Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 24	September 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third Hill-Genoa, Virginia[edit]

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

Found this one going through CAT:NN. I can find some passing mentions to a small post office at Genoa, Virginia, but I cannot establish existence of a place named "Third Hill-Genoa". Maybe Genoa could be an article, but I don't think this article meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 23:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 23:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 23:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Genoa and Third Hill appear next to each other on the map but I'm not finding anything to support the hyphenated name. This article was the creator's only edit, it's never had any sourcing and the 2018 deprod is disappointing to say the least. –dlthewave ☎ 01:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Your search for "third hill-genoa" did not return any matches. Searching the terms separately doesn't give anything useful either. Seven hundred and some results, and all of them seem to be OCR errors or articles about times in which there were three hills. There is this from 1875, but doesn't mention it as a settlement. There was also a band called Third Hill. No coverage, no cigar. jp×g 02:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JPxG.4meter4 (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom could not find anything.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PaisaDukan[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill fintech startup which fails NCORP. This company has received only routine coverage in context of fundraising, partnerships, license approvals, etc. which is not sufficient to establish notability. M4DU7 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that it easily fails WP:NCORP. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum Days[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing. No reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No hits in newspapers, PROQUEST, EBSCOE, or google books. Could find nothing of significance on the web. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFO.4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Pratt[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Newfoundland and Labrador-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a recognized Newfoundland artist who is listed on Heritage Newfoundland and Labrador. Her 2020 exhibit Cake received widespread Canadian coverage. Her work is in two public collections (one unconfirmed, for Memorial University, but seems probable). I think there is enough to pass WP:GNG and maybe WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is at least one confirmed collection, and several good shows and a few reviews. It's enough for keep. --- Possibly ☎ 02:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she has received widespread coverage in Canada.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oliviero Rising[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFSOURCES. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found a link from IndieWire. It needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFSOURCES - It does have Ernest Borgnine in it and a few other high profile actors, but there is very little written about it, has no awards, hasn't been featured in festivals. I found one RS review, from Indiewire (as noted by nom) - and that's it! Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too could find nothing of substance in newspapers, JSTOR, EBSCOE, PROQUEST, etc.; although google books had some hits in academic reference books on the film (but without having the pages visible). It's possible there might be significant coverage in one or more of those. It's equally possible that the film is just listed without any details in a biographical entry on one of the people involved with the film in those reference works (thus making it not significant). Without any concrete evidence, fails GNG and NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purnendu Tiwary[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Serving in the military or being a managing director of a company are not sufficient for notability. The only claim here is the award from the Indian government but that particular award does not appear to be significant. RegentsPark (comment) 21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RegentsPark (comment) 21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, doesn’t meet ANYBIO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, don't see that award as satisfying #1 of ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This award - The Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award , is the highest honour conferred on overseas Indians and given by President of India. This award is given only to those individuals whose contribution is considered significant at the national level. Purnendu Tiwary rank not high, but he first Indian Armed Forces personnel who awarded this. If even not see articles about his role in international relationships between India and Qatar, this award can be a reason be in Free Encyclopaedia.

Dr JackRain 12:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Dr JackRain[reply]

Comment Pravasi Bharatiya Samman does not appear to be the "highest honour conferred on overseas Indians"; or at least from a quick look the relevant page does not claim it is. As for the supposed ANYBIO issue, even if the award would be suitable; Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria is clear that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included"; and since the objections to inclusion are on the more persuasive WP:GNG requirements; these should be given precedence as usual. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milana Abensberg und Traun[edit]

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

Subject has not gained notability yet except for being the daughter of... As per Romeo Beckham, who is now much more notable than Milana as a child of... I suggest the deletion or at least redirection of the article until the subject gained some more notability. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources that aren't gross tabloids are found. The coverage of her attending the baptism is, at best, BLP1E, although a biography based solely on leering gossip rags is clearly not encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Wikipedia notability of any kind. Not even enough to name-drop her in her uncle's article. Lovely woman, I'm sure, but not encyclopedic material. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately notability by association does not necessarily translate/pass GNG. --WomenProj (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

County State-Aid Highway 21 (Polk County, Minnesota)[edit]

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

Quite frankly, the article fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 21:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 21:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 21:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - County routes are generally not notable enough for their own articles. This article would be better suited to be covered in an appropriate list if one is created. Dough4872 23:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Bębnik[edit]

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

Grzegorz Bębnik does not appear to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, the only source in this WP:BLP is a self-published source from the author's employer and the Wikipedia articles on the individual written in Afrikaans and Polish both appear to not be sourced whatsoever. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He has habilitation which passes Polish Wikipedia's equivalent og NACADEMIC; our is unclear on whether this is sufficient but I think it should be enough. His work has some visibility, ex. [1]. Additionally he publishes newspaper articles on popular history in some notable Polish newspapers: [2] (Polish Press Agency reported on an event/forum related to on of his books). He received a minor local award for popularizing history on 2013: [3] (it does not have en wiki page but does have a pl one: pl:Nagroda im. ks. Augustina Weltzla „Górnośląski Tacyt”). His books got some reviews: academic [4], [5], [6], popular history magazine: [7], newspaper: [8]... I think that's enough for NPROF on en wiki too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found two book reviews [9] [10], the second of which is for an edited volume. It's not enough yet to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR but maybe there is more out there to be found. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the above, I'd be OK to withdraw this if you don't have an objection, David Eppstein. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If I had an objection I would have formulated some kind of delete opinion rather than just a comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per Piotrus. VocalIndia (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neil (software)[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bumpa (album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS criteria. I could not find any significant coverage other than a short one in allmusic Chrisfilip (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G8. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil Iqbal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources can be considered WP:RS. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the article is deleted, be sure to clean up this redirect that was created the day after the singer's article, perhaps as an error. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blackguard 00:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article says he's popular, and so do the many press releases that his publicist has reprinted at shifty PR sites, but that doesn't make it true. Wikipedia must not be used as part of a beginner's social media promotion blitz. This guy has been noticed by nobody in the reliable entertainment media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aagneyam[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone who reads Malayalam search for the film by its Malayalam name, ആഗ്നേയം. which means ignition? When I search, I find ml:ആഗ്നേയം, which is a novel that doesn't seem to be related to the film. If the film was a box office success, as the article claims, references ought to exist. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. Two weeks ago I asked "Could someone who reads Malayalam search for the film by its Malayalam name, ആഗ്നേയം. which means ignition?" I don't think anybody did (or if they did, they didn't report their results). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is not completely unsourced, there is one given, although it is not cited inline. However, it is in a foreign language, which makes verifying the information within harder... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, if only to prevent a soft delete. In the absence of a convincing source analysis of the extent foreign language ref, I'm not seeing a strong argument for deletion. No prejudice against renomination if an editor who reads Malayalam come forward to argue for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against re-nomination due to lack of participation. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IDreamBooks[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP unfortunately - most, if not all, coverage appears to be routine/centered on company launch, and are not independent of subject (include contributions from company founders) -Liance^{talk/contribs} 15:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 15:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before I can say whether I think this Wikipedia article should be kept or deleted, I would like to understand the argument in favor of deletion better.

