Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 27	July 29 >

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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Abruzzo[edit]

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

Individual fails WP:ANYBIO. KidAd • SPEAK 23:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, e.g. Ex-Labor Board Official Takes on Union Strategy Role (Bloomberg Law, 2018), AFL-CIO settles on NLRB pick (Politico, 2019), Biden nominates union lawyer as labor board’s general counsel. (NYT, 2021, "a prominent union lawyer"), Biden nominates Jennifer Abruzzo to serve as NLRB general counsel (The Hill, 2021), Biden to tap new labor board top cop, rescind Trump apprenticeship program (Politico, 2021), Biden's pick for NLRB general counsel grilled over firing of Trump-era GC (Westlaw/Reuters Legal, 2021), Senate tees up confirmation vote on NLRB general counsel pick (Reuters, 2021, "If confirmed, she would be the first woman to serve as [NLRB] general counsel"), VP breaks tie on Biden's pick for NLRB general counsel (Reuters, 2021), First Up For New NLRB Top Lawyer: Protect Early Biden-Era Work (Bloomberg Law, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources listed above are significant coverage for WP:GNG. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to meeting the requirements for WP:GNG as shown above the individual also meets the requirements for WP:POLITICIAN. "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province-wide office, or have been memebers of legislative bodies at those levels." General Counsel of the NLRB is a significant national office. The previous General Counsel of the NLRB Peter B. Robb has also had an article since December 2017, one month after their appointment. Blocod (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per the sources cited by Beccaynr.Niftysquirrel (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordyn Woods[edit]

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

Not notable. Written from fan point of view. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there's a lot of reference cruft going on in the article, but there is enough there to pass the GNG. I think if you look at the references, 2, 3, and 26 are focused specifically on the subject more broadly, and there's certainly enough passing coverage elsewhere. As I mentioned when I rejected the PROD, the deletion process is not the appropriate place to resolve the fan POV concern -- which is a legitimate issue. matt91486 (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khorasan group[edit]

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

WP:OR, just an alleged group, no evidence the group ever really existed, created by a sockpuppet. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a pretty straightforward keep to me. I don't understand how the article is original research, numerous sources have been provided in the article that document the Khorasan group as being a target for US military strikes and in general. Even if the Khorasan group never existed, it's still clearly notable for an article based on the significant coverage of the term "Khorasan group" in reliable sources. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenXava[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I could not find much in-depth coverage, only basic re-prints of material from OpenXava's own site. This might explain why the article has only one reference which is OpenXava's own release notes. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @Javierpaniza:, who has created this article and was basically the only major contributor to it and who might be interesed in saving and improving this article. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Javierpaniza: left a comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/OpenXava with the following sources:

Etiqueta: openxava - a personal blog of Jesús L.C., which is deffinitelly not a reliable source
¿QUÉ ES OPENXAVA? - might be reliable source with in-depth coverage, if there is evidence of editorial review.
Desarrollo rápido de aplicaciones CRUD con OpenXava - looks like a blog post with a generic guide. Given that this publication lacks any focus, I doubt there is any content review. I would not consider this reliable.
Interview with Javier Paniza on OpenXava 2.1 - this is an interview with a connected person, so it is not independent. The publication is generally considered reliable and this specific article could be used as a source for the basic information about OpenXava in the article, but does not help establish notability.
Liferay 6.2 User Interface Development - this might be reliable and in-depth, if there is evidence of editorial review done by Packt Publishing. I see no evidence of editorial review right now.
OpenXava website - this does not help establish notability.

Anton.bersh (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

2. is a personal blog, as said in about me section

5. looks like it contains a tutorial/guide for doing some specific thing in openXava, which I think isn't reliable source by wikipedia standard (?)

Myself, I only one release note, not enough to establish notability. – K4rolB (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant news coverage. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the sources above in a bit more detail and none of them look good (they are either not relaible or not in-depth or both). Anton.bersh (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the few naked objects (and thus domain-driven design) frameworks. With +250.000 downloads probably the most widely used one. Since DDD had and still has a lot of news coverage, its major implementation should deserve its own article, even if it has not much news coverage on its own. --Sebastian.Dietrich (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. if kept, I would help in improving the article here and in german wikipedia --Sebastian.Dietrich (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the Wikipedia guidelines does it state or even remotely imply that being one of the few naked objects or having a quarter of a million downloads means that an article on a subject should be kept. We need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. We already have massive systemic bias in favour of software products over other kinds of tools, and relaxing our requirements in this area would only exacerbate it further. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsha Southward[edit]

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

No starring or significant roles so does not meet WP:NACTOR or GNG. No WP:SIGCOV about career either. – DarkGlow • 22:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage, does not satisfy any notability guideline. Gab4gab (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find significant news coverage on her. Google news has nothing. Peter303x (talk) 22:30, 2 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) 23:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clonmoyle House West[edit]

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

This was tagged for notability with the info: 'How is the subject of this article notable? This house hasn't been surveyed by the NIAH, and doesn't seem to be listed in the Record of Protected Structures. The body does not indicate any claim to notability (just a house that exists). And the links do not indicate any kind of SIGCOV (just maps and a link that doesn't seem to even mention the subject)'. I also couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, just a house that exists. The article makes no claim of notability and my searches don’t turn up anything to suggest there actually is any notability. Neiltonks (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING. I am the editor who added the notability tag, and had planned to come back and complete a WP:BEFORE when I had time. As the nom has also done, I've since completed a BEFORE, and can find nothing at all to support a notability claim under any applicable criteria. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, the house is not the primary topic of any coverage that I can find. At all. Nothing. (And, "Clonmoyle House" is only afforded trivial passing mentions in a few directories and maps. To the extent that existence can be confirmed. But that's about all). In terms of WP:NBUILDING, the subject is just a house. Like any other. It is not a protected structure, and doesn't even seem to have been subject to the initial (NIAH) survey which precedes consideration for listing on the RPS.) There is nothing to suggest that this house any more notable than any of the other thousands (if not 10s or 100s of thousands) of early-19th century farmhouses that dot the Irish landscape. Even the somewhat larger ones. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NBUILDING. Spleodrach (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pourya Medhati[edit]

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

A Persian search yielded no useful results. Almost all of the cited sources don't mention Medhati at all. I can only find him on IMDb, Film Freeway, LinkedIn etc. all of which are unreliable and self-published. He is also a researcher in the field of medicine and he has a Research Gate profile with 2 publications and 18 reads but no citations. I would appreciate if other editors could look into this to see whether he meets WP:NACADEMIC. He definitely fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG without a shadow of a doubt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible vanity page with nothing in terms of reliable sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, no indication of notability as an actor/producer. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. DMySon (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Definitely fails WP:NPROF – his one publication (as a co-author) listed on Scholar has not been cited by anyone (it is quite recent); he's not listed on Scopus. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We can't merge to an article that doesn't exist yet. Sandstein 06:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Floppy Cube[edit]

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

Seemingly NN puzzle/toy. The article relies 100% on a WP:SPS for all content related to this item and I've been unable to find any other in-depth coverage from anything resembling a WP:RS other than a passing mention in Popular Science. Toddst1 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge to some new article of Rubik's Cube variants, along with articles like Alexander's Star and Skewb Diamond. The concept of toys similar to Rubik's Cube is notable, though this specific one doesn't appear to be individually notable. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm honestly surprised there isn't any significant coverage in reliable sources, but when there's no RS there's no RS. casualdejekyll (talk) 17:50, 4 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel Bill Show[edit]

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

Non-notable TV series Dronebogus (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books has lots of hits on this. I looked at a couple, seems like more then minor mentions. Jeepday (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think notability can be established, but the article as it stands is in need of serious cleanup. Lots of content should probably be cut, including the extraneous lists without citation. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean it up per the above. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has notability thanks to google books sources, but needs work.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:40, 4 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. Daniel (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onfleet[edit]

