their own state authority, this right should be granded. Technically and literally this is none of Moscow business other than to meddling with Ukrainian Church affairs, of course for matters of control and power. This is not the first time Moscow try to undermine the Ecumenical Orthodox Church or even other independent churches.

The title of this article is clearly misleading and not true. Used for matters of propaganda which could be linked to Moscow's troll paid activity as we are all aware of.

There is no official statement of any schism either by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and all Orthodox Churches, or from the Moscow Church.

(2021) Ecumenical Patriarch: There is no schism in Orthodoxy https://orthodoxtimes.com/ecumenical-patriarch-there-is-no-schism-in-orthodoxy-i-have-no-right-to-take-a-step-back/

(2018) Russian Orthodox Church warns of violence and schism over Ukraine https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/russian-orthodox-church-warns-of-violence-and-schism-over-ukraine-1.3631073

Moscow have repeatedly tried and failed to overpower the Christian Orthodox Head in order to take over, in multiple attempts for the past 50 years.

A Schism between Constantinople and Moscow technically is not possible. There could be a Schism between Christian Orthodoxy and Moscow as a matter of scientific terms and fact.

It is advisable the article to be renamed as 2018 Moscow attempted schism or breakaway from the Christian Orthodoxy. However the article even if with impovment to the title, is hugely misleading and false.

There is no schism. More references available if necessary, definitely more than that exists in google search. --Charalampe (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator at best makes a case for a rename, not deletion. The topic of the 2018 schism, rift, dispute, or what have you is easily notable and covered by reliable sources: Moscow weighs up the consequences of Orthodox Church schism, [15], [16], https://www.vox.com/2018/10/17/17983566/russia-constantinople-ukraine-eastern-orthodox-schism-autocephaly. There is some recent denial from the Constantinople side that there is a schism (Orthodox leader denies schism crisis claims), but that does not make the topic any less notable.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @力: you created the article with the title "Moscow–Constantinople schism" (I then renamed it to "Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018)"). I inform you that @Charalampe: indirectly states the word "schism" in the article's title might have been due to some people being in some ways involved with "Moscow's troll paid activity". Veverve (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Clearly for Deletion.~~ As suggested even a proper change to the title, the article will still remain misleading. The topic indeed is notable but the article false. Unless the topic remains within the scope of the Autocephalus now Church of Ukraine and the related events, this article must be deleted. I present fact, other than speculations, the Othodox Times is specialized in Orthodox Church Journalism and offers a statement from the Ecumenical Orthodox Partiarch of all Orthodox Churches which states that there is no schism, and this makes it a fact. If there is a statement from the head of Moscow Church that states there is a schism or breakaway of Moscow Church from the Orthodox Church, then this could also be a fact, and this makes a dispute on the topic. Nonetheless to say, still in that case, this current wikipedia article will be misleading and false. The topic is notable, but the article is vague, misleading and innacurate. Keep in mind i present facts and official statements versus speculation and gossips of tabloids on the matter. --Charalampe (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Charalampe, if the topic is notable, the article should not be deleted. It should be corrected. Those are the kinds of things that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not in a deletion discussion. The talk page is at Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism. —valereee (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no official statement of any schism either by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and all Orthodox Churches, or from the Moscow Church. Well, the article states Met. Hilarion, head of the DECR stated: "As of today, we have very clearly stated: the fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has recognized a schismatic structure means for us that Constantinople itself is now in schism. It has identified itself with a schism. Accordingly, we cannot have the full Eucharistic communion with it." Hilarion added that when members of the Russian Orthodox of Moscow Patriarchate pay visits to the monasteries on Mount Athos, they cannot participate in the sacraments (for example, receive communion), and promised punishment to any priests who participate in the divine services together with the local clergy" (emphasis added). This is a quote from the official DECR website here.

Moreover, multiple sources in the lede uses the word schism; other sources I can give off the top of my head are this one, and this one who use the term "raskol" which means "schism" in this context. Veverve (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ There is an Official Statement of the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarch the head of all Orthodox Churches which states there is no schism Here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charalampe (talk • contribs)

Please !vote once, your nomination counts as a !vote.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Charalampe: The EP is no the "Head" of the E. Orthodox Church, nor the official spokesman of the E. O. Church. He is the head of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the primus inter pares (a purely honorific rank according to most E. O.) of the other autocephalous E. Orthodox Churches; he is nothing more. Moreover, why should we take his word for it on any matter? Veverve (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll point out the nominator is very new and quite likely doesn't know how to go about getting an article's title changed/content changed, maybe thought deletion was the only way. Please don't bite. —valereee (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The rules for Deletion Process are very clear and this article is eligable for Deletion.--Charalampe (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism: User Veverve changed my text, see Here and could it other changes than that. Please do not Vandalize. --Charalampe (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an unsigned template to the end of your unsigned comment is not vandalism. Please see WP:NOTVAND; Wikipedia uses a stricter definition of the word vandalism, and none of the times you have used the word have been actual vandalism. Please also don't remove the comments of others, as you did here. - Aoidh (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Veverve. Plenty of sources in the article to support the content, which easily meets WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The Head of the Orthodox Church and of all Orthodox says that there is no schism. I believe his statement is a fact and he is the source. Those you mentioned as sources are rather suggestions and included no official statement that states of a Schism. So the source in an institution or a government is suggestions of tabloids or the statements of the leaders?! I believe the statement of these institutions and their leaders. In this case we have a clear statement that states there is no schism. This coming from the head of the Orthodox Church, this is a fact. --Charalampe (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep The subject is clearly, self-evidently notable enough for an encyclopedia article about it. Disputes over terminology, naming, and other issues are part of the normal editing process, and should be carried out via discussions on the article talk page and not through the deletion process. This AFD nomination clearly appears to be out-of-process and there is no chance that an article in this state of development will be deleted. Recommend speedily closing this as keep per WP:SNOW. --Jayron 32 16:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Painfully) Strong Keep Yea, this user is having a very bad time of instead of nominated the page for deletion, just talk about of reconsider to renaming the page or something like that to pleased the user, at the 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism's talk page. But the writing sounds both painfully and hilariously insane (as well as immature, than my worst days in the past years) of why for deleting it. And because of this the user's acting (including its own talk page doesn't helping its own case), I will suggest to keep it, until some other user demand of change/renaming the page itself at it's talk page. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:26, 17 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Crush

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage to meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found just enough to where there's likely more coverage out there and where I think that there's enough to squeak by notability guidelines for films, but just barely. I had to really dig for what I was able to find and I do get the feeling that there might be more out there, but I couldn't find anything else other than what I've added. I'd like it if the coverage were less local (in the sources I added to the article) but again, this seems to barely squeak by. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per above. Seems to have enough significant coverage for WP:FILM. Namkongville (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. In addition to the Exclaim! review, the analysis from the Springer academic source indicates this is a very notable film. There's also this academic source going even more into detail about the film's femme fatale themes 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would mention that the doctoral dissertation provided by (I'm sorry, but I can't read that) isn't the best source, as while it can be considered reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it must be used care. BilledMammal (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are significant. Sonofstar (talk) 08:03, 24 August 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 have to disregard what Eiga-Kevin2 wrote, and the sources found by BuySomeApples have been found to be wanting in the subsequent discussion with arguments that have remained uncontested. Sandstein 15:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howl from Beyond the Fog

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

Was deleted with the rationale, "Decline PROD, several sources already cited", and no improvement. However, the sources are simple blurbs, listings, or mere mentions. Searches did not turn up enough to show it passes WP:GNG, and it doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. It's just you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiga-Kevin2 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it did get coverage from Our Culture Mag,[17] Dread Central,[18] and by Australian film critic Rob Hood.[19] I'm sure there are others that could be found with more digging. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:15, 4 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) 04:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per the sources listed above as well as another by Dread Central and one from Scified. Delete does not pass WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just a few things, Scified is not a reliable source (it's based on fan input); the Dread Central piece is advertising, not an actual article (you can tell because it promotes the sale of the DVD), the OurCulture piece is yet another short blurb. The link to Robert Hood, is to his blog, which is not necessarily a reliable source, and the link simply mentions the short film and is about something else entirely. So all-in-all, there's zero in-depth coverage of this short film. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: yeah, you're right. Sorry, I totally missed that. It doesn't appear that there is a great redirect target either. I'm switching my conclusion to delete. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 17 August 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 13:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujan Kranti Morcha

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

Bahujan Kranti Morcha

Organization which has no references and does not establish organizational notability. Article was already moved to draft space once, and has been moved back to article space, so that another move to draft space would be move warring. This stub does not speak for itself, and neither do its references (because they aren't there). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. unreferenced and little indication of notability; 'basic' search reveals little if any, SIGCOV. In addition to everything noted by Robert, has already been deleted as CSD A7 in April 2021; Deletion log seen here. Eagleash (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, created by a seemingly blocked editor. Eagleash (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, no indication of notability. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet the notability guidelines required by WP:ORG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. - Aoidh (talk) 19:25, 30 August 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) 13:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Protocol

AfDs for this article:

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

Clearly a COI article that only serves to promote the subject. Out of the 14 sources on the article, 2 are screenshots of the game, an about us page, press release, source code / binaries, repositories but hardly any significant third party indepth coverage that clears the burden of WP:GNG.

Not surprisingly, this article was deleted 4 times previously and eventually salted. After it's current recreation, it was again nominated for AFD in this debate, however due to many SPA editors, the debate resulted in "no consensus". Nearly all keep votes were from SPAs that signed up to "vote".

I think it is time to delete this article now because it is not really eligible for wikipedia in anyway. Drewziii (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Attempted to search for sources from usual WP:VG/S areas. Although the custom search for the project has two pages of hits, I found them to be empty directory listings (or invalid hits to the Times about other topics). Metacritic lists zero sources, reliable OR unreliable, with no critic reviews ever submitted, and not even any user reviews. GameSpot has a directory listing with some user reviews, but no publication review. Gry-Online has what appears to be a substantial text block describing the game, but is an encyclopedic/directory entry as well, with no score or actual review. Jeuxvideo has two short articles without a writer byline, nothing indepth, and pre-release. And that's about all I could actually find. There is of course the old GameSpy preview, which looks deceptively like it may have kinda been almost an interview, but that's before release and even if it helps with WP:N, it's a single source. They didn't bother to do a review after release. -- ferret (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could be relevant but article must be improved. GamedevExpert^{(Talk to GamedevExpert)} 5:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

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. Sandstein 15:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Junji Tanigawa

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No references given, just a resume and self-promotion page. Mikeblas (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, this is just a list of media projects taken up. No notability shown and according to the External Links, no notability exists. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST and what about the reference section ? Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Suitable references are required; those in the references section aren't suitable to demonstrate notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we should probably k*ep this. He seems to be a quite well-known designer in Japan, based on the kinds of gigs he has had. Another indication is that searching for "谷川じゅんじ" returned over 100 images of him. I can't read what the Japanese articles are saying though. I added a couple of weak sources to the article. We need a Japanese speaker to find the rest. The CV-links list has to be blown up. From what I saw in a search, I am pretty sure he is notable. --- Possibly ☎ 02:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the archive for the Goethe Institute article. Changing to Weak keep. There is sourcing out there, but so far it has been largely primary profiles and interviews. --- Possibly ☎ 02:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 17 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills

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

Unreferenced article in CAT:NN for 12 years. I couldn't establish that it meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG, but may be missing something due to language. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Tractors in India#Pittie Tractors, as this is the only place on WP this business is mentioned. Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find independent sources with enough coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely unsourced and fails WP:GNG. Nitesh003 (talk) 13:16, 21 August 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 03:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usablenet