To start with, I am not sure I understand the claim that the coverage is 'not independent of subject'. Consider e.g. the article in Huffington Post. Yes, it includes some statements from the founders of IDreamBooks. But a big part of the article is completely independent of those statements. Surely, just because one part of the article reports statements by the subject, that doesn't mean that therefore the entire article is 'tainted'?

I also don't understand why it counts against notability that the sources mostly covered the company launch. After all, they were covering the launch precisely because they found the company notable. Related to that, I don't understand the criticism that the coverage is 'routine'. I would understand this criticism if a source was obliged to cover all events of similar nature (i.e. all company launches or something like that). For example, suppose someone claims that a certain proposed federal agency rule deserves a Wikipedia article because that proposed rule is quoted in the Federal Register. In that case, I would agree that notability hasn't been established. After all, the Federal Register is obliged to publish all federal government agency rules, proposed rules, and public notices. Even the most 'boring' and non-notable rules get published there, because it's the purpose of the Federal Register to publish all such rules. But the sources used in the IDreamBooks are not like that. They weren't obliged to cover IDreamBooks by some automatic rule. On the contrary, they had to make a conscious choice to cover it. --Reuqr (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reuqr, I'll take a shot at trying to explain - I'm sure others will offer their own methodology/opinion. First, because this is a company/organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and for me, the two most relevant sections are WP:CORPDEPTH and [[WP:ORGIND[[ (especially the part about "Independent Content"). So when I look at a reference, I first ignore everything said by a person associated with the organization (executive, customer, partner, etc), everything likely provided by the company (announcement details, boilerplate descriptions that appear in multiple articles, etc) and look at what is remaining. I then ask myself "Does what remains meet WP:CORPDEPTH?" When I look at the HuffPost article, the first couple of paragraphs generically describe "the problem". The third paragraph is a company description but it isn't very unique as it is very similar to other articles featuring the company around that time especially the comparison to Rotten Tomatoes (close to a "boilerplate") - for example, check out here. For me, what remains doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Others may differ in their conclusion. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Reuqr - detailed analysis of what the company is about doesn't cease to be significant coverage or independent just because the company's founder or CEO is quoted within the article. That small portion of the source might be considered primary, but that doesn't extend to the material written by an independent journalist and published with editorial oversight. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the sentiments expressed by Stalwart111 but when you remove the information provided by the exec and the company, there isn't enough remaining to meet CORPDEPTH (I always assume RS unless blatently obvious so independent journalist with editorial oversight is the same as WP:RS). We require multiple (at least two) references that meet NCORP, nothing I can find does so we don't even have one. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Shukla[edit]

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

Subject is not notable and the article appears to serve no purpose aside from promoting the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks significant coverage. Couldn’t find much through searches. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR defcon5 (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, and no evidence of passing any SNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UNDELETE:This article exists since 2013 and edited by many verified users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.112.40.4 (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Lithuanian Rowing Championships[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Far below the bar of what belongs in an encyclopedia instead of a statistical sports database. Geschichte (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Lithuanian Archery Championships[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Far below the bar of what belongs in an encyclopedia instead of a statistical sports database. Geschichte (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Lithuanian Sailing Championships[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Far below the bar of what belongs in an encyclopedia instead of a statistical sports database. Geschichte (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (with no prejudice against eventual re-nomination) I see that no one has considered a possible WP:ATD; but this discussion has run its course. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riding High (1995, TV series)[edit]

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

I wanted to draftify this but 2(d) doesn't apply. The best source is a nw.de listicle; otherwise, Egmont Ehapa is not independent and the rest are not reliable (blogs and similar). I struggled to find anything useful with a WP:BEFORE (just a local Waikato Times piece about Marama Jackson that mentions the show in passing), though sources may exist outside of my reach. — Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv