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

NCORP fail. --- Possibly ☎ 16:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Nothing to suggest pass of notability. nearlyevil 665 16:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – DarkGlow • 22:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carolin Stoltz[edit]

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

Bit-part actress that does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG. – DarkGlow • 20:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Emmerdale role. Significant role for a significant amount of time in one of Britains most popular drama series are notable. WP:GNG applies. Article in need of more sources, expansion etc. But AfD is not a clean-up tool.BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm well aware of her Emmerdale role since I am the primary editor on WP:EMMERDALE. However, WP:NACTOR asks for multiple significant roles. – DarkGlow • 21:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added more sources, using the Swedish newspaper archive. She's also done work in Sweden, e.g. in w:sv:Videomannen; this was missing from the article. /Julle (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been noticeably improved since listing and consensus is that it should be kept. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gono University[edit]

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

fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG No good sources came up in a Google search lomrjyo^{(talk•contrib)} 20:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lomrjyo^{(talk•contrib)} 20:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. lomrjyo^{(talk•contrib)} 20:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. I found lots of reliable sources by searching ‘গণ বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়’. ~Yahya (✉) • 12:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing has been substantially improved since it was nominated. It doesn't sound like an institution I would encourage anyone to go to, but a university can be notable for being bad. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it certainly has a reputation in reliable sources, though not necessarily a good oneJackattack1597 (talk) 11:37, 4 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, per CSD:G7. Zsinj^Talk 23:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph & Lindsey[edit]

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

New YouTube series with non-notable director, creator, cast and crew (as far as I can tell). Created by SPA editor who probably has a WP:COI. Fails WP:NTV. Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tagged this page twice for speedy deletion (the only sources were IMDb and YouTube) and the page creator moved it around to Draft space and back. There are also several associated pages, Joseph & Lindsey (season 1) and List of Joseph & Lindsey episodes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and should have frankly been a speedy delete. This entire page is self-promotional drivel for a non-notable series, citing (among other things) wikia sites and direct youtube links without so much as using a citation template. Even if the subject was notable it's almost to the point of being a WP:TNT vote from me. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just received an email from the page creator requesting it be deleted, so I don't see a reason for this to not be a speedy delete. Paragon Deku (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except for an IP fixing a typo and my nominating the article for deletion, the creator is the only editor of the article. If they want it deleted, they should tag the article with WP:G7.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chesterwhy: Would you like to add the tag to the article to help the deletion process? Paragon Deku (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagong City Center[edit]

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

Proposed since 2012. Nothing updated, no reliable sources found. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. The Other language article suggest it has been built, but all the references there indicate it is still proposed and they do not support WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both reference are reliable. Should have add more two reference just like bengali Wikipedia. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 08:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't trust either reference, and the other references on Bengali Wiki look like forum posts. I'm not convinced this building was ever truly in development; the project must be assumed to be dead now. An IP changed the projected creation date with no sourcing. The image is from https://www.stylelivingbd.com/office/ - possibly a copyvio and that page suggests it could just be spec work from a design firm. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:力, also there is no WP:SIGCOV. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:59, 1 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) 23:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of French marquisates[edit]

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

This list is a original research
This list fails WP:NLIST : Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and that is not the case.
The article fails to comply with WP:RS.
Article created by a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account who has always refused to put sources despite the requests made to him.
Unsourced for years for 90% of the content Noveli (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for may reasons : 1) original research 2) fails WP:NLIST (notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and that is not the case) 3) fails to comply with WP:RS (unsourced for for 90% of the content) 4) Article created by a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account who has always refused to put sources despite the requests made to him. --Noveli (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are French marquisates not discussed as a set by, for example, the Almanach de Gotha and the Almanach de Bruxelles? Mccapra (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : same opinion original research and many false statements --Currystreet (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOR and WP:V. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:42, 1 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. The consensus here is to delete, but the article creator explicitly requested a move to Draft during the discussion. After looking at the article, I would be willing to WP:REFUND it as a draft, so I am going to move it to draft directly rather than force the extra steps. However, recording the consensus result here in case this becomes relevant for future deletion requests. RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadhan Jalil[edit]

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

PROD reasoning was (1) This article is blatantly promotional in character. (2) There is insufficient evidence of notability for this amateur footballer. and was applied by User:JBW.

Removed by page creator with comment Removed proposed deletion notice. Ramadhan Jalil is not an amateur footballer, he's a proffesional footballer who have played with 1st tier league club in Malaysia (reserve team/u21 squad) and also represented Malaysia U17 and U19 national football team and have played in continental competitions before. He's currently played with fourth division club in Malaysia football league system.

Despite what the creator says, youth team appearances do not meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL. There are a lot of references in the article but, upon closer inspection, most of them don't mention Ramadhan at all and, those that do, mention him only once. All of these mentions are youth team squad list mentions so clearly do not meet the requirements of significant coverage as defined clearly at WP:GNG. He is currently playing in the amateur Terengganu Amateur League which is three whole tiers below the professional level in Malaysia.

If Ramadhan does not meet GNG then the article absolutely should be deleted regardless of what our personal opinions are of him. I'm happy to do a source assessment table if people would find this useful. No decent coverage found in a Malaysian source search. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTY Dr Salvus 01:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanna hear your thought as Ramadhan Jalil has played with Kuala Lumpur and Melaka United reserves team before, football clubs that played in Malaysia Super League, first tier in Malaysia football league system. He also has competed in Malaysia FA Cup before with Kerteh FC where winners of the competition are awarded a slot to compete in the AFC Cup alongside the champions of the Malaysia Super League. Instead of delete, may i request the article to be moved into userspace or into draftspace, as the subjects may not yet notable, but will likely become notable in the near future. --Manarianz5 (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve teams, as with youth teams, do not support a notability claim as the coverage is much less than for the senior team. You can create a userspace copy if you wish. I would not support a move to draftspace as there is no clear evidence that this player is on the verge of being notable as there is not even one source showing significant coverage let alone the multiple sources that GNG requires. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deals Today[edit]