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

PRODded with the rationale: "Fails the notability guideline for companies. Highly promotional tone. Created by a single-purpose account from LaunchSquad, a PR firm (see diff". NemesisAT removed the PROD, citing the existence of this Macworld article as a possible basis for notability. However, the article is nothing but a rewritten press release, based almost entirely on quotes from a Usablenet employee. This sort of churnalism is not considered to be an independent source for the purposes of NCORP, and thus the original concerns over notability remain valid. – Teratix ₵ 12:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources provided do not meet GNG, with none consisting of significant coverage on the subject. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:14, 24 August 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 Self withdrawn. Mainspace article has been moved by Btspurplegalaxy to draftspace hence making this request redundant. (non-admin closure) — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 00:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Chae-yeon (singer)

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

Person doesn't meet WP:BANDMEMBER criteria, a quick search on Naver shows subject is highly associated with Iz*One rather than individual. Fyr, there is Draft:Lee Chae-yeon (singer, born 2000) which has been rejected multiple times. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iz*One as an WP:ATD. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:05, 17 August 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 03:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2023 World Aquatics Championships

AfDs for this article:

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

This event is two years in the future. Does not meet NSPORT. Whiteguru (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until something more than the city is known. The next champs are the best part of a year off yet, and most of that article is about selecting the host. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and recreate when more information becomes available. One unreferenced sentence is not enough for an article on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 15:03, 25 August 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. Clear consensus that the article shouldn't be retained below. Inclusion in the list of supercentenarians appears to be sufficient so no merge required. Daniel (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Ligny

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

This article has nothing more than extremely trivial and non-notable content on the life of a person who has never done anything more than live to a very advanced age. Possibly the only useful paragraph in the whole article is the last one, and I propose that either the article be merged to a mini-bio at List of French supercentenarians or that it be deleted completely. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG with citations to Le Courrier Picard, France 3, and France Bleu. You might not think that someone should be notable for living to an advanced age (I sometimes think that people shouldn't be notable for playing sports), but if there are multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, they're in. Furius (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just fanfluff. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per numerous other Afds of supercentenarians, extreme age alone is not an indication of notability (per WP:BIO1E. WP:NOPAGE trumps GNG, all worthwhile encyclopedic information is contained in List of French supercentenarians. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- being supercentenarian alone does not neccessarily require person's article. Mention of her in List of supercentenarians by continent and other lists should be enough.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from being particularly old, she hasn't accomplished anything more in her life that a "normal" person has, and as such, I believe merits no article here. MattSucci (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Furius. 172.58.107.255 (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. 45.144.113.202 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer As a longtime editor in the topic of longevity, please look at the blocked edits on my talk page and the conversations I was mentioned in at here. The two above keep votes are not genuine and are by the same blocked editor. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chicdat and DerbyCounty. The sources that supposedly cause this article to meet GNG all detail mundane life facts that do not make a person notable. The subject's notability is solely contingent on her supercentenarian status, which means that BIO1E trumps GNG. Avilich (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Meets WP:GNG, but the article is too trivial for a relatively unknown person. I'd recommend merging it into the List of French supercentenarians, as a blurb over there would suffice. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOPAGE. All the encyclopedic content (name, life dates, nationality, age) are included succinctly at List of French supercentenarians and elsewhere. The article is fanfluff puffery, which is why half or more of the article is about other people, not her. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:NOPAGE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. WP:NOPAGE doesn't apply. 172.58.107.175 (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources in particular do you think demonstrate that GNG is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As others have mentioned, WP:BIO1E is an issue here. None of the sources seem to demonstrate why she is notable beyond her age. Inclusion in the lists mentioned by Melaleuca and Derby is sufficient. -Pax Verbum 07:07, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St Gregory's High School

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

The subject of the article is not notable enough. It has only two source cited. One of them is written by Rabi Purification, probably a former headmaster of the school.^[2] The other source is probably a supplement of the newspaper The Daily Star (Bangladesh);^[3] its reliability is not established. Lunush01 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's one of the oldest country's school with impressive list of alumni, including a prime-minister and a Nobel LaureateGorgonaJS (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lunush01 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lunush01 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "St Gregory's School – Banglapedia". en.banglapedia.org. Retrieved August 17, 2021.
^ Check the second-from-last headmaster name from the "Headmasters" section of the article and the name stated at the last of the source:^[1]
^ Khaleel, Aslam (December 2, 2007). "St. Gregory's: A portrait of glory and tradition". Star Campus. Retrieved August 17, 2021.

Keep. Historic school that clearly passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is one of the oldest schools founded in 1882 passes WP:GNG.Have added sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:High schools I take the position that all high schools are notable and we need only prove their existence. I do support trimming the article down to remove content without citations. I expect much of the article to be backed by primary sources. This seems to be a prominent school in Bangladesh's capitol city. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:17, 18 August 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 13:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generativity Theory

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

Concerns were raised on the talk page that this covers 2 similar theories. Unclear that this is a distinct concept and notable enough for a standalone article. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The existing sources are a random presentation about "creativity in the workplace", a dead link, and several writings by the inventor. A serious overhaul would be necessary to bring that up to code. For the earlier history of the term "generativity", see Generativity and Erikson's stages of psychosocial development. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the difficulty of finding evaluations of the topic that are clearly written, reliably published, and independent of its inventor. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 26 August 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. No consensus to delete or anything other than retain, after a 2 week listing period. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrike Frank

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

Successful actress, but I couldn't back up the claims to meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG with suitable sources - similar issues in her other language articles. Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In spite of the basically unsourced article, this subject seems to be notable under WP:NACTOR, criterion 1. She played a significant role in Gute Zeiten, schlechte Zeiten, which used to be one of the main staples of German daytime TV, and in Großstadtträume, a notable spin-off. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Modussiccandi's arguments. Koikefan (talk) 05:07, 25 August 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 03:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dweeb (band)

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

They don't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Has been in CAT:NN for 8 years; additionally, all its album articles are in CAT:NN, some for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for @Boleyn: - The band has two album articles, one of which you have already proposed for deletion. But action is needed for the other, Feels Like Dynamite. We don't want that one to fall through the cracks if the band's article is deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The issue above has been resolved. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to fail WP:NBAND. Geschichte (talk) 19:05, 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 11:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one is a close call because they did get some media notice, including the two articles that are currently cited, plus this: [20]. However, I could not find much else, and the coverage they received appears to be local/regional. I don't think it quite adds up to the significant coverage needed for notability, but they did come rather close. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not satisfy WP:NBAND.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:23, 24 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Altametrics

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Best source I was able to find was this (archived version of source 2 in the article), though its independence seems pretty dubious. – Teratix ₵ 09:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 09:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 09:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 09:22, 17 August 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. Even after disregarding Bellaclarita's contribution - angry questions to the nominator are not valid arguments to keep an article - we don't have agreement about whether this group is notable separate from its revue. Sandstein 15:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flower Troupe

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

While the revue is itself notable, this troupe is not. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage about this troupe, by itself, to pass WP:GNG. Would redirect, but another editor insists on recreating. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep While I really should respond like another one of Onel5969's victims - "I disagree. It's just you.", let me point out the obvious.

1. The so-called "searches" that were done, where were these done? How many people had done it? Searching on Yahoo Japan, Google, or Twitter? Searching for Japanese topics and trying to read Japanese text using Google translate? Or just searching for English info? Because if searches were done using the 2 former methods, the sheer amount of Takarazuka-related Japanese Wikipedia pages alone should've kept you busy for the next 3 months, and have no time to be typing here.

2. Let's assume for a moment that, to have the confidence to decide an individual listing of a Takarazuka troupe unnecessary, Onel5969 has sufficient knowledge of the Takarazuka Revue: So please, take look at the chart and explain to us why there are such terms as "School Year" and "Graduated". Explain to us why a theatre company with a limited fanbase needs to have 5 teams (400+ members) and how the teams rotate, how the performances are planned and scheduled. Explain to us the difference between the 5 troupes. Which one is known to have the best dancers? Which one is known to have taller members? Which one is known for the best sword fights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellaclarita (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe it's just me, but Bellaclarita's questions above seem to rub me the wrong way. If there is more information that ought to be in the article but isn't there, I would hope that editors who want this article kept would add that information rather than quizzing the nominator about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Metropolitan90. Anyone nominating an article for deletion should be able to explain the basis for their nomination and should be able to respond to questions about it. They don't need to do a ton of research, but the fact that questions are asked is a good thing. It is true that a Google search on a Japanese topic is not likely to turn up coverage that may exist in Japanese-language sources. At the same time, the person asking the question should be willing to meet the nominator half way and offer some support for their vote. Deleting an article should not be done lightly. This article is not well written, and the majority of it is devoted to an historical list of personnel, which is not very encyclopedic. But before deleting, let's at least carefully consider serious questions that are raised. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Takarazuka is of course notable. One option would thus be to merge the useful information in this article into Takarazuka, but I think this would unbalance the main article. The main article clearly explains the differences between the troupes, but doesn't (and I think probably shouldn't) include information about specific activities of the different troupes. I was able to find clear evidence from Google that different troupes have different styles and perform different repetoires. For example, I was able to find evidence of one troupe being more likely to perform adaptations of Shakespeare, while another troupe (the Star Troupe) travelled to put on shows in Taiwan that crossed over to Taiwanese local traditions ( https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3375919 ). Ultimately I suspect that each of the five troupes will end up with their own articles, linked from the main article and providing specialist information. Obviously this isn't information that every Wikipedia reader is ever going to read or care about, but if you're into this kind of thing I'm pretty sure you're going to want this level of granularity. RomanSpa (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 09:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Takarazuka Revue. I'm sure this article is useful to those who already know all about this topic, but I would prefer to redirect this page and let other editors try again later to write an article that provides more context. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure this is a helpful suggestion: part of the advantage of this separate article is that it allows us to highlight the particular features and activities of this troupe, which are different from those of other troupes. A redirect without a merge would lose useful information, but a merge would tend to unbalance the main article on Takarazuka. In effect you're currently saying "redirect, then let other editors write another version of this article", which seems very odd; surely the best thing is to let this article stand, and let it be gradually improved. RomanSpa (talk) 13:40, 20 August 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gillette Ridge Golf Club

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this subject is notable, unless someone can find references to the contrary. The page could also be redirected or merged into Arnold Palmer. I know next to nothing about golf, so I'd like to hear if others more knowledgeable on the subject think redirecting or merging is worthwhile as opposed to deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep with the improvements that have been made to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added an article from the Journal Inquirer which discusses this golf course, and appears to be an independent, reliable source. The Courant article already cited is WP:SIGCOV. Additional articles at The Courant: announcement of plans to build the course and naming of the course. I believe there is room for expansion and that the course passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added the two additional Courant articles to this article and added more content. NemesisAT (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Article seems to meet GNG now. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG by a distance. This is a WP:MILL golf facility. There is nothing significant in the sources that have been added, they are just routine local-interest reporting and announcements relating to commercial/housing developments; no in depth coverage about the golf course. In fact there are no sources on the golf club/course beyond the usual wide-ranging listings and review sites which contribute nothing to establishing notability. A possible WP:ATD would be to merge into Cigna as that is what most of the sources in the article are actually about. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 09:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think a merge into Cigna would be beneficial because that article is about a healthcare and insurance company, this one is about a golf course. The content here would not be relevant at Cigna, and you make it harder to access and lose the location data by merging it into Cigna. I disagree with the above commenter that this fails GNG, as it does not exclude local coverage. WP:MILL is just an essay, the important point in my view is that this passes GNG and thus should be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of a merge along the lines of a single sentence (maybe two), since that is all this warrants due to the almost total lack of substantial content. Trivial mentions of the golf course in articles about the overall development of the site are not significant coverage of the golf course; this fails GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:59, 17 August 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. Main advocate for keeping blocked for UPE. This does not necessarily mean all their comments are rendered null and void, but I have to give them much less weight, and therefore consensus is quite clear. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kleff