(talk) 16:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question on what grounds is this article nominated for deletion? NealeWellington (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @NealeWellington: it's not notable. Was that not clear in the nomination statement? — Bilorv (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the article is very interesting and remarkable. In Germany, the series had a lot of resonance and was very relevant. The article is well documented. I see no reason for deletion. Qwertzu111111 (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertzu111111: these reasons don't seem to relate to the criteria we use to decide if an article should be kept or not, the primary one being notability. The burden of proof is on the people who want an article to be kept to show that notability is met. With this in mind, which references in the article do you see as being independent, reliable and in-depth (and so contributing to notability)? — Bilorv (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bilorv: Thanks for your kind response. In the references you will find a number of articles proving that this television programme had generated a lot of media attention. It has an entry in the IMDb. It has been translated (dubbed) into many European languages. The story is based on a very popular German comic book and the TV show had 65 episodes. What is missing to be relevant? Qwertzu111111 (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Qwertzu111111: IMDb is user-generated so it's not reliable (and since it's a database aiming to compile all television series, among other things, it doesn't show significance). The length of the TV series, the dubbing and the origins are not factors in notability. I looked through all the sources and the only one that I could see meeting the three criteria (independent, reliable, in-depth) is the nw.de listicle, which doesn't count for much. We would need several good sources to meet GNG. — Bilorv (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Very hard to assess the sourcing when it's all non-English language (seriously – no one can find some New Zealand sources?!): I can't tell what kind of sources these are, and whether they help establish notability or not... If this is kept, though, the article is entirely wrongly titled: it should be moved to Riding High (New Zealand TV series) (with a redirect at Riding High (1995 TV series)); meanwhile Riding High (TV series) should be moved to Riding High (Canadian TV program) (as per WP:INCDAB). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I was going to suggest using the corresponding German article, de:Wendy (Fernsehserie, 1995), to see if there were more sources, but it uses the same sources and seems to be a very close translation in places (I can't verify how close, as I only know a little German, but Google Translate shows a close match for some passages). Template:Translated page should probably be added to the talk page. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The whole "Wendy" franchise is very successful all over the world. In addition to comics and books (approx. 50), there are also other cinema films (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5819908/ and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7119170/), animated films, computer games and toys (from Revell) and many other mechandising products (T-shirts, etc...). Qwertzu111111 (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.... i forgot: also wessels-filmkritik.com/ is independent, reliable, in-depth Qwertzu111111 (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog, is it not? What's its fact-checking process and what are the credentials of the author? Blogs are generally not reliable. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Antje Wessels writes blogs. But not only. She is in Germany a high recognised film critic. Qwertzu111111 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch that Wessels has an article at de:Antje Wessels (Filmkritikerin), but I don't know if she actually warrants an article there; it's not clear that she writes for notable publications or has been republished by said publications. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The franchise is not relevant to this discussion – the question is: is the TV series itself notable? And, really, the proof would be coverage on the TV series in its native New Zealand – if that is mostly absent, it would tend to indicate that the TV series is not notable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a notable and independent source: TV Spielfilm - https://www.tvspielfilm.de/serien/wendy-9026926/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.3.203.151 (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not – that's the kind of source that confirms something exists, not the type of source that helps establish notability. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The link to https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/riding-high-episode-one-1995 was deleted from the article; I do not know why. In my opinion NZ On Screen is a source with serious value. Qwertzu111111 (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also not a valid secondary source. So far, no one has come up with a valid secondary source, esp. from its native New Zealand. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After extended time for discussion, consensus has become clear. No prejudice against restoration to draftspace if requested. BD2412 T 21:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anusha Rai[edit]

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

Bit-part actor, doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and sigcov. scope_creep^Talk 19:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering the nomination has come from an esteemed editor like scope_creep, I will try to give a detailed rational and try my best indeed. WP:NACTOR requires 'significant' roles in multiple notable films. I accepted it on the basis of Mahanubhavaru where she is the leading lady and second Karshanam, again the female lead. What's significant and not in WP:NACTOR has been debated over various AFDs etc. I have been part of many of them and my understanding of that is - if the actor is in the lead or at least second lead, it should count. Indian films (and here we are talking about Kannada films) are portrayed as male dominated so I can understand why they would feel like that roles of the female actor ere not significant - since the plot doesn't talk about the female leads much. But it's nothing but patriarchy - not giving right attention and credit (and even pay) to female co-stars despite the fact that they are equally important and play a significant role in the films. There are her other projects which I feel are notable but people have not created pages for them so far; but I guess a few of them are likely to pass WP:NFILM. The other reason I accepted it was WP:BASIC which doesn't particularly need sigcov. I saw a few print sources cited that were in local language with her pictures [11], [12]. I opened those and found that there are a massive number of local print sources on her. Check here [13]. I have felt that reliability of print is higher than online (my own opinion) and local sources should always count and have equal value as English sources. National English media is unlikely to report and of course there is a political battle between Hindi (the allegedly National language) and local southern languages in India. So for subjects belonging to such industries, local sources should be considered valuable. Considering these local ones, WP:BASIC seems to be crossed and in my opinion, even WP:NACTOR is achieved. Apologies for such long response; I have a 100% track record at AFC and I am very careful in accepting/rejecting articles and I hope I will maintain my record. Thanks! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, as well as the thorough analysis from Nomadicghumakkad. Independent and reliable sources are focused on her, her biographical/education background, as well as her multiple significant roles, e.g. The long road to acting (Bangalore Mirror, 2018), This hudugi is ‘RAI’Ding high (Deccan Chronicle, 2018), The new princess (Deccan Chronicle, 2018), in addition to the sources described by Nomadicghumakkad. Beccaynr (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON; appear to have played some minor roles in major productions or vice versa and sources provided above are insufficient to satisfy WP:GNG (see WP:IV). Also, please note that the draft was moved to the main namespace after being rejected multiple times by multiple reviewers. Also, Indian media write about anyone who claims to be an actor (see Paid news in India) and for that fact we don't keep articles on actors just because of their appearance in the media unless they satisfy WP:NACTOR for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janhvi Kapoor and many more. GSS ^💬 04:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC) (updated 05:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Comment I don't think these are minor roles. The coverages clearly indicate that they are leading roles, as also explained by Beccaynr (whom I give credit for my understanding of WP:BASIC after losing a number of AFD battles to them!) About interviews, my understanding has been that what is outside double quotes can be considered for notability and that's why, my rational is linked with WP:BASIC and not necessarily WP:GNG. I definitely agree that journalism in India is now plagued with paid news but that doesn't mean that all news is paid news. The sources cited here are credited to journalists. Again, would focus back to value of sources in local languages and that they should not be overlooked. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of her films is independently notable. The notability of her debut film Mahanubhavaru is questionable and can be challenged by anyone. The film was released in 2017 and only received 1 review which is insufficient as per WP:NFILM and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources except the announcements etc. Her another film Karshanam was released in 2018 and I can't find a single full-length review by a notable critic about it. Google yield merely 15 results for "Karshanam" and most of them are not even about the film. GSS ^💬 14:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are minor roles. She is currently a bit-part actor at a very very early stage of her career. They're is not one staring part, not even a part in a major series, where she wasn't a support actor. The references offered are all PR. The references offered in archive.org state: New Comers Karshanam by Yuva Chethana in late 2018. It is PR as well. They are all junk references. She doen't meet WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 07:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the film Karshanam to Afd as well, since it is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has indeffed block. 10 of the article have created have been rejected at Afc or deleted. Two seems to survive and seem to be linked to this actor. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of WP:NACTOR which needs "significant roles in multiple notable films." Without the presence of critical reviews, neither significance nor notability can be duly assessed. Two films have articles but their notability is shaky. Also, the concerns about the independence of the sources cannot be ignored when nearly all of them are interviews . -- Ab207 (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting inputs. Bit part is being defined as A bit part is a role in which there is direct interaction with the principal actors and no more than five lines of dialogue, often referred to as a five-or-less or under-five in the United States, or under sixes in British television, or a walk-on part with no dialogue. A bit part is higher than that of an extra and lower than that of a supporting actor. An actor who regularly performs in bit roles, either as a hobby or to earn a living, is referred to as a bit player, a term also used to describe an aspiring actor who has not yet broken into supporting or leading roles.