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

I was unable to find any evidence of a WP:NCORP pass in a search. Provided references are mostly non-independent and also don't address the company in any depth, failing WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NCORP per nomination, this looks like just another advertisement JW 1961^Talk 19:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Probably a G11 - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not remotely notable, created by a COI editor on a self-promo / linkspam spree. - MrOllie (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first reference is to an article by a Forbes contributor, which is not a reliable source. The second reference is to a press release, which is not a reliable source. Neither even mentions Deals Today. Most of the sources just verify that this website has various types of social media presence. I have not been able to find significant coverage of this website in independent, reliable sources, although Tokyo Business Today wrote "the investor buys ordinary stock deals today" back in 1974, which obviously has nothing at all to do with this topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find coverage that meets WP:ORG. Creator rage quitting rather than assisting does not inspire confidence that there's sourcing to be found that we're not finding. Star Mississippi 02:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Probably G11 worthy. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, possibly G11 worthy. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 3 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. Local coverage is deprecated in some subject notability guidelines, and local outlets are often the source of routine coverage of things like sports matches and political candidates. However, local coverage is not generally excluded from supporting notability, and I am not aware of any SNG that limits it for bus stations, so I have no reason to discount the majority sentiment in this discussion. RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cleckheaton bus station[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, Sources in the article and online are LOCAL/PRIMARY, No in-depth coverage found, Fails SIGCOV & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I merged the article to Cleckheaton#Cleckheaton_bus_station in 2015 due to notability concerns, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why this shouldn't be merged back to Cleckheaton#Cleckheaton_bus_station. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the article separate is beneficial as we keep the location info, the separate infobox that would be messy were it in Cleckheaton, and the easy navigation with the West Yorkshire bus stations navbox. Besides, I believe per my comment below that this article (expanded since restoring, and again since nomination for deletion) meets WP:GNG and thus warrants a separate article. NemesisAT (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2015 article which Davey2010 redirected had no sources at all, I recreated this article and significantly improved it. Article has been improved further since nomination by Eastmain. Stories in the Telegraph and Argus and YorkshireLive are both SIGCOV and focus on this bus station. The Telegraph and Argus piece in particular is in-depth. The bus station is also mentioned in this book however unfortunately I can not see the preview and do not have access to this book. There are also other mentions of the bus station on Google Books. Eastmain has added several other sources which discuss bus stations in West Yorkshire, including a piece from BBC News, a national broadcaster. WP:GNG does not exclude local sources, so I'm not sure why sources being local was mentioned in the nomination. Thanks to the wide range of coverage both for all bus stations in West Yorkshire, and this specific bus station, this article passes WP:GNG and should be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again all local stuff, Indeed I came across the BBC cite but it's only a 1-bit mention so hardly worth mentioning. I appreciate and thank Eastmain for trying however what they've added is no where near good enough (planning applications, inyourarea and rent websites aren't reliable sources). This still fails GNG and IMHO certainly doesn't come close to meeting it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does not require national coverage. There is extensive local coverage here, plus we have the book sources I mentioned above but haven't managed to fit into the article. Additionally, while it doesn't itself establish notability, photographs like this at The Transport Library suggest the bus station has a much longer history than explained here and thus there may be scope for further expansion with older sources. NemesisAT (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No but generally speaking there should be a few national ones. If we relied purely on LOCAL coverage we'd honestly probably have 5 million more articles than we do now!. Given I merged the article in 2015 we're not really losing anything here anyway. Anyway don't wanna BLUDGEON the AFD so will cease replying. –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't see any problem with five million more articles. We are not a paper encyclopedia! But each to their own, I guess! I'm sure you'll agree the article was improved significantly since you redirected it, and it would be a shame to lose that additional information. NemesisAT (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references, and the article is much better now. Bus stations are often notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts however the sources you've added aren't reliable or in-depth. Not all bus stations are notable - A few over the years have been deleted or merged. –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Cleckheaton as per Davey2010. I am not convinced that this is notable enough for its own article. Coverage is not significant other than local, and some of the coverage recently added is trivial and doesn't really warrant a mention. Ajf773 (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current facility only dates back to 2007 but there's a much longer history from the 20th century to add and I have made a start on this expansion. The nomination's WP:BEFORE was clearly inadequate, the topic passes WP:GNG and applicable policies include WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My BEFORE was perfectly fine - Look on Google News[1] andf you will find 3 news pieces, Look on Google Books[2] and you will find 3-4 1-bit mention books. Look on the main Google page[3] and again you get 1 bit mentions or irrelevant tripe so no my BEFORE was absolutely fine.

I am fully aware that not everything will be online but by your logic we should then keep every article here on the basis of "Oh, there could be lots of coverage in newspapers" - that's a wild guess Andrew. I don't have access to paper material so I cannot say whether there is or there isn't but linking to NOTPAPER is rather quite pointless here. Again we don't keep articles based on PRESEVRE, We keep them based on notability. –Davey2010^Talk 10:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore redirect - local routine coverage does not meet rise to the level of passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources show it meets WP:GNG. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons already given above. Toviemaix (talk) 06:13, 1 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 23:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One Night Only (2014 film)[edit]

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

Closely related to Love Possibly, which is also at AfD currently. This article was started by Che Grant, who also happens to be the director of the film. I have found the two film festival links in the internet archive: Southampton Film Festival and Fort McMurray Film Festival. I don't think either of these film festivals are notable enough to grant automatic notability to every film that has been nominated at them. A search for published reviews or significant coverage of this film came back with nothing.

As far as I can tell, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this short film is notable enough to pass NFILM. I'm aware that it's difficult for short films to gain coverage over their full length counterparts, but as far as I can see the amount and type of coverage needed just isn't there. On a side note, screening at film festivals in and of itself is typically not a sign of notability unless it's a film festival or portion of a film festival held in very, very high esteem. Most won't accomplish this as it'd have to be at Un Certain Regard level of selectivity and prestige. Now awards can count, but the film festival would have to be at a level that winning would be seen as a strong sign of notability and most don't meet that level either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Burke[edit]

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

Non-notable civil servant and letter writer. In terms of:

WP:NBIO, the claim(s) to notability seem to be "civil servant who wrote essays and corresponded with notable people". I do not see how this claim would meet any applicable criteria.
WP:SIGCOV, the sources in the article (being the only sources I can find anywhere even after WP:BEFORE) are variously non-significant or unreliable. Specifically, the:

Findagrave source doesn't contribute to notability. (A significant majority of deceased people have graves. 180 million of which are recorded on that site. Such an entry doesn't support notability. And, per WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL, isn't considered reliable to support the content either.)
Meath Chronicle source doesn't contribute to notability. It is just a death notice. A form of small ad. For those without access to the Meath Chronicle archives, it appears in the classifieds in the Saturday edition of 17 October 1981. It reads: "BURKE (October 5th 1981) Aidan P., 15 St. Endas Villas, Navan; much loved husband and beloved father of Yyon-Fergal and Nadine; funeral mass on Wednes 21 October, 1981 to St. cemetery. after con-Mass in St. Marys". That is all.
Irish Times source is about the only that could reasonably be considered contributory to notability. For those without access to the Irish Times articles, I have extracted a snapshot here and here. It is a lovely piece that is clearly written by a friend or acquaintance of the subject. But is hardly SIGCOV.

Otherwise, as with other articles created by this editor (who seems intent on creating articles on everyone in the extended Burke family of Drogheda) it clearly falls within the scope of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Guliolopez (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks for posting the details of the references, that is helpful - and interesting, in the case of the Irish Times piece. I agree that there is no sign of significant coverage or any claim to notability. My own search picked up his school leaving destination in the Drogheda Argus and Leinster Journal in 1951, but nothing that comes anywhere close to supporting notability. Tacyarg (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails any standards of notability. Bog standard, run of the mill, ordinary civil servant. Yet another, 'all my ancestors are notable and I will create articles for them on Wikipedia' special by JBurke2005. Spleodrach (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and Spleodrach. Being "probably the only genuine Irish philosopher of his generation", supported by an obituary of the newspaper that he contributed to, does not advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I looked quite hard for sources of information about the man, but could find nothing other than the Irish Times obituary cited above. On its own, this does not meet a standard of notability. If he was a senior member of the Irish Civil Service, I could find no record of it, though the expression "civil servant" could have other meanings. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:47, 3 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. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Udayan Duarah[edit]

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

non notable Indian actor, only worked in a few non notable movies. Trying to create his own article. Creator's username is same as the subject title. Now fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG DMySon (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - declined multiple times at AfC, so user merely move to article space without addressing the issues. Violates Wikipedia:Autobiography. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiography on an actor who clearly lacks the notable roles required to pass WP:NACTOR; mentions in articles are trivial only so clearly fails WP:GNG. Article creator is potentially WP:NOTHERE due to their behaviour surrounding this article and the draft version of it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- DaxServer (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NACTOR. 4 small Indian movies would not make him meet notability. There are not any significant coverage on him. Peter303x (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass NACTOR because there are no notable productions. Ab207 (talk) 16:31, 3 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 Richard Herring#Blogs, podcasts and internet. The content is available behind the redirect if there is anything that desires rescuing. Daniel (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As It Occurs To Me[edit]