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Increasingly lacking in confidece that this is a notable article. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 13:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Does seem to have decent coverage, although almost entirely from Real Estate Magazine Thailand. His works have received some recognition such as his Ocean Villas winning the 2012 Thailand Property Award for best Boutique Condo which can be used to satisfy point 4 or WP:ARCHITECT, but I'm not sure about the independence of this coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- After additional input regarding the sources below, I'm changing my !vote to delete as the sources are not reliable/independent enough to meet GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The content including reference links to Mod Dam 1199 R, Thailand Dragon and lifestyle was removed and edited just before the page was suggested for deletion. This seems strategic and should be explored. Claiming that Mario Kleff is not an artist is a false claim. He is mentioned as an artist in newspapers and books.[21] Google Books Meow2021 (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC) — Meow2021 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The term an artist was removed as producing several folio's from The Book of Kells isn't evidence that he passes WP:NAUTHOR. The award described above is corporate award and is non-notable. I will review the refences later to determine if he notable architect or designer. scope_creep^Talk 15:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I don't understand. Perhaps there's more to learn about the Wikipedia rules. Thanks for the clarification, however. Meow2021 (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Regards[reply]

Delete Aside from the long-term history (11 years, to be precise) of promotion (and obvious sockpuppeting at the first AfD), I am not convinced by the sources that this person is notable. The article claims seem to be accompanied by very marginal proof of accomplishment. --- Possibly ☎ 17:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing (including the inspirepattaya.com piece linked above) all appears to come from outfits that deal in Native advertising, making it impossible to establish that this is really independent coverage. While 'Real Estate Magazine Thailand' was a print publication, judging from their website it was a free 'delivered around town whether you want it or not' book of ads for real estate listings. - MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article and, as per MrOlllie, most of the sources are native advertising, therefore the subject lacks independent coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The weight of evidence seems to indicate he fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 23:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Promotional or non-promotional is a matter of interpretation. I created this article on the development of Pattaya. Mr. Mario Kleff appears and stands out. I found his story remarkable, and still do. However, I can agree that this may not be noteworthy at the international level. Yet there are things noteworthy in his life and work that cannot be described as promotional or non-artistic. I hereby disagree. I did research to better understand feedback as I'm a newbie to Wikipedia and still don't understand all of the regulations. The translation of past newspaper articles clearly shows that he studied art and design, and there have been a number of notable exhibitions including at the Gutenberg Museum Mainz and the Diocesan Museum Trier. Maybe as a journalist I should be questioning myself... delete it if you want, but the process of how certain editors have tried this since I wrote about proves something too... Also, in the first deletion says "low-level designer"... I mean, what kind of statement is that? The man likely created much of Pattaya city, including confirmed inventions in building construction. But some Wikipedia editors have created nothing but emotional statements. Prove to me that contributing to Wikipedia can be a waste of time. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Meow2021: Do you still have sources on those notable exhibitions? Those would bolster the case for keeping the article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer @Qwaiiplayer: I did intensive research while creating all the articles. The most relevant links to this particular article have been used, I have not included unsuitable sources, e.g. Mainz News: Mario Kleff and Urs Düggelin in the Gutenberg Museum Mainz 1993, Ireland and the Book of Kells, not A Masterpiece Of Expressiveness - The artist Mario Kleff copied the Book of in 1997 Kells in the Episcopal Cathedral and Diocesan Museum Trier, which required an installation of Macromedia Flashplayer to view it in the Firefox browser, Chrome would not work. It is also said that he studied art and design and worked as an art director for a company in Munich, which suggests that he is an artist. It seemed that there were years of artistic work between 1993-1997. Tried to make the most of it. In all honesty, I still don't get the discussion about this article. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To my knowledge, all this information is factually verifiable and non-contentious. If this is considered insufficiently "notable", then thousands of other Wikipedia entries which are far less notable will need to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:fb1:135:fe32:b809:a040:df5f:d8ef (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why do you want to delete Mario Kleff?! This article is about a designer and engineer who lives in Pattaya and seems to be properly prepared. Be sure to keep it. Also, I suggest to bring back the full article to give the reader a better picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.204.221.186 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please note that the above two IP accounts have no other edits to date. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: What is your note supposed to mean? Does it mean that my opinion should not be recognized in an open discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.204.221.186 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:223.204.221.186 just above appears to be within the same dynamic range (Triple T Internet Company Limited) as an earlier Commons IP edit, seemingly ascribed to Meow2021.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Controversial figure in the Pattaya area. Loads of native advertising, non-RS sources etc that swamps any Google search. However, if you search hard enough, you can find enough to satisfy GNG from reporting of opposition to his schemes. I've only looked in English language sources, there may be more in Thai sources. To clarify a statement above, the sockpuppetry etc took place 11 years ago, rather than it has been going on continuously for over 11 years (unless there is something I don't know about). --John B123 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: You seem to have a habit of posting comments like these without providing the actual sources, or evidence to the contary. The normal course would be to post WP:THREE reference to prove its notable. Can you do that, please? scope_creep^Talk 14:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: That seems extremely biased. Your opinion above that he fails he fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV is accepted, but my opinion he does is challenged. That is one of the reasons I try and avoid AfDs. --John B123 (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: You don't seem to be. That is not biased. You have made a statement without evidence. That is the normal process in WP:AFD for more than a decade now. Provide WP:THREE refs to prove the article is notable, and then the Afd can come to a stop, immediately. Saying they're is evidence there, there without showing the evidence is just that, a statement, with no validity. scope_creep^Talk 15:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:, @John B123:That's exactly what I can't understand on Wikipedia! Editors should discuss and help each other rather than competing for rankings. I believe the references given are strong enough for this article. I only read from claims that these references are promotional or even paid advertisements in local magazines. Where is the evidence of that? Why is so little discussion about the article and content, the facts written down? This I want to know. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) a statement, with no validity, no more than your statement above hence my comment. Whilst on the subject of AfD procedures, the nomination of the article is taken as read that the nominator !votes delete, so doesn't add a separate !vote within the discussion. However, I've got far more constructive things to do with my time than argue over this so have struck through my "statement". --John B123 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: I'm sorry, You didn't need to do that. I thought it would be a timesaver. I'll search for three references and do a review of the current refernces. scope_creep^Talk 15:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of his projects have been covered by news website The Thaiger.[22][23] The site falls a bit more on the tabloidish side of the news spectrum, but the coverage isn't quite positive so it's presumably not sponsored and should count as independent. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is promotional. I reviewed all the sources ever used in the article. There is some very minimal coverage in independent, reliable sources, but mostly, it's over-the top promotion. International star architect... I don't think so. They have better coverage than this:
- [24] tearsheet from , note that merits.partners is run by Kleff
- [25] tearsheet from Lifestyle, a supplement to Pattaya People Weekly (http://pattayapeople.com/)
- dead link
- dead link
- dead link
- dead link
- dead link
- [26] looks like a press release, but source is used in 23 other articles
- [27] dead link only used in articles about Kleff or related topics (Cellular beam, Wongamat Tower and Mario Kleff)
- [28] dead link
- [29] dead link
- [30] dead link
- [31] dead link
- [32] dead link
- [33] dead link
- [34] dead link
- [35] dead link
- [36] dead link
- [37] dead link
- [38] dead link
- [39] dead link
- [40] dead link
- [41] seems OK, isbn 9783790201642
- [42] PediaPress is definitely not a reliable source
- [43] dead link
- [44] two sentences mention Kleff only briefly, but the author refers to him as "the famous architect Mario Kleff."
- [45] self-published: Source: Mario Kleff
- [46] half a sentence: "and Mario Kleff – a renowned German architect"
- [47] tearsheet from ReM, ([48], formerly realestatemagazinethailand.com I think) refers to him as "international star architect Mario Kleff"
- [49] Not a published source
- [50] doesn't mention Kleff, refers to "foreign husband, nationality unconfirmed"
- [51] provides some coverage, appears independent
- [52] doesn't mention Kleff, source is 77kaoded, links to * [53] dead link
- [54] self-published
- some coverage in the Aachener Zeitung
- [55] author is a "contributor"
- [56] doesn't mention Kleff.
- [57] doesn't mention Kleff.
- [58] only says: Der Künstler und Designer Mario Kleff kopiert das "Book of Kells". (English: The artist and designer Mario Kleff copies the "Book of Kells".)
- [59] doesn't mention Kleff.
- [60] Single sentence: "Der Künstler Mario Kleff hat das Buch als Faksimile kopiert und somit der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht." (English:The artist Mario Kleff has copied the book as a facsimile and thus made it accessible to the public.)
- [61] youtube is not a reliable source
- [62] youtube is not a reliable source

Vexations (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the difficulties in this article, it was no less difficult to keep track of and get all the facts and information. However, for me, there is no doubt about the validity of Mario Kleff and his work. As mentioned earlier, I am in no way affiliated or related to the subject, but I am a journalist who works in Pattaya and I know what is in town. The story is rather interesting and I've been trying to sort things out. Please do what you are supposed to, but do it without emotion. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came across this article and discussion but I know nothing about this man. However, while reading the story and reference links, I would suggest saving them. There seems to be a lot of effort re-establishing the information and links provided. I don't think it harms Wikipedia or overrates this person. To me it doesn't read as an advertisement, maybe a little colorful in the news articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8851:8ce1:edad:17dc:5c05:e9da (talk) — 2403:6200:8851:8ce1:edad:17dc:5c05:e9da (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Editor 223.204.221.186. Another WP:SPA who has never added content to any Wikipedia article. scope_creep^Talk 09:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hint! After looking at the history, it appears to be a different editor. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You should give people easier access to participate !! I found it very difficult to find the comments section. I don't like this fella but he did some great things here in Pattaya. So if my vote counts keep it then — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.47.155.200 (talk • contribs)