Subject is on the poster of the first film [14]. I don't think a bit part actor would be given space on the posters. On Karshanam, I was able to locate a dubbed link on youtube [15]. A quick skim through was sufficient to gather that this is not a bit part or a supporting role. For Mahanabhavaru, I found a review at TOI, rated 2 out of 5 [16]m one at Chitraloka rated 3 out of 5 [17]. I have a feeling there will be more local (Karnataka) sources. On Karshanam, there is one in Asia Net news [18] and one in Cinibuzz [19]. Both are local languages. Also, film reviews is not the only criteria. If there is regular reporting on updates of the film, the film can still pass WP:GNG of it's own - which is how we end up having wiki pages of many films that are not even released yet. Google search results would still give limited results because it won't pick a lot of Kannada material. The last argument circles back to WP:BASIC. Archives [20] illustrates her journey, various roles and her biographical details in English, Kannada and Malyalam. I don't agree they are paid unless proven otherwise. I agree they are interviewish. But like mentioned before, there is enough material outside that she is saying herself as a primary source. Not having reception of work is not ideal indeed. I have myself opposed this for authors and actors. But I have lost many of those AFDs where I voiced against not having proper reception. WP:BASIC was recognized over the issues of absence of reception. I think that's all I got on this one unless I find something fascinatingly new! Would have been really great to have some Kannada reading editors weigh in. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would take your word for having significant roles but for notability, its not unreasonable to expect atleast two full-length reviews of good quality. Print sources are usually the best ones per WP:NFSOURCES. TOI is acceptable, along with Asianet (which is originally published by Kannada Prabha) can also be considered. I believe film reviews are an easier route to notability than GNG. If properly scrutinized, many of the unreleased film articles wouldn't meet WP:NFF. Overall, I think its still borderline. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your trust; that being said, I haven't made statements without a suitable rational. And thank you for saying it's borderline - which is different than non-notable. I agree that it's not unreasonable to ask for full length reviews. My only worry is that it's difficult to figure reliability of sources like chitraloka and others since we don't have enough editors who would be able to read Kannada. This holds true for hundreds of other languages. I feel strongly towards notability in context of WP:BASIC considering there is regular print coverage about her through out years. 02:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. User:GSS has a good point with WP:TOOSOON. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Elaborating further on my argument below:

Nischith N writes The long road to acting in Bangalore Mirror and writes Actress Anusha Rai pursued engineering in electronics and communication at Acharya Institute of technology and dreamed of working n a multinational company. But she soon started receiving offers from sandalwood and is now working on her third film titled karshanam in which she plays role of a journalist…Anusha made her dubet with the movie Mahanubhavaru which recently released and is also part of popular teleserial like Naagakannike.

Shashiprasad SM writes in Deccan Chronicle with title The New PrincessHer love for dance drew her to learn the art, which eventually led her to movies. But soon, television embraced her and she got busy with multiple teleserials in other languages too including Kannada. Actress Anusha Rai, is back with yet another exciting venture titled Rajakumari for Kasturi channel, which is produced by Mrs Anitha Kumaraswamy. That apart, the actress is playing vital roles in movies too including Damayanti wherein she shares screen space with Radhika Kumaraswamy...In the movie Karshanam, an action suspense thriller which recently released to positive reviews, Anushaplayed the role of a journalist. Further, in her upcoming venture titled BMW, she is a college student and in the most expected horror venture Damayanti, she shares the screen space with the talented Radhika Kumaraswamy.

Vinay Lokesh write in Times of India in article titled Anusha Rai features in an English hip hop music videoActress Anusha Rai is extending her horizons beyond Sandalwood. The actress will be seen in her debut English hip hop music video called Aicha. The song which is crooned by Dubai-based singer Sanoof Mohammed, will be released next month. The actress has also signed an anthology film, Pentagon. Apart from this, there is coverage about her in Vijay Karnataka [21], Vijayavani [22], Kannada Prabha [23]. I can't read the language but I don't see the double quotes so we can presume these are not necessarily interviews. All of this can even be considered contributing to WP:GNG like Beccaynr first asserted. And if not, WP:BASIC is still easily qualified. I have not even considered repeat coverages by these publications which talks about her in different roles and events.