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

The most in depth source currently being referenced is the Londonist article with a total of 343 words. I can’t tell how reliable the website is or any information about the author. I found another Londonist article, but it’s really short and according to WP:GNG “Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.” The Chortle.co.uk source has barely 100 words of content and I can’t tell who the author is or whether Chortle allows the comedians to publish news about themselves or not. The other Chortle.co.uk article says that the podcast won the Chortle Internet Award so maybe the podcast meets the requirements of WP:WEBCRIT, but the SNG also states that “These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying web content about which Wikipedia should probably have an article. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website.” The remaining sources appear to all be either not independent, not secondary, or not reliable. I found a some WP:INTERVIEW sources from Independent.co.uk, Left Lion, and Den of Geek, but they would be considered primary sources. I wouldn't doubt it if the hosts of the podcast are notable, but the podcast does not WP:INHERIT notability from its hosts or guests. The contents of the article could be merged into Richard Herring, but the podcast appears to already be mentioned quite a few times on his page so a merge might not be worth the effort. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding that piece from The Independent, I would actually call that more of a secondary source than a primary source. It has some interview quotes inserted, but there is a lengthy introduction by the author before any interview material is used, and even when the quotes start, the author is still using his own thoughts intermingled with snippets from interview quotes. The other two are 100% interview material. That said, the piece is really about Herring as opposed to the podcast. -2pou (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richard Herring: I can't see enough to establish a separate page, but the Herring page has suprisingly little detail about AIOTM. There is material in Dario Llinares 2018 Podcasting: New Aural Cultures and Digital Media on AIOTM, but I can't access it. There is also this analysis of the running joke about "Pippa Middleton's disembodied anus" in an academic text (Julian McDougall, 2013 Barthes' Mythologies Today: Readings of Contemporary Culture. Taylor & Francis) - worth reading to appreciate the layers of meaning in the joke, but not enough to establish the podcast in its own right as notable.OsFish (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Herring#Blogs, podcasts and internet. Fails WP:GNG per nom. There's a paragraph about the show in his article. So, there's little or nothing to merge. SBKSPP (talk) 00:56, 3 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) 13:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nithya Balaji[edit]

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

The subject worked only in two reality shows. Fails WP:NACTOR . Needs more significant coverage. And does not pass WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been really popular after the participation in the show Bigg Boss and her personal life issues which gave her limelight in public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavitha.Syed (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't qualify WP:NACTOR. Comment to the vote above - popularity and limelight are not measures of notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- DaxServer (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Mere participation in reality shows does not meet requirements of NACTOR. No WP:SIGCOV either, only passing mentions. Ab207 (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Chaturvedi - Dermatologist[edit]

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

Previously declined multiple times and creator tried to misguide each time by changing the title of the subject such as "Pankaj Chaturvedi", "Dr. Pankaj Chaturvedi" and now "Pankaj Chaturvedi - Dermatologist". Likely covert advertising. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per ~~WP:G4~~ (not qualified as it was speedy deleted before not via discussion) and WP:G11. Third time is not the charm for this article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. I have a hard time accepting articles which give three sources for "Dr. Chaturvedi is one of the first Indian doctors to be felicitated in House of Commons, British Parliament for his contribution in the field of Dermatology in 2018." when none of these sources even mentions this at all. Coupled with the earlier deleted attempts, best to just get rid of it and give the creator a final warning about this creation (and others like it). Fram (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes WP:GNG. The article has several references which independently discusses his career, life and work in fair depth. Wiki Engineers (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. Basically written for the purposes of promotion. --MuZemike 14:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nom, G11 -- DaxServer (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Ab207 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT all three titles. Having been recreated with a third title after being speedily deleted per WP:G11 twice is an instant and massive red flag. While I note that WP:G11 for this version of the article was declined by Bbb23, I consider this to be sufficient evidence for WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia), specifically WP:NOTPROMO. TompaDompa (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major medical practitioner and has received significant press coverage, pass WP:GNG.- Danish Daniel 99 (talk) 12:45, 04 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 RPSG Group. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips Carbon Black Limited[edit]

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

a non notable company lacking significant coverage with in-depth information on the company. Fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Previous deletion log. DMySon (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I myself stared it for some time and decided to come back to it later. DMySon made a quicker judgment and did the deed. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to RPSG Group. While there is newspaper coverage of this firm, it is predominantly based on company announcements, share price movements, etc., which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Some is maybe relatively substantial, for example this 2019 piece from The Hindu, but still announcement-driven. This company has some coverage at the article on the RPSG Group, and I am inclined to think that is all that is needed, so a redirect could be the appropriate outcome. AllyD (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent company. insufficient notability for an article. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- DaxServer (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Peter Anvin[edit]

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

depends on primary sources and some sources are related to the biographed, violating WP:N which says: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Biel 11:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. There's also a 1200 words long article in Vestmanlands Läns Tidning. accessible through sv:Mediearkivet. I've expanded the article somewhat using it as a source. /Julle (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :

Added to [[Template:Linux kernel]]

Moved from [[Template:Linux kernel] to [[Template:Linux people]]]

Last significant edit

In other languages

—Jerome Potts (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jerome Charles Potts: Despite all this, it still doesn't prove notoriety. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Biel 23:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Julles improvements. It is a close call case indeed. But within WP:GNG in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it barely meets GNG thanks to Julle's improvements.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:35, 4 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 List of first women mayors in the United States#Tennessee. Anyone wishing to merge content can do so of their own volition, from behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Feierabend[edit]

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

Small-town mayor, so no automatic WP:NPOL pass. I thought the fact that she has served multiple terms could've led to some WP:SIGCOV, but all I see is routine coverage any person in her position would expect to see from local sources like the Bristol Herald Courier or WCYB-TV. WaPo at least mentions her here, but again, just in passing. For some reason this is a long-standing article on dewiki, which I assume is why the author understandably thought it to be fair game, but I don't think the available sources are enough to justify its inclusion. AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, mayors are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just for verifying their existence as mayors per se — the notability test for mayors is not existence, but concrete and reliably sourced evidence of her significance, such as specific projects she spearheaded, significant effects she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this is basically just a prosified version of her résumé, referenced 4/5 to primary sources that are not support for notability at all and 1/5 to a list of all of the candidates in one election that she ran in, which fails to make her markedly more notable than anybody else named in the article and doesn't singlehandedly get her over WP:GNG all by itself as the article's only media source. Nothing here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect > List of first women mayors in the United States#Tennessee with merge of appropriate refs. Djflem (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milosh Zezelj[edit]

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

It would appear me that this author fails the WP:NAUTHOR test for notability.

In the alternative, it would appear that this author fails any number of notability tests described as WP:GNG

Looking at the references:

Reference 1: simply having a book with an ISBN is not an indication of notability. Any number of non-notable authors have had books published and their books have ISBNs.
Reference 2 is a Goodreads review. It would appear to me that this indicate the author has a published book, but as Goodreads contains user-created content, it does not assist an indication of notability
reference 3 is another Goodreads review. It does not assist an indication of notability
reference 4 appears to be a bookshop in Belgrade that may sell Mr Zezelj's works. Having books sold in a bookshop may possibly assist in assertion of notability, but it would appear to me that the bookshop in question if created as an article may not pass the WP:CORPDEPTH test
reference 5 - Amazon book product placement
reference 6 - another Goodreads review

As always, happy to be proven wrong Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a native speaker of Serbo-Croatian, and I couldn't found any local source contributing to notability beyond those already in the article, and that's way too short of GNG. It's all book-selling sites, pinterest, goodreads and like. No such user (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kuipers (solitaire)[edit]

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

Fails requirement for general notability as per WP:GNG Gregorytopov (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is non-notable (WP:GNG and WP:NRVE). It is an unknown variant of Klondike_(solitaire), which already covers this genre comprehensively, including notable variants. This variant has virtually no reference to it online or in reputable sources. Even mentioning it on the Klondike page can't be justified, and it certainly doesn't need its own page. There are literally hundreds of solitaire card games in existence, and only the most notable ones are included in Wikipedia; so including a non-notable variant ahead of the far more common solitaire games that have already been excluded from Wikipedia can't be justified. I recommend a speedy delete since this fails Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Gregorytopov (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftity (given it was just created). The author needs to add references and demonstrate the subject's notability, neither of which currently have been done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17 Bernard Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, actually. ----Rdp060707|talk 09:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 09:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia has articles on a huge number of mostly-forgotten sitcoms, generally created by fans, then slowly amended up to acceptable status by specialist editors with interests in television comedy. Without any effort I was able to find evidence of this for such obscure shows as Bowler_(TV_series), Ronny_Chieng:_International_Student, The_Good_Life_(1971_TV_series) and Holmes_&_Yoyo. I'd be content to allow this article to grow organically. I also have concerns about the English-language bias of Wikipedia here (and in AfD debates generally): I suspect that there will be references to this sitcom in Tagalog sources, but my google-bubble is probably isolating me from them because it knows I don't speak that language. RomanSpa (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RomanSpa: I hate to break it with you but Tagalog sources are virtually non-existent on the Internet. Most Philippine sources are in English. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would say "redirect to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network)" but due to the lack of information of this show ever existing, I might have to leave a delete !vote for this one. It simply won't pass WP:GNG. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network). Fails WP:TVSHOW per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs aired by AksyonTV/5 Plus. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mondo Manu[edit]