Editor 1.47.155.200 . Another WP:SPA who has never added content to any Wikipedia article. scope_creep^Talk 11:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Disappointment - After being invited to join the discussion about whether or not to delete / keep / improve the article, I now feel like Editor John B123: better not to waste time and open the arena to those who can decide what to do when and how to do it. There is no real discussion and attention for improvement here, but rather assertions and cherry-picking. Now what about the article... what's the next step? Hello, anyone home? Meow2021 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meow2021, the Afd runs for seven days. It might be worth reading WP:AFD and WP:THREAD. Everytime somebody makes a comment, the new entry pops up in their watchlist. scope_creep^Talk 17:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you scope_creep for feedback and info, didn't know. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have restored the comment by Vexations, which was massively refactored by Meow2021. Meow2021, that is not OK, do not change the comments of others. you are being quite disruptive here. --- Possibly ☎ 21:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: ~~Am I? I haven't changed anything as the editing history proves. I only responded to the suggested information in chronological order. AfD's appear to be difficult.~~ I just saw your feedback on my talk page. Regards, Meow2021 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reviewing the article sources, and considering Vexations analyses thereof, I am not finding that this person meets WP notability criteria WP:GNG nor WP:NARCHITECT. The proliferation of SPA's on this AfD, and refactoring of other editors posts is also troubling. It also seems there may be some double !vote errors. Some advise to Meow2021: please let the AfD process unfold naturally. Netherzone (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi everyone, after reading the links on the Wikipedia rules you are referring to, I started to understand why the article I created and tried to defend is weak, especially when it comes to noteworthy links and statements. It seems that regardless of verified or unverified information on a topic in magazines or newspapers, "notable" is being challenged, so is the article. Thank you editors for your participation and feedback on this matter. No insult or attack was meant. Regards, Meow2021 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have never seen this before, but Mario Kleff has two different promotional biographies devoted to himself at the Wandee Group web site. One and two. This may be relevant for those assessing sources and wondering how much promotion is behind them. --- Possibly ☎ 06:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That first one somewhat resembles a Wikipedia page. including the infobox, over 1000 wikilinks and images already uploaded to commons,and links to contributions by users MarioKleff and Wongsin.Vexations (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A third weblink with some background content can be found here (I saw it months ago).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe that link should be posted to COIN? Netherzone (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After spending a little more time researching, I found articles about Mario Kleff and his work with the Book of Kells. Exhibitions e.g. Gutenberg Museum confirmed. Search results on pages 52 - 56[63] Meow2021 (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genious is a business information site, information in the form of blog, press-releases, whitepapers, research papers put out by companies. They would not be independent. The merits above is content for website. It is not independent either. scope_creep^Talk 10:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant entry seems to be either https://www.genios.de/document?id=TV__1297130085&src=hitlist&offset=550, or https://www.genios.de/document?id=TV__1297110012&src=hitlist&offset=550 which references an 67- or 76-word article in the de:Trierischer Volksfreund, a local newspaper. It's not a link to the article itself, so it's not a citation at all, merely clue that the Volksfreund published an announcement for a "Dia-Vortrag" (a slide lecture) in the local library. Not a great source.Vexations (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Newspapers such as Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Allgemeine Zeitung [64], Rhein Zeitung [65] , General-Anzeiger, Süddeutsche Zeitung [66], Paulinus [67] published articles about Mario Kleff and the Book of Kells, work and exhibitions. I've downloaded and translated some. Meow2021 (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post up links to the best three per WP:THREE, so they can be examined. scope_creep^Talk 13:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not required that sources are in English, nor do they need to be translated, but they do need to be cited in such a way that it is possible for other editors to find the source. Just saying that something was published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine is not sufficient. The name date of publication, title, author are the minimum. A URL is optional, but not required. I would advise against translating a source though, especially if one is not a native or near-native speaker. (Noting that Meow2021 claims to speak English, Thai and Chinese, but doesn't mention German). Vexations 21:53, 16 August 2021. The sig machine is down. Sig added by scope_creep^Talk 21:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: I appreciate your advice, but I don't speak German. [68] Meow2021 (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide URL links to the articles, so we can examine them. I can read German. scope_creep^Talk 23:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Tried. Links to articles appear to be reserved for paid access.

... The Munich artist Mario Kleff has meticulously traced 14 pages from this unique specimen on parchment following the model in detail. These replicas can be seen together with information boards on the genesis work..., Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, August 13, 2001, No. 186. p. 62

... In 1990, this gave the now 33-year-old painter and designer Mario Kleff , who was fascinated by the Book of Kells, with the idea of tracing the book down to the last detail with the orginal colors and on calf's parchment and thus preserving it for posterity ... In February 1993 Kleff was able to present five finished pages in the Gutenberg Museum Mainz ..., Allgemeine Zeitung, 06/29/00

... A few weeks ago, the artist Mario Kleff was a guest in the Bishop's Cathedral and Diocesan Museum, who made it his business to copy the "Book of Kells". Some of these re-painted pages can be seen in the facsimile exhibition in the Episcopal Cathedral and Diocesan Museum ... Paulinus, No. 42, p. 11

... The German art expert Mario Kleff (born in 1967) has been making a duplicate based on a bet for about ten years Gospels. In the meantime 30 of about 700 pages have been reproduced. 15th his precise works are exhibited in the Calauer Landkirche and can be compared with the originals ... Lausitzer Rundschau, 08/28/2003

... About 1200 years ago three monks wrote and illustrated in Ireland infinite ingenuity on veal parchment the four gospels in Latin language. The Munich artist Mario Kleff left this Handwriting with with original recipes meticulously handcrafted ..., Rhein-Zeitung, 02.03.1999 / LOK

There is more on this subject. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spent time and research creating the article on Mr. Mario Kleff, helped to keep it. Information above along with other references found on Google Books [69] and Google News [70] should be viewed as factually verifiable. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meow2021. but I don't speak German You just wrote: I've downloaded and translated some. Did you mean that you used machine translation? Not necessary. We can do that too, and some of us speak German. Better give the German text. But do provide a proper reference please. Vexations (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations To links provided you answered Genious is a business information site, information in the form of blog, press-releases, whitepapers, research papers put out by companies. They would not be independent. Since you speak German, I recommend that you download and read, or translate if you don't [71]. Quote scope_creep The name date of publication, title, author are the minimum. A URL is optional, but not required. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and before I forget, paywalled sources are also acceptable. Not so great is a reference to the F.A.Z. without a title and author. BTW, the F.A.Z. has a page where it lists its articles from August 13, 2001 at https://www.faz.net/artikel-chronik/nachrichten-2001-august-13/. I don't see anything there about Kleff though. https://fazarchiv.faz.net/fazSearch/index/searchForm?q=%22Mario+Kleff%22&search_in=&timePeriod=timeFilter&timeFilter=&DT_from=&DT_to=&KO%2CSO=&crxdefs=&NN=&CO%2C1E=&CN=&BC=&submitSearch=Suchen&maxHits=&sorting=&toggleFilter=&dosearch=new#hitlist yields some results, but those are in the Rhein-Main-Zeitung (the regional edition), not the F.A.Z. In other words, the citation "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, August 13, 2001, No. 186. p. 62" fails verification, and you admittedly can't read it in the original German, nor do you have access, because it's paywalled. Vexations (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: Search more! Quelle: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Zeugnis fruhen Christentums, 13.08.2001, Nr. 186, S. 62

Why should I do more work to find a source that you cannot correctly identify? If you already have it, show it to us. Vexations (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if refs exist, it sounds like trivial human interest material. He traced and colored pages from the notable manuscript, notability is not inherited. This is not original work by an artist, it'a a stunt. I can't see how this act of tracing a manuscript could pass the criteria for notability for artists per WP:NARTIST. It sounds like more PR-placement of news-release coverage. Netherzone (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless, the article Mario Kleff contains over 27 reference links as well as new information revealed on this page; Information that they claim is promotional and unverifiable. ~~Keep~~ - unless you can prove incorrect information. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meow2021 you have already !voted once, double !voting is not permitted. I have struck your second K***. Netherzone (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is clearly heading toward deletion, but as there's some good-faith effort being made to examine the German sources, relisting for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 09:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for the opportunity. The article is now rewritten and hopefully meets the WP requirements. Please advise how to link German sources... Regards Meow2021 (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article is improved to read less promotionally now, but the fundamental issue is whether WP:NBIO is met, and I don't think the sources discussed above are of much benefit in this area. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree that the article has been significantly improved, but would like opinions on these WP:THREE German sources from a German speaking editor with access to them (last two are behind a paywall). Do they meet WP:GNG? [72] [73] [74] Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is a passing mentions, so is non-notable. It is not in-depth. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second article is a brief mention at 264 words is two small paragraphs, is not in-depth. Mentions the Books of Kells, a single event. scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the middle one? scope_creep^Talk 17:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Middle one is supposed to be the 3rd cited reference (Frankfurter Neue Presse. 25 August 2001) but it looks like it's using the wrong URL since it's identical to the one used in the 2nd reference. Regardless, thanks for your input and I'll be staying with my !vote above. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93:The nomination for the deletion claim, which relates to articles that lack in-depth information, is utter nonsense. In view of the evidence, Mr Mario Kleff has undoubtedly been known for years in connection with the Book of Kells. His work was presented in 1993 in the Gutenberg Museum Mainz, in 1997 in the Diocesan Museum Trier and from 1993 to 2000 in numerous other locations. His daughter is Jiang Li Wongsin. Mario Kleff is the director of Wandeegroup, Wandee Real Estate and Wandeegroup Asia with the given Thai name Thiti Teerachin. His wife is Nittaya Wongsin, they are married so it oviously that they both are linked to leopards. The article was fairly rewritten but again edited before the discussion closed. That seems like cherry picking to me; or personally?

Note: The following information that I found on the Wandeegroup website is not used to verify the article but to aid the information in question. It says here Jiang Li Wongsin[75], daughter of Mario Kleff and Nittaya Wongsin. Kleff was presented at the Trier Museum and worked on the Book of Kells.[76] This is how it reads when you enter the German text and use Google translate into English: "A masterpiece of expressiveness and craftsmanship - the artist and designer copies the Book of Kells. A few weeks ago, the artist who made it his mission to copy the Book of Kells was a guest in the Episcopal Cathedral and Diocesan Museum. Some of the painted pages can also be seen in the facsimile exhibition in the Episcopal Museum. About seven years ago, Mario Kleff started to recreate this work. Born in Boppard, Kleff learned early Christian book illumination with a focus on the manufacture of writing and work implements before he decided to study painting, graphics and design." Regards Meow2021 (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC) 10:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a tiny little bit misleading. Yes, there is a headline that says "Ein Meisterwerk an Aussagekraft und Handwerk“, BUT that is a quote from Kleff about the original, it is not an assessment of Kleff's work. The exact text is "Für mich ist dieses Buch das Meisterwerk an Aussagekraft und Handwerkskunst schlechthin“, unterstreicht der Künstler." (In Enlish: "For me, this book is the quintessential masterpiece of expressiveness and craftsmanship," the artist undescores.) The article is full of nonsense and self-contradictions, BTW. The claim that nobody has managed to make copies of the folios is simply false, see Helen Campbell D'Olier. Kleff claims to be familiar with the technique (Zwar war er mit der Technik der Frühchristlichen Buchmalerei vertraut), but turns out to be new to painting on parchment. Kleff claims that it is impossible erase something on parchment. That's not quite right; see palimpsest for example. He also claims very high pigment prices (Bei einigen Farbmitteln muß man für ein Kilogramm mehrere tausend Mark bezahlen”), but fails to note that one doesn't need kilograms of the stuff. Yes, Lapis Lazuli isn't exactly cheap, but one typically buys it by the ounce, for somewhere around $50. 50 grams of Malachite will set you back $70. Also note that the source, Paulinus, is a publication of the Bisdom of Trier, that also operates the Bischöfliches Dom- und Diözesanmuseum where the facsimiles were exhibited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)

Comment To the publisher without a name. That is interesting. How can this 2018 article Helen Campbell D'Olier be without reference links on Wikipedia? Regards Meow2021 (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It's got four, two of which are independent book references. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely. I mean all of the text with no links... every line I've created is commented. There is also a reference to an independent book. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is about quality of sources, not just quantity. - MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the new references The first ref is a PR piece, it is a complete PUFF piece article on Kleff's daughter and is very low-quality as a source. It is not independent. Also in the section Excellent Relationships it states: Excellent relationships