About the last comment: roughly around 500 edits, no page creations, use of twinkle, a Blitzkrieg of 70 AFds in last 4 days with knowledge of diverse guidelines doesn't really add up. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomadicghumakkad: As I mentioned earlier, we don't keep articles on actors just because of their media presence unless they have played a major role in multiple notable films which is not the case with the subject in question. An article on one of her films (Karshanam) has been deleted as non-notable and the notability of her another film Mahanubhavaru is questionable and it can be nominated for deletion anytime so, there is no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR notability criteria. Also, I would like to point out that none of the screenshots you provided above has the name of the newspaper and there is no date of publication which further raises concern about their reliability. GSS ^💬 07:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected and improved hundreds of pages since 2009. This is what I do. I do not create pages on non notable topics but I see dozens of those every week. Gentleman wiki (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is non-notable at this time. Lastly, bit-part actors are given space on film posters all the time. Its not an indication of being notable. Sex sells. It is a false argument. Lastly, you will always find coverage on new actors, and in quantity. Every actor is a brand, with a PR agency driving their advertising. So it is the quality that counts. Not how much you can post up. The quality of it. scope_creep^Talk 11:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir. Anusha hs news in all this nwspaper for real. U can see full nwspaper wid name of nwspaper and date also. [24]. Ntkn769 (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI appreciate the wisdom and patience by the editors here. I also agree that after Karshanam being deleted, we don't have grounds for WP:NACTOR since it requires multiple sig roles in notable projects. Also agreed on quality - but I don't think actors are always covered that way. It depends on what the society wants to consume indeed. WP:BASIC doesn't say 'what' should be written about the subject. It is vague of course, but can't be ignored. talk, having complete newspapers do provide evidence that these coverages exists but possessing these complete newspaper pages makes me worried that you have a COI and you are not just a fan as you claimed so. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GSS.4meter4 (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GSS. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5 by Deepfriedokra. ✗plicit 03:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EFEM[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a rapper, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim being made here is that he and his music exist, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, and the sourcing consists of a mixture of primary sources (music self-verifying its own existence on streaming platforms) that aren't support for notability with very short and unsubstantive blurbs in publications of uncertain reliability, not adding up to enough coverage to pass NMUSIC #1 in lieu of any of NMUSIC's more achievement-based criteria (charting hits, major music awards, etc.) Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note here to advise that the page creator has attempted to blank this discussion and replace it with an "order" that Wikipedia is not allowed to "touch" the article, which is obviously not how Wikipedia process works. (They also attempted to strip the AFD template from the article, but did it in a wrong way that failed to actually accomplish what they thought they were doing — but that will obviously have to be monitored as well just in case.) Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I googled "efem albania", and found 1; then "efem shqip", and found 2. Neither those nor the citations in the article are anywhere near WP:RS. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. (I note that there seems never to have been an article in Albanian WP.) Narky Blert (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

collapse nowhere discussion with irate article creator.

DO NOT TOUCH THIS PAGE WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM YOU HAVE ALL PROUVE DOWN BELOW IF YOU TOUCH THIS I AM GONA DELETE ALL YOUR ARTICLES Bearcat TAKE OF THE DELETE MESSAGE IMEDIATLYWikipeddias (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. Talk to me like that again and your edit privileges will be blocked for violating our civility rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, why you nominated this page for deletion? What's the problem? If you need facts I send it here but you cant make this I work so much for this you have to take away the deletion in screen up on please.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeXs9zgcbzyiPMqO9-IL3KQ https://www.instagram.com/efemits/?hl=fr I send you other many facts media and all this stuff if you needWikipeddias (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to budge in. @Wikipeddias: Those aren't reliable sources. Anybody can post stuff on Instagram or YouTube - that's not news.--03:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Not having an article in original language doesn't mean that it fails notability. We have many articles on various subjects, a quarter of which don't have a page in it's official language.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BETTER DO NOT TOUCH MY ARTICLE THATS ALL I CAN SAY YOU DONT COME HERE TO SAY ME WHAT I CANT POST OR LINK I AM PROFESSIONAL ON THIS LET THIS THING GO AND DONT COMMENT HERE AGAIN TO SAY ME THAT I CANT WIKIPEDIA IS FREE PLACE FOR ALL PEOPLE SO YES OF COURSE DO NOT MAKE ME TO EVEN IF I am blocked with this user THAT CANT STOP ME TAKE AWAY THE MESSAGE OF DELETION IMMEDIATELY LAST CALL do your Job BearcatWikipeddias (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IF SOMTHING HAPPEND TO THIS ARTICLE I KNOW EXACTLY YOUR ARTICLES AS WELL SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF TUFF HERE SO GO AND TOUCH IT THIS I PROMIS YOU YOU WILL RIGRET JUST GO AND TOUCH IT I HAVE A LOT TO DO AFTER TO TO YOURS AS WELL LETS WIKIPEDIA KNOW THAT ME I DONT LET THIS UNTIL IT SHOWS UP ON WIKIPEDIA LIVE SPACE LIKE EVRY ARTIST. TAKE OF DELETION FROM DISLPLAY. Wikipeddias (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) What do you mean by that. Check out down below the links of media. You can't go into Google and search (EFEM Albania)? This is a joke. Are you joking? How you go and tap EFEM Albania Bearcat???? Is very simple just check news Media, news paper, you have all down below! What a joke. You have all information! Stop wasting my time! Make this on Wikipedia live and stop playing here please. Wikipeddias (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Wikipeddias:, we are not. I googled his name and found nothing. Also, please stop writing in All Caps. Thank you.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mollyplly (Redacted) all this is IN GOOGLE (talk)

https://www.gazetaexpress.com/efem-sjell-projektin-e-ri-muzikor-ilegal/ https://gazetaora.com/2020/05/09/lil-bo-kam-refuzuar-oferta-milioneshe/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AyiD_wThF4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhxPLk7e2nQ https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=efem+ilegal Wikipeddias (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos are not reliable or notability-supporting sources. And note that since you ignored a direct order to speak in a civil manner, and instead kept screaming like a banshee and threatening everybody, I've been left with no choice but to block your editing privileges for 72 hours. Once the block expires you are welcome to contribute productively, but if you strike a tone like this again you will be blocked permanently. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am unable to evaluate current sources on page. If someone could do so, it might be helpful. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage (sing it with me!) to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:N. Coverage currently in article are just short publicity looking pieces about "his first song on youtube." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: probably G11 speedy delete. VViking_TalkEdits 13:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Viewmont Viking: I almost tagged as such, but if AfD'd will be easier to delete if recreated w/o improvement. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Re SALT, I'd rather keep it as a honeypot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ima delete per WP:G5 'cause user page tagged Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of EFEM its. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to ask if he is a sockpuppet or not... Guess that question was already answered. He was too aggressive for a newbie.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People in space[edit]