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

It fails WP:GNG. I cannot find these sources on Google, showing different instead. ----Rdp060707|talk 09:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 09:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of programs aired by AksyonTV/5 Plus. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by AksyonTV/5 Plus. Fails WP:TVSHOW per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. For me, there's pretty close to a consensus to rename here, but I will leave it to an editorial decision to move it to a new title. This could either be done boldly based off this discussion, or via WP:RM. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wehda Street massacre[edit]

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

It is likely that an article should exist for this event. While few media sources have published articles exclusively about it, many have published articles that focus on this amid a broader article about the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis.

However, this article is not suitable for that role. To start, the article was created in violation of WP:A/I/PIA, with none of the three primary contributors User:Rsawikza, User:Belal2795, and User:Osps7 (article creator) meeting the 3/500 requirement for contributing to articles broadly related to the Israel-Palestine conflict at the time of their contributions. Per the Arbcom ruling, deletion is permitted but not required.

In this case, I believe the permitted option should be exercised as the current article heavily, and likely irremediably, breaches WP:NPOV. This can be seen both in the article, and in the edit page, with an editor describing an edit after the neutrality template was added by User:Ynhockey as 'tried to introduce more "neutrality"', quotations in original.

The issues in the article itself can be prominently seen in the title and heavy use throughout the article of the word "massacre", a word that is not used outside quotations in any article on the strike that I have reviewed.

In general, the article suffers from the use of biased phrasing, such as in "The bombardment was the single deadliest of an 11-day attack on Gaza" and "Zionist Israeli citizens used force against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank" (the particulars of the second example are not supported at all in the provided source, as best as I can tell.)

It also suffers from using POV statements as facts, such as "Hamas, Gaza's governing body, affirms that its leaders are not in hiding" and "Since the beginning of the attacks on Gaza critics brought attention to the US for their unwavering support of Israel" (the second example is not fully supported in the provided source). The reverse happens when it comes to POV statements from Israel, using words such as "claim" against MOS:CLAIM.

These issues also extend to what is not included. For instance, the article does not include statements from the Israeli military that hypothesize that the considerable damage inflicted beyond the street was due to secondary explosions, nor when it discusses the lack of warning provided does it mention the statements, again from the Israeli military, that Israel believed based on previous strikes of a similar nature that the damage would be localized and not pose a threat to civilians.

While I have provided a few specific examples above, these are just the tip of the iceberg; these issues are heavily embedded in every section of the article, and I believe that the only way we can reasonable achieve an article at this location that meets WP:NPOV is to delete this one and start again. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wehda_Street_massacre&oldid=1035623443 - Permanent link to current version of article BilledMammal (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Osps7 is in the extended confirmed group as far as I can see so that objection falls. I don't see it as necessary to delete an article in order to "start over", amend what is there. I deleted the lists of victims since WP is not a memorial, we should restrict to notables and victim/casualty counts as reported in reliable sources. I will have to check the sources for its description as a massacre but the event is clearly notable and is specifically highlighted as a possible war crime in a just released (27 July) Human Rights Watch report https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/27/gaza-apparent-war-crimes-during-may-fighting.Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Checking [[4]], you are right, with them holding 506 edits - checking their contributions page put them slightly under, but I believe that some edits don't show up there if a page is deleted? However, they would not have met the requirement when they created the article, having made approximately sixty edits since creating the page, and so the violation of WP:A/I/PIA continues to apply. BilledMammal (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is not reasoning supporting deletion. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Wehda Street Bombing, or similar – the word massacre is highly loaded, and this really stretched the definition. WP:RS sources don't call it a massacre, unlike a number of other articles related to the conflict. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is some support for massacre in the sources but not that I could find among the best sources so yes I would suggest airstrikes as there were a number of them.Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the word "massacre" might need replacing with something that is most commonly used in sourced. BeŻet (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. While I sympathise with the nominator, most of what has been included in the nomination should be at WP:ANI, and not at AfD. Ultimately, Wikipedia is a work in progress and issues relating to content, disagreement over inclusion, and proposals to change the title of articles should all be dealt with on the article talk page, not in a discussion about whether an article should be deleted. I don't see that the issues here quite get the point of blowing it up and starting again (beyond my hesitancy to use that WP vernacular in this context). St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple WP:RS which describe this event and its legacy well after the event itself. See for example NYT (“the raid on Al Wahda Street remains emblematic”) and Independent (“Wehda Street, one of the best-known streets in the 40-km long strip, is now a forlorn reef of funeral wakes, lined with posters displaying the names of the dead”), both from a month after the attack. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a real event that took place in the Gaza Strip. The topic of the article occupied the world and was talked about by many international news channels, and many international human rights institutions talked about it. Also, the bombing of Al-Wahda Street in Gaza was among the largest bombings in 2021. Osps7 (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Extended-confirmed protection has been requested for both the article and this AfD, per WP:ARBPIA. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a lot of work, with a standard referencing format as Deborah Jay noted. 'Massacre' is appropriate because upwards of 40 civilians died, and, so far, no evidence has been forthcoming regarding militant casualties, if there were any. It took place in an extremely densely populated civilian area over 1 km in length, and the result was massive civilian deaths. As to Ynhockey's renaming proposal, I disagree. In this area, several articles where notable numbers of civilians died in an armed conflict between the warring parties are not unusually called 'massacres' because of the high incidence of non-military casualties, i.e. Kfar Etzion massacre, Hadassah medical convoy massacre, I don't see why, when it concerns Palestinians, 'massacres' are deemed inappropriate.Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as definitely notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it to a less dramatic title. - Daveout(talk) 18:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to airstrike of course, which is what this was Free1Soul (talk) 15:52, 2 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. Daniel (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Walten Files[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as all sources aren't sufficient to prove notability or are the media described in the article itself. Page is written in a self-promo style and a quick search for reliable sources doesn't turn up enough to justify an entire article. Paragon Deku (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Doesn't look like there's a lot of info about the series. 🎧⋆JennilyW♡🎶 (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is quite a lot of info, although the series is still small. Whether Martin makes more or not is yet to be seen. Still quite a long series as it is.

Comment even if there's a lot of info, it still needs WPRS. All the sources on the article are just from Youtube and not from news outlets. Shows from the web are barely reliable, so they need to have WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and WP:NOTE. Since this article has none, it's going to get deleted unless reliable sources are found. 🎧⋆JennilyW♡🎶 (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The series has recently gained popularity, which may mean that some reliable sources may the topic.

Until the time comes when reliable sources report on it, the subject is not notable and should not have its own page. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment claiming notability based on the contents of the article is addressed at WP:ARTN and claiming an article could be notable in the future is addressed at WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources being used in the article are YouTube videos, almost all of which are primary. I can find no actual significant coverage in reliable sources discussing or reviewing the series at all. The arguments above that it might become notable and have sources in the future are completely irrelevant to the notability of the topic per WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Rorshacma (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I admittedly hate for articles to get deleted, but looking at the sources, not a single one meets GNG standards. The only other source I could find is this Distractify article about the creator which only briefly mentions the series. Definitely doesn't meet any of the criteria for notability, sadly. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough sources Sahaib (talk) 20:23, 3 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 draftify by admin DGG, who moved it to Draft:Winco Foam. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winco Foam[edit]

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

References given do not establish notability as in WP:NCORP OR WP:ORGDEPTH. Whiteguru (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has now been draftified. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jammer keyboard. Merging can be done editorially from behind the redirect, at anyone's desire. Daniel (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thummer keyboard[edit]

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

The Thummer keyboard never came to market, but it did get press and "awards". The article seems to be a sort of memorial piece by the Thummer's inventor, who is actually the Wikipedia editor JimPlamondon. Plamondon has also been heavily editing the page; here is a recent version after his edits.