Meow is a professional business woman with excellent relationships with the authorities and the government. And our project THE TOUCH does really break new ground in terms of design, value and customer satisfaction and takes the real estate industry to a new level.”. So with the username Meow2021, your Mario Kleff's wife with a clear WP:COI. I'll need to post this up to the coin noticeboard. scope_creep^Talk 11:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Did you even read? The following information that I found on the Wandeegroup website is not used to verify the article. Who please, Kleff's wife ??? Regards Meow2021 (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd re f from the Paulinus-Blatt, a Catholic religious magazine covers aspects of the work done by Kleff on the 17 folios of the Book of Kells. It covers the work he did,and is more in-depth. It is probably good to prove he worked on the Book. scope_creep^Talk 11:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should discuss this with the author of the article. Not only do you seem unsatisfied with links to information provided, you are questioning their content. However, I've looked a little more. Lapis Lazuli pigment 1kg 20.262,73 €* [77] Meow2021 (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meow2021 That's a funny example. Kremer makes beautiful pigments, but this particular version you quote (did you just pick the most expensive one?) is created by a process that hadn't been invented when the Book of Kells was created. And no, I don't have to take this up with the author of the article. If I can show that a source is full of errors and inconsistencies and is used to make a claim that it doesn't support, then we don't make that claim. Reliability of sources is contextual. We can use Paulinus for some claims, but not others. In this case, it cannot be used to say that "by 1997 had copied around 30 pages on parchment using equipment and pigment he manufactured himself for authenticity." He uses tools that are not "authentic". Kleff uses "eine spezielle Stahlfeder, die feinste, dies im Fachhandel gibt", A Stahlfeder is a steep dip pen, a 19th century invention. He also didn't make his own pigments, but bought those from a store, and he didn't make his own parchment, because he bought that from a store too. He did apparently prepare his own binders, which is a common practice, I do that too when I prepare a the gesso and bole for a water-gilded frame. It is nothing especially notable, just cooking glue (frequently from parchment BTW). What we can use Paulinus as a source for is to say that Kleff, a graphic designer, took up reproducing the Book of Kells as a hobby around 1990, and by 1997 had created copies of fifteen folios. Several of those copies were included in the 1997 exhibition Glanz des Mittelalters: Kostbare Faksimile aus Trierer Bibliotheken in the Bischöfliches Dom- und Diözesanmuseum [de]. As another aside, if people are interested in a comparison between a copy and the original, these links https://wandeegroup.com/pdf/mario-kleff-book-of-kells.pdf (the fact that it was printed on newsprint doesn't help, but one can still see what he did there) with https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/KellsFol032vChristEnthroned.jpg (not a good photo) or https://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/concern/folios/n296wz391?locale=en (very high quality photo). And lastly, for those of you who are curious to know if one really needs a kilogram of Lapis Lazuli at a cost of €20.262,73 to reproduce the Book of Kells, I recommend ^[1] The quick answer to that is the same as whether any this makes Kleff a suitable encyclopedic subject: Hell, no.

References

^ Fuchs, Robert; Oltrogge, Doris (1992). O'Mahony, Felicity (ed.). "Colour material and painting technique in the Book of Kells" (PDF). Proceedings of a conference at Trinity College Dublin 6-9 September 1992. Trinity College Library.

Vexations (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Why this comment? I haven't written any of the articles found on the internet, I created the article on Kleff but tried to review the information because I don't like how hard some editors try to delete every version of it. I also checked your feedback on pigment prices and found that you weren't entirely right about it. For me there is factual information about Kleff's architectural designs as well as about his work on the Book of Kells. Then you deleted the names of his children? Now you explain to me what the Book of Kells is about? Weird. Meow2021 (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making false claims about what I wrote. Last warning. Our next stop is WP:AN/I. Vexations (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do it, I have nothing to hide. Article history shows. By the way... What was the first warning? Meow2021 (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, c'mon you two... Do things really have to get uncivil and degraded to the level of finger-pointing and bickering? :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First warning was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meow2021&type=revision&diff=1038246050&oldid=1038027761&diffmode=source Vexations (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To your information: An editor on this talk page has included poorly sourced information in the article. Got it removed. Interesting is that the same editor voted Delete - promotional article and, as per MrOlllie, most of the sources are native advertising, therefore the subject lacks independent coverage.. Why? Regards Meow2021 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ABOUTSELF, self published sources may be used for information about themselves. But do note that such sourcing cannot be used to establish notability. Please do keep this page focused on discussions about notability. If you have general questions about Wikipedia editing you should take them up on the article talk page or perhaps at WP:TEAHOUSE. - MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie This is a discussion page about the article and there is more to it than just notability. So I'm curious why this editing happened. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meow2021, your description of "Got it removed" implies that someone else removed it, whereas actually you removed it yourself. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I delayed !voting until I had looked at other sites - all of which are highly-promotional (self-promotional, self-congratulatory), even using similar intro lines as appear on WP. Wikipedia is therefore being used in the same promotional way; this is just one article of many associated with Kleff, Kleff's business and/or the area in which it operates. Two images at Commons (one, two) are also visible at (Kleff's) Instagram landing page (Google as direct link is volatile). I don't have access so unaware if there's any licensing. The background is a commercial construction business (endeavouring to recover after COVID) operating in a developing holiday area (Pattaya/Chonburi). The unblock-argument gives an angle on lack of notability at User talk:Meow2021#August 2021 "... there is little to no information in the press in the Chonuri area, so I sourced as best as I could.", ([SIC], should be Chonburi) shown as a diff as there are two User Talk Headings named "August 2021".--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer. Meow2021 has been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed COI/paid editing. They're the only registered account with a k**p vote and have been the only one advancing an argument against deletion for this article. All the other k**p votes have been SPAs just to vote on this AfD. I think a consensus for d*lete is clear at this point. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:38, 22 August 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. Moving to NC rather than a 3rd relist as we have now been open for 24 days, and without seeming change in position (the same arguments have occurred throughout without major change).

The dispute primarily factored as to whether BLP1E was met, or not. Numerically it was very close as to whether the answer was just "no" or whether there was sufficient notability from areas other than his death (such as the court case).

Since both positions were policy-valid, it's fairly numerically even, no-consensus seems applicable. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Farrel

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

I think this goes without saying that this unfortunate any way look at it.

In my opinion an article for Mr Farrel would have failed any number of tests for notability WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ANYBIO and so on, when he was still alive.
The Wikipedia articles Newsmax and Newsmax TV have no mention of him
Analogous to WP:BLP1E, this would appear to me a "Biography of a dead person notable for only one event"

Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was notable before his death for incidents like this one. Icky people can be notable too. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BLP1E applies. He is not notable for an on-air derogatory comment that ended up in the courts. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He seems to be notable for two events, a court case and his death. PaulinSaudi (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: his death has been noticed in German-speaking media (and his famous last words, too):

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22+Dick+Farrell+%22+site%3A.de --Präziser (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per OP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he was covered both for a main controversy and after his death, giving enough coverage for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The substantiveness of the provided sources hasn't been discussed in detail.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 09:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is notable for the circumstances of his death and the media coverage. --Echtner (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is notable for the circumstances of his death and the media coverage. Check back in a few years and see what we think then. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting again and can only reiterate the previous relister's comment: The substantiveness of the provided sources hasn't been discussed in detail.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BLP1E. Radio host wouldn't have been notable if he hadn't died. KidAd • SPEAK 00:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 1E and because the first source provided above doesn't establish notability, he insulted someone and that's it. Avilich (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with delete comments. Most of the provided references are connected with COVID-19 infection and subject's death, with notability not being evident. The WP:BLP1E guideline should be followed here.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Farrel doesn't pass GNG. FWIW I used to listen to him but that was probably over 25 years ago. I haven't listened to talk radio in at least 20 years....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. He seems to be notable outside his death. That includes: [78], [79], [80], [81] and [82]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 18:15, 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 Palestinians in Iraq. ✗plicit 08:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against Palestinians in Iraq

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

Duplicates Palestinians in Iraq - as the Fall of Saddam is covered on that page. Whiteguru (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I saw this page earlier at NPP and knew it was gonna end up here. A merge with Palestinians in Iraq is the best option, as this article has additional sources and content that aren't yet in the target article. Curbon7 (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Palestinians in Iraq Nitesh003 (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Tea Ladies

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

I found no significant coverage. There was only 8 episodes according to IMDb which may be the reason I can't find anything significant. SL93 (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The worst case would be merger to tea lady per policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE but it would be easiest to leave well alone. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with merging a non-notable show to a notable concept. The Media section in the tea lady article is similar to a popular culture section which is generally discouraged. There is nothing to merge anyway per WP:V because there are no reliable sources in the article. The argument that it would be easiest to leave the article alone could apply to any deletion discussion. SL93 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to William G. Stewart. Cannot see how this is notable in its own right. There is some useful content here, and it is a possible search term. But would be better placed with a due weight trim in William G. Stewart, which will also incrementally add some weight to that article. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoziwe We shouldn't be merging unreferenced content. SL93 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But references are readily available. Aoziwe (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If references are readily available, this is notable and there's no reason to merge! matt91486 (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are references readily available to support a due weight short paragraph or a sentences in the merge target. I do not think there is sufficient to support notability in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Nominator across the board. Fails GNG and NFILM. No significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. Merging into the general article Tea lady is not appropriate due to WP:SYNTH since these are two disparate subjects - one is a former television show and one is a concept or perhaps encyclopedic content regarding a job description. Also, there is no verifiable information that would provide for merging into the William G. Stewart. Without acceptable coverage this is not a notable show per Wikipedia standards. If acceptable references are "readily available" then please post them here so they may be analyzed. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William G. Stewart per Aoziwe - given references are available to support a redirection WP:ATD applies. Deus et lex (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry but no references have been presented nor any independent sources. So, Stewart has not communicated the actual impact of this television show on his body of work. If this is the case, then how is this show relatable enough to Stewart to have a merge ~~redirect~~ to his Biography? None of the text in the article has citations.

Therefore, beyond who the actors were, we don't know what else is true. One so-called reference in the article (and not in the body) is Television Au. This barely has a passing mention of this show that had already run its course, according to the text. The coverage of this article is barely mentioning all the TV shows on that channel during the 2014 season. And it is set up like a blog. So, this source does not seem to be a reliable independent secondary source.