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

WP:NTEMPORARY and WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTSTATS seem to apply (all of the sources are from within a few days of each other). This is mere statistical trivia (really should be titled "List of people currently in space"), and does not appear to be covered as a notable topic outside of this article, thus failing all of WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously an article that begins with a count of the current number of people in space violates WP:NOTNEWS. The rest of the content is covered in other articles.PopePompus (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert to a timeline of people in space to make the content time-independent. See this earlier discussion. --mfb (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Besides, List of space travelers by name designates those currently in space with an . (Now Pigs in Space is an entirely different kettle of fish.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. AfD premise is based on a fundametally flawed notion (as argued by many and also supported by WP:NOTBUILT) and is otherwise so erroneous that it suggests "the nominator has not even read the page in question". There is in any case also a strong consensus to keep under normal procedure too. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari Purosangue[edit]

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

I believe that the article fails WP:DEL-REASON#6 because it cannot be attributed to reliable sources. The reason for this is that the article's subject does not exist (yet). Wikipedia is, per WP:5P1, an encyclopedia which means that it describes what is considered to be known and generally accepted knowledge. Currently, the alleged Purosangue cannot fall into this category. Therefore, everything that is "known" and thus described in the article is nothing more than opinion pieces and WP:RUMOURS that are undesired content per WP:WWIN. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm in the middle of a museum right now so I can't say much, but I think it would make sense to keep the article because it's confirmed information. Things that aren't confirmed but still likely to happen are paired with "will likely be xxxx". The topic is notable and the article has reliable sources, so there isn't really an issue here. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This afd makes no sense. "Cannot be attributed to reliable sources"? There are nine sources in the article and they all look reliable to me. SSSB (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr Johannes, is that how you describe a topic that exists or not? We have a lot of movie and music related articles that are yet to be released(although the release date may have been announced) but those articles are in main space. This article in question exists. And if you say the sources there are not reliable, what are they? This article is 95% ok.(according to me). -Idoghor Melody (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough reliable sources to confirm it. CABF45 (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to be enough non-trivial sources here to satisfy GNG JW 1961^Talk 19:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question - This article does appear to pass GNG, and yet, to my reading, appears to fail WP:CRYSTAL point number 5, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors"? A lot of this article does appear to be well referenced speculation about a product. Perhaps the wording at WP:CRYSTAL should change to clarify if it applies to product speculation in reliable sources? A7V2 (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this article violates #5, since that is targeted at short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors. Although the article is primarily information about an upcoming product, it also covers other aspects of the subject, such as Ferrari's lawsuit to trademark the name and a short history of the car's development. To me, that would appear to satisfy the standard set by WP:CRYSTAL.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, premise of the AfD is fundamentally flawed. Subject unambiguously passes GNG.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is a philosophic problem. Nobody knows for certain whether this actually is an upcoming product. The article describes what people believe an upcoming product could be, but it doesn't describe the actual upcoming product. That is because it cannot do that for obvious reasons (nobody knows anything). Sources that describe the subject don't exist, and they cannot exist – everything that sources cover is either things that could be related to the subject in case the subject will be (the lawsuit about the name for instance), or how certain people believe a possible subject could be. Articles on Wikipedia, by definition, require the possibility to describe their subjects in a realis mood (indicatve), id est "the subject is/was/will be". In this case that is not possible without violating Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. So the subject "cannot be attributed to reliable sources", and "enough reliable sources to confirm it" don't exist. What could possibly satisfy GNG is all the press speculation, but not the vehicle itself. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough reliable (both English and non-English) sources claiming this car will arrive in 2022. Upcoming products covered by reliable sources should have their own articles on Wikipedia. Any claim about the new car is legit as long as it's properly referenced (which is the case here). CABF45 (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophic problem? No it's not. No source descirbes the object no, but several sources discuss it - which is good enough for WP:GNG.
I'm not really sure how WP:NOR is violated by this article's existance. The article is about an SUV made by Ferrari. The first source says "Ferrari announced in 2018 that its first SUV would be called the Purosangue [the article title]". So no original research there. SSSB (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced by this argument. The product certainly exists and has been confirmed by Ferrari (sourced and discussed in article). Information may be scarce but certainly does exist (e.g. will use the Roma platform, powertrain options and development schedule). Some of the coverage is speculation, a lot of it isn't, but the coverage is nevertheless of the subject and I fail to see how that doesn't pass inclusion guidelines.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The product certainly exists and has "been confirmed by Ferrari" → The point is that they have NOT done this in the way the article makes the reader believe, and that the product does NOT exist. Everything that Ferrari has released to the public as of May 2021 is the following: "We will encounter this risk, for example, as we introduce the Purosangue, a luxury high performance vehicle within the GT range that we are developing and is expected to launch in 2022." [25] They have not said that it's going to be an SUV, they have not said anything about powertrain options, and most importantly, they have not announced the vehicle yet. They can still decide to cancel the development. There have been so many cars that were never made as intended, and we just cannot know whether or not the Pursosangue is going to be one of them. Just remember the BMW 523g, LPG E28, NSU K70, etc. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Maximilian: If the Purosangue ends up not being an SUV, the article can be converted to being about its correct body style, even though the chances are high that this is an SUV, as sources confirm. A similar situation was with the Tesla Cybertruck article. Just look at the history—the article initially was called "Tesla Truck" and it was unknown whether it was to be a van or pickup. The Ferrari Purosangue has far more confirmed information as of now than at that instance. If for some reason it's cancelled, this will just become an article for the topic since it's notable and there's clear significant coverage. I nor do anyone else see the issue here, there's enough significant coverage to the point it passes GNG and that people are going to be looking for encyclopedic information on the car. I don't see the point of deleting an article then having to re-create it months later re-adding nearly the same exact content and references again, this car is confirmed and the vast majority of sources and Ferrari say it is what it is. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not follow your reasoning at all. If what you've said is true, Wikipedia could never cover anything that has not yet occurred, since any future event (even one held tomorrow) could conceivably change from its original intentions. This is an online encyclopaedia. We can cope with change. There is clear significant coverage that demonstrates the notability of this car even if it is never released or finishes development in a radically different state to what the industry currently expects. In the end I have to agree with WaddlesJP13. Even if the Purosangue was cancelled, it would still probably pass GNG as a product that never made it to market. Not making it to market does not preclude a product being included if it meets inclusion guidelines.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passed GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doxim[edit]