Jammer keyboard, which also describes another Plamondon product, is in quite bad shape but I have the sense that it is actually notable, as some people made physical open source versions of it.

My suggestion is that we delete this article (the Thummer), based on dubious notability and the promotional involvement of its inventor in the article, and merge any content to the Jammer keyboard. --- Possibly ☎ 08:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I respectfully beg to differ. The Thummer DID win awards, and WAS written up in a variety of secondary sources, notably including the Wall Street Journal. It sparked the development of various DIY jammer keyboards (that is, Thummer-clone), which you have said above are, together, notable. How can the clones be notable if that which is being cloned is not? Clearly, the Thummer must have been notable to spark interest in making jammers. Yes, I have been heavily involved in editing the page. It had been marked for deletion, so my edits were primarily geared towards adding evidence of the Thummer's notability -- awards it had won, grants it had received, secondary sources that mentioned various aspects of it, etc. All factual, with secondary sources cited. So, what's your beef, Possibly? Why delete all of this factual, secondary-sourced, notable information? What's the point? Respectfully, :--JimPlamondon (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your viewpoint is as an inventor and marketer, and that showed in your versions of the article. The small amount of material there is can be merged to the Jammer article. the fact that you got grants, trademarks and patents does not matter at all. Those are available to almost every product. The press coverage was all right after the product's announcement and marketing in 2006-2007. Also, please properly declare your COI, per WP:COI. --- Possibly ☎ 08:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jammer keyboard. If I am reading all these articles correctly, the Thummer was an early version that never got off the ground, and inspired the Jammer which did get off the ground. Therefore the Thummer is an item in the Jammer's early history. I am also not convinced that the Thummer won "awards" as a prototype, as opposed to start-up funding and some media mentions. Having articles on both of these instruments is inefficient and redundant. Meanwhile, the Jammer article needs to be cleaned up, with the removal of promotional language, though it can be enhanced with some more early Thummer history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both of questionable notability and non-neutrally written. Any inclusion of information into jammer keyboard, which is also of questionable notability, can be done after the fact by a neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jammer keyboard and merge the parts that don't resemble an item in a marketer's CV. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:38, 1 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. As King of Hearts has pointed out, many of the comments (on both sides) are just VAGUEWAVES. When those are discounted, the few valid comments left clearly show a consensus to delete. JBW (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equity Mates Media[edit]

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

Lacks reliable sources to establish notability. Tulkijasi (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per indepth coverage available in Business Insider, The Sydney Morning Herald and other notable publications. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement. No indication of notability. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability. Only one article is actually about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiddleheadLady (talk • contribs) 20:07, July 5, 2021 (UTC)
Keep Passes GNG as multiple sources are available for this podcast network like [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] etc. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above notable podcast network, qualifies GNG. Larryeos (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Spam. Podcasts for references about a podcast. Fails GNG by a long shot. — Ched (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like spam. I don't see the notability established by the sources provided. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In principle, this seems like somewhere WP:NCORP is meant to apply. I don't know Australian sources, but [10][11] seem like RS. Seems like it passes NCORP at a skim? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The SMH source PR links to is an INTERVIEW; there's very little content there that could be considered secondary, thus it doesn't help it meet the NCORP requirements. I can't see the AFR source (it's behind a paywall), but nothing else I can find would meet the NCORP requirements, so in my view this is an NCORP fail. I'll add that, it if is found to be notable, it need a thorough rewrite, because it does indeed read like promotional spam. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm here, I'll comment on some of the other sources. Business Insider, per WP:BI, is of dubious reliability and many editors agree that it should not be used to establish notability. The Morning Star source is another interview, with very little secondary coverage. The link to Lifehacker is actually highlighted in red by a script for me as a generally unreliable source. The Mumbrella source is literally a republished press release. None of the sources I am able to review ticks all of the necessary boxes: secondary, independent, reliable, and giving the subject substantial coverage. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It was closed for two days following NAC. Relisting for more input, and a full run of the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article that lacks coverage in secondary sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as many of the !votes are just WP:VAGUEWAVEs saying it passes or fails GNG without explaining why. There has been relatively little effort to review the sources provided, and the AFR source has not been reviewed at all (the paywall can be bypassed by stopping the browser when the page is halfway loaded).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks King of Hearts, for the hint about stopping the browser - that worked for me. The AFR source is another INTERVIEW. It contains just two or three assertions of fact about the subject in the voice of the author, everything else is coming from one of the founders in the form of a quote. It doesn't change my mind that the sourcing, overall, fails to demonstrate notability. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page lacks substantial coverage directly detailing from reliable sources independent of the subject. I tend to agree with User:Girth Summit's analysis of sources. Virtually everything asserted in the article ultimately comes from routine business news featuring the podcast creators themselves. First-time page creator Larryeos appears in this process to assert keep, but doesn't give us a page creator's rationale or any additional sources around which to base consensus. BusterD (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My assessment of the sources is essentially the same as Summit's assessment, but I wrote it out anyway. The Sydney Morning Herald and The Morning Star are WP:INTERVIEW sources so they are primary not secondary. The Lifehacker article only contains a passing mention of the subject. The Mumbrella article is a press release from Equity Mates Media and is therefore a primary source. The Business Insider article probably doesn’t contribute to notability because of its reliability WP:BI, but even if it did most of the article is an WP:INTERVIEW so it’s a primary source. I’m unable to find any in-depth sources online. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio 1212[edit]

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

Frankly I don't have time to plow through the millions of guidelines needed to start discussing the deletion of a page. This article cites NO sources whatsoever, Radio 1212 seems to only exist on Wikipedia. I don't know what else to say. Hopefully this is brought to the attention to someone who knows what they're doing. Dapperedavid (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A large variety of sources can be found under the German language name "Nachtsender 1212". Passes WP:GNG.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion was originally created without the {{afd2}} template. Discussion was never transcluded to a daily log page. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 06:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Firstly, the article does have a source, it's just not in-line. Secondly, reliable sources very clearly exist (a book, the German broadcasting archive, a Rhineland public broadcaster, and these were found after just 5 minutes from the other language articles; a quick Google search of "radio 1212", "Nachtsender 1212", and "sender 1212" returned these sources: Time, a very in-depth article by the Tennessee Ledger, a radio interview). I'm sure other sources exist as well. The nominator blatantly disregarded a WP:BEFORE search, which is literally the only thing you need to do before an AfD nomination. Curbon7 (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sourcing available as others have stated. If editors think their time is so precious that they don't need to follow guidelines then it's advisable not to bother editing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Three relists later and we are no closer. No prejudice towards a re-nomination in the coming months if desired by an editor. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maye (singer)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to qualify any guidelines for WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. This was moved directly from draft space to main space with notability concerns. Best will be to debate it at AFD. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with moving it back to draft space. I think she is an upcoming pop star, seeing as her songs are getting several streams and celebrities like Barack Obama commented on her music, but if she is not notable yet then moving it back to draft space can work. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Rolling Stones article is big and she has had a number of other coverage of her album and tours. Her album was released on one of the major Indie labels and is listed on a number of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiddleheadLady (talk • contribs) 18:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, she has coverage from CNN(perhaps I should have put that in the article), Rolling Stone, Billboard, several big Latin American magazines like Indie Rocks! and Cusica. This fulfills the guideline for "multiple independent publications": "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Jaguarnik (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very well. I request the participants to please present the sources here that they are referring to. Thank you. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is CNN:[12], Rolling Stone: [13], Billboard: [14], [15], Indie Rocks [16], Cusica [17]. Again, if it's felt that her notability isn't enough, the article can be moved back to drafts. Jaguarnik (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am getting an error at CNN article. Can you help me provide the link again? Thought on others below:

[18] Very interviewish. Can count for WP:BASIC at best.
[19] - Part of Obama's list, as wonderful as it is, won't contribute anything to notability as such since it doesn't discusses why or how it made it to the list. This would be trivial mention.
[20] - Announcement. I won't count it contributing towards anything at all.
[21] - Doesn't seem to be a reliable source. I translated and read it. It's basically an interview. Whatever is outside double quotes is also what the subject is telling the journalist. There is zero independent comment of her work.
[22] Doesn't seem to be something that we could count as a reliable source

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the cnn link: https://www.cnn.com/videos/spanish/2019/06/21/showbiz-maye-cantante-venezuela-my-love-musica.cnn . The Rolling Stone article doesn't seem that much of an interview (while it does have her comments in them); most of the article seems to be about her life and career. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN is also an interview. The one paragraph here is not written in a way that it can even contribute to WP:BASIC. I differ with you on Rolling Stones. I would say 'some' is about her work and career and 'most' is about what she is saying. Being daughter of a notable artist can easily get her all this media edge and interviews. But since there is zero to little reception of her work, I won't see it qualifying notability for now. It may become notable in future of course. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I put the article back in drafts for the time being? Jaguarnik (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguarnik, This was already draftified and you brought it back. Ideally, it shouldn't be draftified again and should either exist in mainspace or be deleted, but I am not sure if that's a mandatory policy. Let's wait for the opinion of other editors and decide accordingly. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new editor, I made an error of judgement. But I truly believe that she will become notable later on. Jaguarnik (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Jaguarnik (talk. I think it's just a bit early. I will keep my eyes open for more coverage. You did a great job with the formatting, the content, and maintaining neutrality. I too hope you stick around! Please ping me if you need any help. JSFarman (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay Jaguarnik! We all make mistakes. I hope this won't mean you will leave the project and I hope you will continue editing Wikipedia. About her being notable in future, whenever you think it has happened, you can create it again. But would be good to first ask at WP:TEA or from any other experienced editor to ensure that notability is being met. Otherwise, all of us will have to do this same unpleasant dance again. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable singer does not satisfy WP:NSINGER. And as per above references discussion.GermanKity (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Comment uh oh looks this will be a big debatable battle Esaïe Prickett (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the focus of an article in Rolling Stone definitely counts toward notability. Pretty much all music articles which aren't reviews include quotes or anecdotes from the singer. It doesn't make the source itself unreliable if its written by a journalist and published by a reputable publication. The other articles also help to contribute to notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you are right that anecdotes and quotes don't make them unreliable. But they do have an impact on independence of the source which is just as important as reliability (one might even argue it's more!). The challenge is journalists not writing any opinion of their own and simply rewriting what is being told. Such articles, even if written by a journalist, are questionable in terms of independence. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it does seem like the existence of the article demonstrates notability. Journalists who write for publications like Rolling Stone can cover a wide range of artists, and they usually don't cover just anybody. Being "worthy" of a feature there indicates to me that the publication assigns some notability to them. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, very interesting point. But I think publication assigning notability is not same as Wiki notability. Publications may choose to cover whomsoever for whatever reasons - that remains not our concern. The subject may have connections or some PR pull because of which she might have got the coverage. Irrespective, we should follow our own guidelines in which independence is of utmost importance. Let's see how others feel about it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Rolling Stone article is heavily edited and has additional commentary between the quotes. I also feel being listed as one of Barack Obama's favourite songs should count for something. NemesisAT (talk) 23:16, 3 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. Not enough independent, significant coverage to demonstrate notability. RL0919 (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R.K Chowdhury[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to Deletion - "The following are presumed to be notable for Politician and Judges. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". R.K Chowdhury is a Bangladeshi Politician and columnist, who gets significant page coverage from third party, reliable newspapers. Newspapers which can be considered top Bengali newspapers of Bangladesh, following newspapers are Bangladesh Pratidin, Jugantor and Kaler Kantho. These newspapers write an entire article just about R.K Chowdhury on his birthday or any other day, just to write about this man. The article has been neutral, and has given proper reference. I hope you'll review this and decide whether it should be deleted or not. Fidaabresham

Delete. Unfortunately, I can't read Bengali, but Google Translate does. Three of the cited articles are trivial mentions, and don't meet GNG, and while one is more extensive, dealing with his candidacy for the Dhaka South City Corporation, it is a single reference, and thus not sufficient on its own for GNG. I also have some concerns that it may just be a regurgitated press release, but the automated translation is not of sufficient quality to determine this. Fidaabresham, do you have additional significant articles that would help him meet GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there buddy, thanks for responding. if you look at one of the articles which is from Kaler Kantho, it's just written about him and can't be considered a trivial mention as the entire speaks only about him and his life achievements. And all of these articles, can't be considered trivial mentions because the entire article only speaks about him and his life achievements. As for you thinking it's regurgitated press release, the 3 articles are considered as notable newspapers officially. The Bangladesh Pratidin article, I also don't believe can be considered as a trivial mention, as the article is about him declaring his candidacy and goes on to speak about his life achievements. If you still wish to read more articles about him, and there's plenty copy paste this "আর কে চৌধুরী" onto your search box and search, you'll find more articles about him, since they're in Bangla you could translate it using Google translate. Fidaabresham (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, well i can read Bengali and i am agree with nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but can the article be considered as a stub under Bangladeshi politician?

Delete fails WP:NPOL, 1st source brief 80th birthday notice, 2nd source a press release, 3rd his wife's death anniversary trivial and press release , 4th source best there is - so overall fails WP:GNG as well. KylieTastic (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 08:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. From one unsourced sentence to enough content and sources to change some participants' minds, we will call this one an instance of WP:HEY. RL0919 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallam Road[edit]

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

Unsourced non-notable article Tubby23 talk 05:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tubby23 talk 05:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tubby23 talk 05:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unsourced, but still notable in my view. The claim of "major arterial road" is backed up in this source (which I can't read bc it's subscriber only but the Google blurb states "one of Melbourne's busiest traffic corridors") confers WP:GEOROAD in my view. Sources that focus on the road exist, albeit a bit difficult to retrieve because you have to parse through news stories of stuff that happened on the road, but they do in fact exist. Curbon7 (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable. The road in question was the subject of two significant capital works projects, one of which is referenced here: [23], and the other is referenced in this article: [24]. This is further coverage of one of those projects: [25]. Yes, some of those articles include obviously promotional content. But none of them are promoting the subject here; they are promoting themselves, and their proximity to a major project on the road in question. In other words, those companies are claiming to be notable because they have worked on a notable road. But there are government sources here that describe the, "tens of thousands of people who rely on Hallam Road, South Gippsland Highway and Evans Road every day". As such, there are myriad mentions of the road in various news broadcasts, traffic updates, incidental stories about police activity, and community news. Because if something happens on this road, its significant enough that the rest of Melbourne needs to know about it. That the article is incomplete is a reason to work on the article, not a reason to delete it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, this is a new article a couple of days old, it does not have references and it is not encyclopedic. It is not ready for article main space, back in the old days this was fine, but we have higher standards now. Now we have WP:DRAFT to give articles a place to be developed, put it there if it notable, it will be promoted out, if not will faded away in 6 months. Personally I do not see it as notable, in my opinion the keep votes are shy on meeting WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the old days? Back when policy said, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page"? St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the old days before we had WP:DRAFT space for building articles that were not ready for main space. Personally I don't think this one, ever will be but; as some people believe it will be WP:DRAFTIFY is a good compromise. Jeepday (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification is just deletion with a vague commitment (by nobody in particular) that the article will be improved. Given that the article can be improved with editing now (as an alternate to deletion), deleting it doesn't seem like much of a compromise. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The article has been improved by Stalwart111 I appreciate their effort, and I understand they feel the subject of the article is notable, I respect their opinion but disagree. To me it still looks like is not notable, there is a grey area here, notability is not clear. Per Wikipedia:Notability (highways) (essay) "It would be rare that a locally maintained road is notable, though not impossible." Per WP:GNG the subject needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," The references on the article are mostly promotion "your government spending your money" kind of things. The closest to meeting GNG is the reference https://www.victorianplaces.com.au/ which would be only one not several, and it is borderline in meeting if at all in my opinion. Jeepday (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Draftify~~ Aoziwe (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY Aoziwe (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above commenters there are sources covering this road and room for improving the article. NemesisAT (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity, in its current state it is an unsourced stub with no evidence of notability. It should ideally go through the AfC process, given there are some sources available, if it can be rewritten in a way to demostrate notability, then I may reconsider my position. Ajf773 (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Ajf773Keep per WP:HEY. Deus et lex (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the words of the great Thanos, "fine, I'll do it myself". I have added some information and a few references. It still needs to be cleaned up but its a start and I think its more than enough to avoid draftification. Pinging Aoziwe, Ajf773, Deus et lex and Jeepday on that basis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - done that too sometimes. Aoziwe (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111 I appreciate your effort, and I respectively disagree that the subject is notable. Unless their is an abrupt change in the voting, I suspect the article will be kept. Thank you for taking the time make improvements on the article. Jeepday (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepday, of course - totally understand your perspective and appreciate you engaging in a respectful and civil manner. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lorwood, Missouri[edit]