The other so-called source, IMDB - is user generated. And it has nothing more than passing mentions. Being user generated means this is not an independent reliable source. As stated above, without some sort of acceptable sourcing, it is best not to merge ~~redirect~~ to a notable topic. But, I suppose getting rid of the content in the article and making it a redirect is acceptable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Some of the above comment is...not related to this show at all. This is not a show that was anywhere near TV in 2014. So it having no longer been on the air then is not particularly relevant to this discussion. matt91486 (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is related. The show would be a rerun in 2014. So you are wrong. It was on ATV0 (Melbourne ATV )according to this [83] which I posted above. Use the "find" search function for the page and plug in "Tea" or "Tea Ladies". Please pay attention to what other editors are posting. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the link you provided. It does not say anything about being rebroadcast. The article is being framed as a historical retrospective of fifty years of the network, and indicates it is summarizing shows broadcast over a 50 year period -- including this one, in the 1970s. If they did do a celebratory re-airing, this is not at all indicated in the particular link that you shared. So perhaps please pay attention to your own posts. matt91486 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've found a one-page article in TV Week from 1979 that mentions The Tea Ladies in discussion of other roles by Pat McDonald. One would think that other television-related magazine and newspaper articles from the period would have some mention, perhaps enough to compile a short but complete encyclopedia article, although they may not be easily accessible online. Trove newspaper and magazines don't seem to yield any coverage. There appears to be an unrelated 1979 TV movie with the same name written by Ray Galton and Johnny Speight. If the content or edit history could be preserved via merging or redirecting pending location of additional sources, that would be preferable to deletion. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article seems to suggest this came out of a British version of the same name which was produced as a pilot. I had assumed this was the Johnny Speight and Ray Galton sitcom of the same name set in the Houses of Parliament (featuring Mollie Sudgen, Dandy Nichols and Patricia Hayes), mentioned above - one episode of which was broadcast. Indeed its entry in Mollie Sugden's article links to the article about the Australian series. However IMDb suggests that that was indeed not broadcast in the UK until 1979 (ie after the Australian version) and William G Stewart does not seem to have been involved. Thus I wonder how accurate the information is here. Checking Gnome the Radio Times entry confirms the IMDb info - see https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/fd204df544b14a2d9e3207b86105d5e5 and indicates it was broadcast in January 1979. It is possible it was made pre 1978 and not broadcast for a few years, or William G Stewart was involved with an earlier project and the 1979 one (presumably filmed in 1978) was a second attempt at a UK version inspired by the Australian. I found coverage of this UK version here https://www.britishclassiccomedy.co.uk/the-tea-ladies-1979 and here https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/the_tea_ladies/ - however despite the seemingly identical premise, there is no mention of a connection to the 1978 Australian series. The 1979 UK version was also rebroadcast in 1998 at the time of Speight's death during a tribute night. Thus I wonder if although a one-off the UK version's existence has an impact on the notability if it were incorporated into the article. Sorry to confuse things, but I thought this was worth commenting on. Dunarc (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 08:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Sources currently on the page are not adequate. My own search yielded the same results as others have noted above - passing comments in TV guides don't really cut it. It's important to remember WP:NOTTEMPORARY in discussions of pre-internet media, but I've done a quick search of Australian newspaper databases and nothing has come up. Do not see the merit of adding this to tea lady given it's complete lack of notability. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with delete once again. See my original post and original rationale. Based on that I don't think a merge or redirect is a suitable outcome. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:28, 18 August 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. Sandstein 15:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music sampling in Hong Kong

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

This is a strange one - a very incoherent and confusing article. As Sergecross73 put it in a prior discussion, "It's hard to follow what exactly is being documented here, or it's real scope." Nominating to get some more eyes on it, because I have a feeling it shouldn't exist at all. Popcornfud (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly, confusingly written article beyond redemption. WP:TNT. Sergecross73 msg me 23:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to either secondary creations in Hong Kong (the literal translation) or derivative works in Hong Kong (the other translation commonly used by reliable sources). The Chinese term is: simplified Chinese: 二次创作; traditional Chinese: 二次創作. The topic has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "民間改詞熱" [Among the common people changing lyrics is popular]. Metropop (in Chinese). Metro International. 2016-02-18. Archived from the original on 2016-02-19. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
  The article extensively discusses the history of "二次創作" (translated as derivative works or secondary creations) in Hong Kong. The Wikipedia article heavily relies on this article as a source to discuss the history of the topic from the 1960s to 2016.
2. 張志偉 (2012). "普及文化的活力轉移─網絡惡搞" [The vitality transfer of popularization culture——Internet spoof]. In 吳俊雄; 張志偉; 曾仲堅 (eds.). 普普香港：閱讀香港普及文化2000~2010(一) [Pop Hong Kong: Reading Hong Kong Popular Culture 2000~2010 (1)] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: 香港教育圖書公司. pp. 405–406. ISBN 978-988-8185-62-7. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
  The book notes: "當然, 把周星馳代表的那種離經叛道、脫繮野馬式的無厘頭文化繼續發揚光大的, 是網絡中林林總總的所謂「二次創作」(類似英語中的 derivative works), 其中包括「改圖」、「改片」、或「改編歌詞」。周星馳的無厘頭文化可以是無傷大雅或純粹搞笑的荒謬及粗俗(如《整蠱專家》中的「超級戇膠膠」), 亦可以是有意識的政治或社會諷刺 (如《國產凌凌漆》的中國「偉大」發明「太陽能電筒」)。
  From Google Translate: "Of course, it is the so-called "secondary creation" (similar to the derivative works in English) of the so-called "secondary creation" (similar to the English derivative works) that is represented by Zhou Xingchi, which includes Film", or "adapted lyrics". Stephen Chow's nonsensical culture can be innocuous or purely funny, absurd and vulgar (such as the "super sticky glue" in "Tricky Expert"), or it can be conscious political or social satire (such as the "domestic Lingling Paint" China's "great" invention of "solar flashlight")."
  The next at least five paragraphs discuss derivative works.
3. 關文偉 (2016). "「用戶衍生內容」例外與香港版權條例修訂" [The User-Generated Content (UGC) Exception and Hong Kong's Copyright Law]. In 李亞虹 (ed.). 版權、網絡和權利平衡 [Copyright, Internet, and balancing rights] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. pp. 66–75. ISBN 978-988-8390-54-0. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
  The book notes: "但「二次創作」並非版權法學的常用概念,其實質涵蓋範圍不清。而翻譯、改編這些衍生創作 (derivative works) 在現有版權法中屬原作品版權人的專有權利,有明確的保護。" From Google Translate: "However, 'secondary creation' is not a common concept in copyright law, and its substantive scope is unclear. The translation and adaptation of these derivative works are the exclusive rights of the copyright holders of the original works in the existing copyright law and are clearly protected."
  The book discusses secondary creations and the copyright law implications of secondary creations on pages 66–75.
4. Additional sources that briefly discuss "二次創作" (translated by these sources as "secondary creations" or "derivative works"):
  1. Lam, Martha; Ming, Lee Hoi (2019). Periplus Pocket Cantonese Dictionary: Cantonese-English English-Cantonese (Fully Revised & Expanded, Fully Romanized). Singapore: Periplus Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4629-2035-8. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
    The book notes: "secondary creation (parody) N yih chi chong jok jok bán 二次創作作品"
  2. Patrick Sir (2015). 小學雞英語1 [Primary school students: English language 1] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Red Publish. p. 202. ISBN 9789881438928. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
    The book notes:
    
    最後, 我們也可以用較 formal 的「derivative work (n. phrase)」(二次創作) 來表達「惡搞」。
    
    Some people think that regulation of derivative work may stifle local creativity.
    有人認為監管二次創作可能會扼殺本地創意。
    
    The derivative works on the Internet show netizens' immense creativity.
    網上嘅二次創作反映網民嘅無限創意。
  3. Nakajima, Seio (2020). "The sociability of Millennials in cyberspace: A comparative analysis of barrage subtitling in Nico Nico Douga and Bilibili". In Frangville, Vanessa; Gaffric, Gwennaël (eds.). China’s Youth Cultures and Collective Spaces: Creativity, Sociality, Identity and Resistance. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-367-17304-3. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
    The book discusses secondary creation in the context of Japan. The book notes: "In contrast, what is called “secondary creation” (niji sōsaku 二次創作), often seen in YouTube and other video sharing sites, has a more rigid distinction between the original and copies. For example, Pikotaro's original Pen Pineapple Apple Pen (PPAP) music video, which was released on August 25, 2016 on YouTube and went viral soon after, led to a proliferation of copies, but they remain parodies, hence the process is called secondary creation.¹⁶"
  4. "二次创作，算不算违法?" [Secondary creations, are they legal?]. See Hua Daily News (in Chinese). 2017-05-13. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
    The article talks about secondary creations in the context of Malaysia. The article notes: "二次创作（secondary creation/create）是创作和表达方式的一种"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow "secondary creations in Hong Kong" or "derivative works in Hong Kong" (simplified Chinese: 二次创作; traditional Chinese: 二次創作) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:TNT: The article was more clear in 2016 when the article's creator last edited it and when the title was at second production of songs in Hong Kong. Subsequent edits and a page move to music sampling in Hong Kong have made the topic less clear.
I agree with the comment here: "My first thought is that the article is badly titled... most of it doesn't talk about sampling, but about parody songs, which is an entirely different thing."
The Chinese term is simplified Chinese: 二次创作; traditional Chinese: 二次創作. I think a page move of music sampling in Hong Kong to secondary creations in Hong Kong (the literal translation) or derivative works in Hong Kong (the other translation commonly used by reliable sources) would better reflect the reliable sources and the article content. The article currently discusses the history of secondary creations of music in Hong Kong as well as the legality of secondary creations in general.
I would oppose deletion based on WP:TNT as although the article can be improved, the article content when viewed through the lens of "secondary creations" or "derivative works" makes sense to me and accurately reflects the sources I reviewed.
Cunard (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I always struggle with these sorts of arguments - if we change the title and rewrite it to newly found sources, are we really "keeping" it at that point? It sounds like you're proposing writing a whole different article, that will likely never actually be written judging on the low traffic/low interest in editing this mess of an article has received these last five years. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved in 2017 from the correct title second production of songs in Hong Kong to the incorrect title music sampling in Hong Kong. I am suggesting reverting this page move and using secondary creations in Hong Kong (the literal translation) or derivative works in Hong Kong (the other translation commonly used by reliable sources) instead.

I am not "proposing writing a whole different article". The current article is satisfactory after I removed the incorrect mention of "music sampling" (which was added as part of the incorrect page move). I added information about how the topic refers to "secondary creations" and "derivative works". The article can be improved as well as expanded with the sources I found. But it does not need to be rewritten to be retained in mainspace since the article accurately reflects the sources. It accurately discusses the history of the secondary creations of music in Hong Kong and the legality of the secondary creations. Here are two existing sources in the article:

"民間改詞熱". Metropop. Retrieved 2016-03-24.
"二次創作「有層次」得防着點？". 星島日報. Retrieved 2016-03-24.

The first source from Metropop is one of the sources I've listed in this AfD. The Wikipedia article relies heavily on the Metropop article to discuss the history of secondary creations of music in Hong Kong. The second source, a commentary on secondary creations, discuss the same topic as the sources I have presented.

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the page's history, but a read through of the article is still disjointed and confusing. It's like trying to document the history of a country through 10 unrelated sentences or something - it fails to convey any real message. And it's a very short article on a rather bizarre cross-section to begin with. It needs to be merged or draftified or something. Its an awful read and not likely to be improved any time soon considering the subject matter and the fact that multiple experienced editors from the music Wikiproject didn't even really know where to begin... Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I still think this article is a long way from making any sense. The subject itself might be notable, but it's still not obvious from the article what the subject exactly is. Popcornfud (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article documents the history of secondary creations (derivative works) in Hong Kong with respect to music. I reviewed the article's sources and found additional sources that discuss secondary creations. The article's topic is very clear to me. The "History" section discusses secondary creations in the 1960s (songs were derived from Chinese opera, Disney musicals, and Western and Japanese songs), 1980s and 1990s (variety shows made use of secondary creations, while the comedians Andrew Lam and Eric Tsang rewrote song lyrics for comedic effect), and after 2000 (netizens began making secondary creations of songs to parody contemporary political and social issues).
The "Controversy" section discusses how the proposed law Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 could have affected the legality of secondary creations. Some commentators believed the proposed law would have restricted the freedom of expression and creation with respect to secondary creations. But the article notes that a secondary creation that is considered a parody, satire, pastiche, caricature or commentary, would not be considered copyright infringement under the bill. The "Effects" section further discusses the copyright implications of secondary creations.
The article can be copyedited and expanded but the article's topic and presentation are very clear to me.
Cunard (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited the entire article. Cunard (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 08:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved and copyedited by Cunard. Thanks for your great work. VocalIndia (talk) 14:50, 21 August 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

(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]

Delete: As per the arguments by the nominator. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 17:05, 25 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.