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

Promotional article. No evidence or claim of notability, no RSes; literally all sources presently in the article are press releases. WP:BEFORE shows press releases and some churnalism based on them. There's not enough to pass WP:CORP. The article has been like this since its creation in 2011; there's no reasonable prospect of organic improvement. PROD removed with no effort to remedy problems. David Gerard (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find anything other than press releases and primary sources. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can only find press releases; completely fails NCORP Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt - As per nom. Not notable, almost fails at WP:G11. Gentleman wiki (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Mario film[edit]

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

As per WP:NFF, "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." As we have only gotten an announcement of the voice cast and release date from the Nintendo Direct, this article does not belong on the Wikipedia mainspace and should remain in the draftspace. Richiekim (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There is a source already present in the article in which Nintendo’s president confirms production is underway: [26]. This AfD should be withdrawn. JOE BRO 64 14:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing the article says is the film is "moving along smoothly", which does not meet WP:NFF. Do we have character designs or promotional footage for the final film with dialogue from the voice actors? No we do not. This film is more than a year away from release, and unless we get something more concrete, like a trailer, this does not belong in the mainspace yet. Richiekim (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a source in which Nintendo explicitly states "production is moving ahead smoothly". If that's not enough confirmation that production has begun I don't know what is. JOE BRO 64 14:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We know production has been going on, we have promotional material, and we know the cast and who they're playing. People will probably be searching about this movie now, and we have the info to provide. Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently sourced. Artw (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is sourced with sufficient information. There is no need to delete it. 37.37.249.123 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per JOEBRO64. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, even if it is canceled, at this point it has enough information for a stand-alone article. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Living former cabinet members of the Netherlands[edit]

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

Per all the other similar pages: unencyclopedic intersection (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) of "living" and "former X". Does not accomplish any encyclopedic or reader helpful function (all of this information is likely included already in pages about the respective cabinets, without the WP:OR). No evidence whatsoever this has any encyclopedic notability (WP:LISTN) beyond the pure WP:NOTSTATS trivia it is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The intersection of "has held public office X" and "is still alive" is to my eye self-evidently a WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, and as such WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. Of all possible parameters to list this group of people by, being alive is certainly one of them – but so is being born on a Wednesday. TompaDompa (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note And now I've just realised [the reason I did not find this earlier]: there's a whole other Category:Lists of political office-holders by age, which includes a fair number of similar "X by longevity" or other such statistical trivia nonsense... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom and @TompaDompa. This is a WP:OR list that's just a WP:SYNTH of the intersection career, age, and more. Wikipedia is not a WP:Directory, nor a hub for WP:TRIVIA. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TompaDompa. Spudlace (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no encyclopedic value. Geschichte (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For prime ministers or heads of state a detailed table of longitivy can be justified. This is certainly not the case for government ministers of small countries like the Netherlands, while only having alive or not as criterium. gidonb (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Williams[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable fashion designer. Biography fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E. One sentence at most is WP:DUE at afro, if that. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her notability is clearly tied to her Guinness World Records achievement. Passes WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 as a world record holder.4meter4 (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A world record is more about coming up with a category rather than doing something meaningful. And, we should consider Guinness World Records#Change in business model. That one can pay to get into the books means it is not a reliable source for whether an achievement is worthy of note. For notable records, we get sustained coverage for the recordholder afterwards. One time coverage at the time is classic WP:NOTNEWS. Secondly, WP:NOPAGE applies; since every source is about the record, there is no material to write a biography with except about the record, which is one sentence: "Simone Williams holds the Guinness World Record for the largest afro". Finally, the sensible use of WP:ANYBIO is with WP:NEXIST. We, for example, "Keep" a composer nominated for an Oscar before the internet, because we are convinced we don't have access to all the sources and we expect an oscar nom to generate SIGCOV. Such is not the case here, where we have seen all the coverage related to this ANYBIO achievement, and it is clearly NOTNEWS and not SIGCOV. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm failing to find anything apart from her hair. There is this [27], and there ought to have been something here [28] except most of what I hoped would have been genuine information wasn't there to be found. Her hair does seem to have made quite an impression. Elemimele (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guinness World Record is not enough to justify notability of the subject. DMySon (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited, and apparently Guinness World Records are not what they once were (in addition to the fact that a pass of ANYBIO - or any other criteria - is not absolute; as clearly stated at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria). Celebrity magazines and WP:BLP1E/NOTNEWS coverage is also not sufficient; as per the nominators rationale. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Kwame Boadu[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails sigcov. Paid for refs. Companies are tiny. scope_creep^Talk 10:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete he paid for all sources and you can find on fiverr for this type of releases:

Guest Post On ventsmagazine.com for $15
Guest Post On mid-day for $130
Press release On Yahoo for $50

America Daily Post for $60 and other can be find there!!!!!! This is like joke to spend something around $200-$300 and create article for yourself.I Tried to add fiverr links here to show that how are cheap that services but I got error from WP! ZEP55 (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the references are dubious (unverified interviews, quite possibly paid-for, the sort of thing people do for their own promotion) and if he's done as much as he says he has, one would expect some genuine independent secondary coverage, which I cannot find. His business doesn't seem to be big[29]. The Bizz Awards operate on a nominate-yourself-pay-and-get-the-certificate business model. It may feel as though we're doing a favour letting articles like this continue, just in case their subjects do something useful, but such articles undermine those of people who are genuinely notable rather than blowing their own trumpets particularly loudly. Elemimele (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as noted by Mr. ZEP. America Daily Post is a straight up falsified SEO sink; I've removed the other press release / paid placement sites, and the scraper. I've seen the same SEO ads for Vents as well. Kuru (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Ueno[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE done, and given the ubiquity of internet coverage of manga/anime and so on, it would appear to me anomalous that Mr Ueno has received little and bordering on none at all "WP:SIGCOV". This article would appear to fail any number of tests for notability, including but not limited to WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR. Would a redirect to Kamen Rider Den-O be an appropriate outcome? WP:BLP considerations may possibly be relevant here. As always, always happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 and G11. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted by User:ToBeFree. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Trailblazer[edit]