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

As the Ramsay place names source makes clear, this is not and was not a community - it's a plantation where there was a rail stop for an on-premises sawmill. Coverage I found beyond the brief place names entry doesn't muster up to GNG - it's mainly instances of either the proprietor or his business partners using "Lorwood Plantation" as their addresses, or references to events occuring there (such as a murder). Essentially, the coverage mentions this place, but isn't about this place. Plantations can be notable, but they generally don't get the GEOLAND exemption, and I'm not seeing how this one meets GNG, unless I missed some sources. Hog Farm _Talk 04:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, a plantation is not a geographic location. No notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Place Names Of Six Southeast Counties Of Missouri has plenty to say about it, including that it was part of Como Township, New Madrid County, Missouri and a stop on the Cotton Belt Railway. There are therefore sensible alternatives to deletion – our policy which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Aerials and topos only go back so far but only serve to ratify the identification of this as a farmstead. The one source with any much material (which is the same source as that cited in the article, BTW), well, there's not that much there, and nothing suggesting that it's notable. We have consistently deleted articles like this one, and I see no reason for this to change. Mangoe (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a stop on a railroad is not sufficient for inclusion, the stop must meet WP:GNG, see WP:STATION. I don't have access to Place Names Of Six Southeast Counties Of Missouri, though the New Madrid County Place Names, 1928-1945 has a paragraph about Lorwood that cites it. Passing reference in a list of place names is not significant coverage, so #2 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. As this location has no legal recognition, #1 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. Cxbrx (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mortdale, New South Wales. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mortdale Heights[edit]

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

WP:NGEO This is not a suburb acknowledged by the Local Council nor Australia Post. Paulzag (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, not included as a neighbourhood nor suburb of local government. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom and above vote reasoning. -- Tubby23 talk 06:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge description and history to Mortdale, New South Wales.Djflem (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Mortdale. Mortdale Heights is not a suburb. See here and search on 'mortdale'. It is recognised in some places as a locality within the suburb of Mortdale. See here for example. A google search will show that it is a well recognised commercial term, ie, real estate, and hence is a likely search term. Aoziwe (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per Djflem or Aoziwe. There are clear alternatives to deletion here. Deus et lex (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the original publisher of this page. Mortdale Heights was originally a suburb, but was later re-definied as a locality along with a number of other smaller Sydney suburbs. I have changed the word 'suburb' and replaced it with 'locality' on the Mortdale Heights Wikipedia page to reflect this. Mortdale Heights has a unique elevated location, history, and atmosphere compared to Mortdale, and so I would like the existing Mortdale Heights page to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenbenbooks (talk • contribs) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a reference for the suburb --> locality. It would be good if that was in the history .... I am all for keeping the content, but it needs to be put into Mortdale. Still do not see enough for its own article. Aoziwe (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. The page name nominated is now a redirect and the content that was at this name previously is now a draft, neither of which are subjects for AFD. RL0919 (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furiosa (2023 film)[edit]

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

Film set for release in 2023. Whereas this has been announced, our guideline is that films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, according to WP:NFF Whiteguru (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I moved it to the draftspace right before you nominated this, since it will probably be notable in the future. Is that appropriate, or should we continue to move forward with deletion? Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeeno I have no objections to this going to draftspace. That could be a better place for this article. Can you do a procedural close and draftify? --Whiteguru (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two drafts relating to this film, the one above and DRAFT:Furiosa (film) Neiltonks (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Devil Beside You#Characters. Daniel (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang Meng[edit]

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

Non-notable, unsourced and written mostly in-universe. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, has no references or footnotes (imdb does not count), and totally written as a plot. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable character unsourced since 2015. enjoyer -- talk 05:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Devil Beside You as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 20:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devil Beside You#Characters (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Preserving the history will allow editors to do a selective merge of the content to Devil Beside You#Characters or to easily undo the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devil Beside You#Characters per above, not seeing anything that would suggest this character is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jameco Electronics[edit]

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

This is a promotional article about a company which does not meet the requirements of WP:NCORP or WP:GNG the only references I could find are press releases, routine business coverage and unreliable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Jameco is a very important company to people who are learning to build electronics for the first time: https://makezine.com/?s=Jameco

Their importance to the amateur electronics community has only grown since Radio Shack closed most of its retail stores.

It is notable for being in this niche business for generations, and is one of only a handful of suppliers to hobbyists.

Electronic parts with the Jameco name upon them could last for centuries or even millennia, and if the business fails in the future or gets acquired, future electronics technicians might never be able to identify where those parts originally came from or how they function, or where to get replacement parts from a future corporate behemoth that might buy them decades from now. Plus the wikipedia itself needs some electronics to function.

I have no affiliation to that company, I merely see both their value and the need to permanently retain a record of who they are/were. ♠Ace Frahm♠^talk 09:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Can only find basic press releases Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIRS. This subject has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Press releases and the like are not acceptable for denoting notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HyperCast[edit]

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

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus.

Previous discussions: 2011-03 (closed as no consensus), 2005-09 (closed as ✗ DELETE)

Logs: 2005-10 ✗ deleted, 2005-06 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no place in an English encyclopaedia for an article written in such a way that it's, from start to finish, completely meaningless to an average English-speaking person with an average education. There's nothing wrong with going into a technical depth that will only be meaningful to those with a background in the area (that's true of most of our maths articles). But the article's lead should at least make some passing sense to a normal human. This article is complete technobabble start to finish; it fails to give any normal-human view of what the subject actually is. It doesn't even try. I'm not even sure whether bits of it are as the writer intended, or later vandalism (would you want to describe your product as "unreliable, unordered, possible duplication"? In this case I'm guessing yes, that's how it deals with stuff, but a little explanation would have been nice?). I suspect that it says nothing new to those who understand it, and nothing at all to the rest of us, which makes it of no benefit to anyone. It's totally unreferenced. So even if the subject were notable, it's still a case requiring delete and start again if anyone feels motivated to write a decent article. Elemimele (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even if it is notable, I can't get any information from the article at all. I'm thinking this is a WP:TNT situation. casualdejekyll (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- after going through the article and looking for sources, I agree with the above commentators that this is a TNT situation. Reyk _YO! 08:46, 1 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.