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

(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:

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 [84] 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 rename - it appears that the actual content of the articles (i.e. the two-letter coding) is accurate, but there isn't any such thing per se as a "B platform" (et al) to encompass all of the ones in a particular series. The "Nx" codes for the MX-5/Miata, in particular, are in wide use; eliminating the information altogether would be unproductive. Renaming the articles to remove the implication of a single "N" platform would be the better course of action. --Sable232 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In my opinion, it should only be done by merging everything and make it a "List of Mazda model codes". Andra Febrian (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be happy with a merged article. Stepho talk 23:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd also support a merge - List of Mazda platforms would be a good target, maybe with the content in table format instead of simply a plain list. --Sable232 (talk) 14:33, 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]

Keep and add sources. If there are none available, I'll probably have second thoughts. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:56, 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]

Merge all to List of Mazda platforms per the reasoning above. This seems like the most obvious merge target since it already exists.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Mazda platforms- insufficient sources to warrant separate articles for each platform. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Mazda platforms since, quite evidently, none of them is worthy of a stand-alone article. Unless, of course, we have the intention of participating in the promotion campaigns of this particular car brand. -The Gnome (talk) 08:01, 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. Sandstein 08:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Marcus Jr.

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

Rapper who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC, coverage cited in the article consists almost entirely of social media, as well as a single passing mention. A search only brought up this, which is pretty clearly not a reliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete lack of WP:RS and there's nothing out there that I can find. Schwede 66 03:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This artist was the first mentor, collaborator and producer of notable star rapper The Kid Laroi. Being the mentor of a notable artist is enough for a credible claim of significance WP:SIGNIF. The artist is still prominent in the South Australian music scene today. South Australia is not known for embracing rap music or local artists so getting written press would be difficult. What is provided here as references are quite credible, especially ABC Radio Adelaide, Hype Magazine and The Scene. The Facebook pages noted are a credible timeline of Marcus Jr working with The Kid Laroi and the projects and songs they worked on at the time. I believe this page is valid and important to the history of the rap artist The Kid Laroi as most has been wiped from the internet most likely by Sony Music when signing him. Instagram post by Marcus Jr detail that too.Grapepinky (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapepinky: Read WP:NOTINHERITED. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:00, 24 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) 05:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unambiguous failure of GNG and NMUSIC. Like Schwede66 I can't find a single reliable source that mentions this guy. Notability is not inherited from working with a notable rapper early in his career. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:58, 24 August 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 to keep as player has just signed a loan deal with a professional club. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Galván

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

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have improved the page, but I'm still not sure if it is enough to make it available through GNG. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there's (just) enough coverage to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 09:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Giantsnowman scrapes through WP:GNG is on loan to Santos and plays in a WP:FPL league and subject is 22 years old and see little point deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:24, 22 August 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 03:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Petros

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

A mirror celeb with no current acting roles for many years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hojczy (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE AfD 15 years ago was keep because it was thought she had potential to go onto bigger things. This has not transpired and thus now fails to meet notability. --10mmsocket (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page was not included in the daily AfD log by the nominator (see WP:AFDHOWTO for instructions). I've manually added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 17 so that AfD regulars can participate. Aranya (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 15-years-ago Wikipedia had virtually no inclusion crieria and the ones we did have were unenforced and basically meaningless. Petros does not meet our current inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 18 August 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'm sure she looks very nice in her swimsuit, but it's not evidence of notability :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samra Huseynova

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NMODEL. Her role in "Let It Remain Between Us" (Azerbaijani: Aramızda qalsın) wasn't one of the main roles in the series. NMW03 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is a high chance of paid editing because the creator of the article trying to keep (and create) it in Azerbaijani and Russian Wikipedia. NMW03 (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and this [85]. Removing {{UPE}} template and legal threat. NMW03 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant further sources cited on the Russian-language article (32 of them!), so I think she passes GNG. Being crowned Miss Azerbaijan seems like a significant award. Furius (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that sources are unreliable and their content is "Samra is naked!!!", "Naked photos of Samra", "Samra posted her bikini photos". NMW03 (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to comment the same, those sources don't have good reliable coverage. (Double meaning intended). - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:15, 12 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) 03:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, no. I only translated the titles of sources on ruwiki and there is no way they make her pass GNG: "Samra Huseynova shared her bikini, PHOTOS". ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:18, 20 August 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 Carlsberg Group. ✗plicit 03:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semper Ardens

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

Article involves a very small brewery that's completely unreferenced. Could maybe be merged as Carlsberg article Sucker for All (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carlsberg Group. I couldn't find sufficient sources to show enough notability for a standalone article. It's already mentioned at Carlsberg Group and I don't think a merge would be appropriate as there isn't any sourced information. Suonii180 (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carlsberg Group. —valereee (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page was not included in the daily AfD log by the nominator (see WP:AFDHOWTO for instructions). I've manually added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 17 so that AfD regulars can participate. Aranya (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Brown (Georgia politician)

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

Local politician at the county level. Fails WP:NPOL. Additionally, the main source, Charlie Brown Remembers Atlanta, was written by Brown himself with the assistance of James C. Bryant (see [86]). As Brown is the credited author of the book, the source lacks independence. The obituary website does not look like a reliable source either. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: It seems you missed the sentence "He also served as a state senator from Fulton County in the Georgia General Assembly from 1957 to 1964". This source that confirms he was a state senator. Passes WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage to be found. "Brown watches move for 'Draft' as Mayor", for example. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Curbon. For all intents and purposes, state legislators are ipso facto notable per NPOL. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All state senators are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's clear I was mistaken about this politician and am withdrawing this nomination. Thanks to all who participated.4meter4 (talk) 19:05, 17 August 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) ––FormalDude talk 01:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucía Abello

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was deprodded by User:Virc587 (the creator) with the following rationale "prevent the proposed deletion". Thank you for the eloquent defense, but let's discuss this here now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is definitely not notable and the article is written in a promotional manner. Almost all the references are self published or otherwise unsuitable (Flickr as a reference? Really?). Half of the references are by Abello herself which is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. I appreciate that the article creator is attempting to improve coverage of women on Wikipedia, but that does not allow for notability rules to be ignored. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You sarcastically mock the deprodder's "eloquent defense" in their edit comment, but fail to note that they did, in fact, leave a detailed response on the article's talk page, which I've copied below. pburka (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you very much for retrieving this message! Virc587 (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Piotrus:, thanks for writing. This is the first time I have experienced a delete proposal, I hope I am responding appropriately.
This article meets the necessary criteria for notability,

it has awards and distinctions cited in references 5, 10 and 11. It has indexed and referenced publications (12 to 21) and

it also has a strong profile in Gscholar, available here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Luc%C3%ADa+Abello&btnG=

I will be very attentive to understand if you have another point of view and that we can improve this biography.
Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virc587 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Virc587: With all due respect, having 'indexed and referenced publications' is not enough to meet the criteria. They need to be significant, which can be shown by being called such by other scholars, or by having very high citation numbers in a given field. The linked GSchjolar profile shows one book co-authored with 3 other people that have 53 citations, and nothing else in double digits. In my experience, that's too little by at least a factor of 10. Granted, those are subjective criteria, and we will see what others will say, but IMHO this is not enough to meet WP:PROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep albeit rather weakly. It is always difficult to assess people who don't sit neatly in a 'typical' category. We have guidelines on notability of actors, sportspeople and professors, but we don't have a guideline for librarians. We evaluate business awards daily, but who knows which awards for librarians are meaningful? We have to think about what notability really means: it means do other, unrelated people actually listen to this person, has this person made a splash, not by self-advertisement, but by doing things that the world cares about? We might measure notability in strict ways described in the guidelines, but with odd professions, we have to revisit the underlying meaning to check our assessment is fair, given the opportunities available to the subject (e.g. sportspeople easily get in newspapers compared to architects, but can't get chosen for a gallery like an artist; each profession has its own public sphere). Abello has publications (lots), her name crops up all over the place when I do some Google searching, she's clearly doing a lot more than the normal librarianing; she has copious awards whose value is difficult to assess, but which are almost certainly meaningful. I can't think how, as a librarian, someone could make a much bigger impact on the public stage than she has; her impact is certainly, translated between the worlds of libraries and professorships, as large as a professor in a named chair editing a journal somewhere (who would have qualified as notable twice-over on those grounds), and translated to sports-speak, she appears to play for her national librarianship side at an international level. Elemimele (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cookie-cutter prod made bland generic comments about the sources without addressing the fact that the article was translating from another language Wikipedia and that the many sources are all in Spanish — a language for which the nominator does not claim even minimal competence. This lack of language makes the nominator's claims unreliable and implausible. And the AfD nomination does little but cut/paste the cut/paste while insulting the page's creator, who does seem fluent in the language. So, there's not a credible case to answer. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are her own publications, the websites of institutions that gave her awards, or interviews, so they're not independent of the subject. This already addresses both points raised in the deprod rationale. The weak keep vote above probably overstates the difficulty of assessing notability. And the nominator's lack of fluency in Spanish is irrelevant since the article is in English. Avilich (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although also a weak keep. I think at least some of the sources (not many, I agree) are independent and reliable. In my opinion this coverage together with her work is enough to meet notability (barely). --Alan Islas (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources even approaching your description, 3 (very brief) and 5, are simply outlines of the subject's credentials in the context of her appointment to a local library. It's the sort of thing you mention if a person is notable, but does not itself establish notability. There's also the source in citations 1 and 9, a small profile of the subject on a government website. There is no wp:sigcov here. Avilich (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Abello meets WP:ANYBIO 2 on libraries and botanics, documenting the Chilean flora, is a very specialized topic but not for that less relevant, following Elemimele argument; also meets WP:AUTHOR 3 in my opinion. I don't agree with Avilich's argument about not being independent, she is a Chilean librarian and got awards from library associations from other countries than Chile, her own country like Spain, Peru and is part of an Iberoamerican group, making her work recognized internationally in her field which in addition I think speaks about not being on WP:MILL. The biography has independent, reliable sources from the public and private sector (references 1 to 5) and Flickr is a reference, as Trainsandotherthings mentioned but to illustrate her work documenting the flora in Chile with more than 10.000 pics of local species, something that can be useful to people looking for sources on the topic, not to claim notability as Trainsandotherthings wrongly understood the reference. Hiperterminal (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hiperterminal Which reliable source says her work on documenting Chilean flora is significant? And Flickr is not a WP:RS. The awards are interesting, but we need evidence that they are significant; we can't assume they are just because they exist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus As before, I am not arguing that Flickr is a WP:RS or independent regarding Abello but is a proof of her prolific work. El Quinto Poder is. I am a librarian, involved in the library field, attending to conferences and meeting people regularly to see who is working on what, so I guess I have a position to know, the work of Lucia is quite unique not just on botanic, but the mix between libraries and environment; Piotrus if you know about any other librarian around the world, working on libraries and botanic I agree that Lucia's bio is not relevant but in exchange we should be writing that other person's bio, otherwise she is highly relevant for the library field for her work. On the other hand, now that you talked to me directly I want to support Andrew's comment on WP:BITE, for me you have been very rude to Virc587 and at least she deserves an apology from you for mocking her. Thanks for your comments and very happy to read what do you think about it. Hiperterminal (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how ANYBIO2 is met, it explicitly says a topic needs to be significantly covered like any other. The sources don't provide this significant coverage. Source 5 for instance is the very association which gave the subject her award (not independent). Source 1=2 is a small profile on a government website. Source 4 doesn't mention the subject at all; source 3 does it only once and in passing. In all, that's not much to go on. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following Elemimele´s argument, effectively the notoriety criteria in the library field could not be the same as other areas. It would not be fair to put a librarian versus a mathematician on the same level in terms of academic production and citation, for example. On the other hand, Lucia makes an intersection between library science and botany. Dismissing the reference to flickr when it becomes an instrument of visual documentation of the Chilean flora, which later is a resource to bring ideas about the preservation of natural heritage through libraries, is unfortunate. Virc587 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv^🍁 16:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was mentioned earlier that the article is written in a promotional way, but I don't think so; it tells of the particular work that Lucia (as a librarian and biologist) has done in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030, from IFLA and the UN. I am a fellow librarian who particularly admires this biography because of the issues it addresses - closely related to SDG 13 (Take urgent action to combat climate change...), and SDG 15 (Promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems...). Just as it happens to me, I believe that Lucia can be a great reference for many more people in terms of actions that can be implemented from libraries in relation to the environment; even more so considering the current context of climate change and biodiversity loss with clear evidence worldwide. The visibility of their work is totally relevant for our field. Alina Sarli (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is brand new and with a single contribution: did you create it just to sway the vote here? Your entire comment is itself promotional but also nugatory: where are the relevant policies, and where are the sources that establish notability? Avilich (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich I added Lucia's bio as part of Wikiproject Women in Red. The editor(s) involved may be new as Alina Sarli; many thanks Avilich for assume good faith regarding her contributions, and please avoid WP:BITE newcommers. In AfD even anonymous users can vote so, why is a problem if she just create it to vote? She is starting to participate and is doing it with her own account and not using her IP address, I think that's on Alina's favor instead of against her as you presented it. Alina is an Argentinean librarian (not Chilean as Abello, to avoid any COI) and I can prove it but respect Alina's desire to not publish yet her own user page and that you assume her good faith but if you need it, please let me know. Hiperterminal (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I quote from the article: "In 2012 she was chosen as the Outstanding Librarian of the Year, the highest honor bestowed by the Chilean National Library Association". Because she has received this honour, Abello should be notable - as WP:NACADEMIC suggests: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". --159.196.100.171 (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the problem of increasingly likely sockpuppetry here, there is no proof that award bestowed by the Chilean National Library Association qualifies as "a highly prestigious academic award or honor". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet. The award is at a national level - why is it not appropriate? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACADEMIC says "as substantiated through reliable sources", and you also missed this unmissable statement in clear bold, "Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow". One of these general notes reads, "Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on." So there's actually no good evidenc the subject meets NACADEMC. So again, where are the sources confirming that the subject or the award are notable? Avilich (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're in the article. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed above. Most are not independent and the rest are not significant coverage. Avilich (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The award is at a national level - why is it not appropriate? As I have indicated, it is appropriately sourced. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being at national level is not sufficient. It also has to be "highly prestigious". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the highest honour of the Chilean National Library Association. Why is that not prestigious enough? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you could make this same claim about the highest honour awarded by any organization. Who says it is prestigious? You? Me? That's not good enough. We need a reliable and independent source that states this award is considered prestigious. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When all the information is analyzed, the context tells us that Lucía completes the notability. I do not understand the insistence on judging the prestige of an award granted by a national library association, but if the information is useful, The National College of Librarians of Chile was created by law (here the link to the law: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28806). On the other hand, the fact that another country has appointed her an honorary member of the library association, as is the case of Peru, reinforces her recognition in Latin America. Virc587 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So a national award that is the highest honour in her field of work is "not good enough". That's really surprising. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not without good coverage in sources, per WP:NACADEMIC. Avilich (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable source confirms that this is "the highest honour in her field of work"? (I fully understand that you may find this ridiculous question, sadly, there are plenty of spammers, hoaxters, and so on who abuse the system, hence we have such requirements). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The National College of Librarians of Chile was created by law (here the link to the law: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28806), a law is not a reliable source?

You find here, in this debate, more than one user on whom you can identify that we are not spammers, like Hiperterminal (talk), Alina or myself . Still, you question the reliability of our area of work and knowledge. The criteria are understandable in light of what you explain, but the lack of context on your part to apply them in this debate, no. There is a lot of hostility, first in your treatment at the beginning of this debate and the lack of response the first time I consulted you, then in suggesting that we are spammers. It is not healthy to build a collaborative encyclopedia in this situation. Hopefully we can debate and argue from places that do not discredit anyone. Hugs. Virc587 (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriately sourced. One of the sources is the awarding institution itself, the other is the government institution she works on. Neither is independent or significant coverage. Avilich (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich & Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus I mentioned before, but want to write it here too: this biography is part of Wiki Women in Red, The editors involved may be new, thanks for assume good faith regarding their contributions, and please avoid WP:BITE newcommers and the idea of sockpuppet is not good faith at all. Maybe they avoid to use their own accounts because are afraid of your aggressive responses, just in my humble opinion. Please consider your votes and attitudes regarding this process. Hiperterminal (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hiperterminal, WIR is a noble project I fully support, but sometimes it produces content that is not eligible for Wikipedia. I also fully support BITE, but I don't think there is any biting here. Logging in and using their proper account is the best practice, if someone is not following best practices, they risk being criticized. Nothing more, nothing less. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

Lucía has participated over the years in activities and events held in different countries. She has participated in CERLALC's International Network of Emerging Library Innovators program (https://cerlalc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/INELI_Modelo-ESPACIOS-PARA-LA-CREACI%C3%93N.pdf). CERLALC is the Regional Center for the Promotion of Books in Latin America and the Caribbean and is an intergovernmental organization under the auspices of UNESCO.

In 2020 it was convened by the National Library of Colombia, to participate in the VII National Congress of Public Libraries (https://bibliotecanacional.gov.co/es-co/actividades/noticias/PublishingImages/en-la-rnbp/congreso-bibliotecas-publicas-2020/agenda_vii_congreso.pdf)

The Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Sports of Colombia has also relieved its work together with that of other countries:https://www.culturarecreacionydeporte.gov.co/biblioteca/internacional.html

Just a few weeks ago, IFLA, the International Federation of Library and Library Associations, convened Lucia to a conference on Emerging Leaders: Trends for the Future (Americas), at the IFLA international congress. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKQS2zreQG0

Lucía's work was surveyed by the Integrated System for Monitoring and Evaluation of Native Forest Ecosystems (SIMEF), a Chilean national initiative that establishes a coordinated work model between public institutions and involves local communities in the monitoring of native forest ecosystems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEKPTivcjoA&t=5s

Lucia's biography can be improved and added content, but would it really be correct to delete it? I am a librarian, and I feel that we lose a lot by turning off a biography that teaches our community about the impact that reading has on the preservation of the native heritage of a country, such as the promotion of Chilean flora through libraries. Are the notability criteria the same for a librarian as for a soccer player, a model, a TV host, a mathematician, a politician or a literary man? Her biography in Catalan and Spanish has not undergone any deletion proposal, I think this should also be taken into account.

National and international awards and recognitions are mentioned, but their prestige is judged without putting into context the diversity of the information provided. That is why I mention that the College of Librarians of Chile, which offers a national award, was created in this country by law (https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28806). The fact that many times there is no public coverage in the press about this field of knowledge (library science), should not have a negative influence as at the moment. The information is still of interest to a specific community even if it does not have the popularity criteria of other areas, and therefore it is unfair to subject it to the same forms of evaluation without context. Virc587 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are either WP:SPS (youtube) or not independent. See also item 4 of WP:RGW. And please don't vote twice. Avilich (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but youtube contents are not Self-published sources.

I do not understand the statement "not independent".

I did not know that I could not vote again in relisted, as I said the first time I left a message about this bio, it is the first time I have faced this and I hope to learn. Hugs and I will be attentive to your comments. Virc587 (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USESPS#Examples of self-published sources, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my question was not aimed at you to refer me to the examples, but to explain it to me, because the videos that I cited from youtube were not uploaded or produced or organized by the person biographed. Thank you anyway. I continue to learn, although I do not understand the criteria with which you affirm something that it is not. Virc587 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I linked explains all of that, self-published means author = publisher, not subject of the publication = publisher. Avilich (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well. So if you saw that in the two videos that I refer, the person who was biographed is not the editor, right? Not even his channel. In the first, the world's leading international organization on libraries, is the publisher. In the second, a naturalistic organization is the publisher. Please help me better understand the concept of self-published in these two cases. Thanks in advance. Virc587 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand the claim that the award for Outstanding Librarian given by a national library is not prestigious. An independent news source, Soy Chile, lists it in the first sentence of a news article about Abello. Do we need to see the specific descriptive word "prestigious" applied to make it sufficiently prestigious? I also think WP:BITE is happening here: "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as 'sockpuppet'". Skvader (talk) 17:26, 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 03:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silverbrook, Delaware

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

This one took a bit of digging, not helped out by Silverbrook Gardens, Delaware a short ways to the south and a "Silver Brook" in/near Newark, but from what I can tell it is actually a rail spot which turned into a somewhat vague locale. The oldest topos show the name directly adjacent to where the now-ex-Reading tracks cross the road, and I found an old reference to the station in some legislative document. Across the road in 1898 the vast Silverbrook Cemetery opened; then, shortly after WW II, a large apartment complex appears further to the NW, and the map label drifts over to it; as infill increases the label wanders back and forth. I see no evidence that this was ever regarded as a separate settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Vague locale" describes it well. According to this, Silverbrook M.E. Church and Silverbrook Station of the Reading Railroad were named after the Silver Brook stream, and the name stuck. I'm not finding any coverage that treats this as a distinct community. –dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 19 August 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 01:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Church Hill, Delaware

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

Having trouble getting the Maryland place of the same name to stop barging into searching, but from what I can see this is either an overly complicated (but highly symmetrical) three-way interchange, or the subdivision just to the southwest of it. I can't see that is a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear on topos; the signs at the intersection of Willa Dr. and Rt. 41 confirm that this is just another subdivision. If there's any coverage at all, it's completely overshadowed by Church Hill, MD, even in the Wilmington papers - I'm not even finding real estate listings. –dlthewave ☎ 02:48, 19 August 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 01:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 F1 Dudelange season

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

The article does not meet the notability criteria, per Wikipedia:NSEASONS. Sakiv (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:23, 22 August 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 01:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The FCPA Blog

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

This blog does not pass the WP:GNG, or any other notability guideline. There are several mentions of it in reliable sources, but nothing we would consider significant coverage. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no basis for notability. If Richard L. Cassin had not been deleted as non-notable 9 years ago I would suggest a re-direct; but this seems to be just a backdoor for Cassin coverage. TJRC (talk) 01:19, 17 August 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 Broadcom Inc. as an WP:ATD. Anyone is free to merge any content to the target article if needed. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

125 High Speed Mode

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

This product/technology does not meet the WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet any other criteria for notability either. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This exists, but notability of this piece of tech is hardly clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Broadcom Inc.. A merge might not be a bad idea, except almost nothing in the article on this tech is sourced. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:36, 17 August 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.

[rabi-pedia-1] "St Gregory's School – Banglapedia". en.banglapedia.org. Retrieved August 17, 2021.

[2] Check the second-from-last headmaster name from the "Headmasters" section of the article and the name stated at the last of the source:^[1]

[star-campus-3] Khaleel, Aslam (December 2, 2007). "St. Gregory's: A portrait of glory and tradition". Star Campus. Retrieved August 17, 2021.

[4] Fuchs, Robert; Oltrogge, Doris (1992). O'Mahony, Felicity (ed.). "Colour material and painting technique in the Book of Kells" (PDF). Proceedings of a conference at Trinity College Dublin 6-9 September 1992. Trinity College Library.

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]