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

This was declined thrice at AfC but moved to mainspace anyways. It is sourced only to interviews and gossip websites. A BEFORE does not bring up sources demonstrating that WP:GNG or WP:ENT is met. Princess of Ara 09:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 09:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 09:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ban evasion: The draft creation was a violation of binding unblock conditions, including sockpuppetry (Femitv93 (talk · contribs)) and logged-out editing (102.67.12.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). It has been speedily deleted per WP:G5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woodchuck Hollow, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

This is either a hoax or something extremely obscure. Google search literally only brings up wikipedia mirrors, which is rather suspicious for a place that supposedly had a 2000 census population (not buying the article's claim). Nothing useful on google books. Newspapers.com has a smattering of older hits, mainly referring to a place that seems to be in southern New York, a literal hollow, a hunting club, and a school Christmas play.

FWIW, I'm not even sure where this place is located, as the claimed location in the article doesn't match the given coordinates. Hog Farm _Talk 06:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no evidence this place exists. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in GNIS or 2000 census, could not find any evidence that this place exists. –dlthewave ☎ 16:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From what I can tell there is no such place. Gentleman wiki (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it is a real place, it doesn't appear to be notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. Minor coverage can be found: in 1898, "Mrs. Meed and family of Woodchuck Hollow have moved to Thornhurst", and Willie Clancey was "employed on the laying of the Potter Gas Company's line on the Kibbeville road in Woodchuck Hollow". In 1931, "A. Perkins is drawing logs to the Slawson mill in Woodchuck Hollow". In 1935, "E.B. Thomas of Duke Center has moved back onto his farm in Woodchuck Hollow". There is certainly evidence that such a place existed, even if there is not enough to support a standalone article. jp×g 02:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (non-admin closure) -- Ab207 (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essar Steel[edit]

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

Following are the reasons why I want to have the Essar Steel page deleted:

1. Essar Steel has been acquired by ArcelorMittal and Nippon Steel. It is now called ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India. A Wikipedia page for the same is being created.

2. I wanted to update the existing Essar Steel Wikipedia page, but since I do not have admin access to the page, hence I am unable to update the page name.

3. The existing Essar Steel information will be updated on the new AM/NS India page. So no information will be lost, it will be updated on the new page.

Since there is a lot to update and since I cannot make edits to the historical Essar Steel page, My best possible way forward is to create a new AM/NS India Wikipedia Page. Please be assured that this is not for corporate promotion, this action is being undertaken to avoid any confusion about the two. Please find below relevant media articles that talk about the acquisition and the name change for your reference:

1. https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/arcelormittal-nippon-steel-complete-acquisition-of-essar-steel/article30321135.ece

2. https://m.economictimes.com/industry/indl-goods/svs/steel/arcelormittal-nippon-steel-sign-5-15-billion-loan-pact-to-refinance-essar-steelbuy/articleshow/74669288.cms

3. https://m.economictimes.com/industry/indl-goods/svs/steel/arcelormittal-nippon-steel-complete-acquisition-of-essar-steel/articleshow/72760938.cms AshishKaushikAMNSIndia (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AshishKaushikAMNSIndia (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The fact that the company was acquire and renamed by new owner is not a valid reason for deletion. Beagel (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AshishKaushikAMNSIndia, your point 3 above is the wrong way around. Copy-pasting the information from an existing to a new page and then seeking deletion of the original page would fail to maintain its page history and text attribution. Regarding that and your point 2 above (along with your likely WP:COI), the proper course would be to use Template:RMassist on the article Talk page to request a page move, and thereafter to use the Talk page to propose any wording changes. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The rationale for seeking to delete this longstanding article to which multiple editors have contributed is invalid. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Bad nomination, as no valid rationale for deletion was presented. Curbon7 (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. ZEP55 (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herrin, Nevada[edit]

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

As Cxbrx noted on the article talk page last year, this one doesn't look notable. The Nevada Place Names source is just a single sentence saying it was a non-agency rail station. Searching brings up passing mentions, an announcement issued when the station was closed, and references to a college basketball player, William F. Herrin, and Herrin, Illinois. This doesn't appear to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per my comments in Talk: Herrin, Nevada: "Carlson states that Herrin was a railroad station. Herrin is not listed in Nevada Post Offices nor in Nevada Ghost Towns & Mining Camps. So, it would seem that WP:STATION applies. Herrin, Nevada had no good hits in GBooks, there there were hits for a person associated with SPRR with the last name of Herrin. BTW - there is also nearby Herrin Slough, which has a GNIS entry: Herrin Slough and a trivial mention in Nevada Historical Society Quarterly, Spring 1992, p. 46"

Taking a further look, the 1932 1:250K Sonoma Range topo shows 3 buildings labeled "Herrin" adjacent to the tracks. The buildings never appear in the Winnemucca 1:250k map nor the early Knight 1:24k topos. The 2011 Knight 1:24k has a label of Herrin, but no buildings, my guess is that they got the info from the GNIS. Searchin Newspapers.com replicated User:Hog Farm's results (basketball player, William F. Herrin, and Herrin, Illinois). Newspapers.com did come up with a 1903 article about a cutoff that excluded Herrin and prompted a station named "New Herrin" to be created. "Raho" and "Stonehouse" were also on the cutoff. (Stonehouse could be associated with Stone House, Nevada). (Raho is a new name to me, GBooks found a shipper's guide that mentions Raho and that's about it). I checked GBooks again for Herrin and came up with nothing. Herrin is not listed in the index of Humboldt County 1905 As this location is not legally recognized and has virtually no coverage, trivial or not, neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. This location does not meet anything in WP:STATION nor WP:GNG. Cxbrx (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches pulled up similar results as Cxbrx. NewspaperArchive searches pull up a 1906 article about an unknown man killed by a train "at Herrin". I found nothing to suggest there was a community here. Herrin isn't listed in Cram's 1887/1890 Atlas; it's also not listed in Cram's 1900/1902 Atlas. It's listed in Rand McNally's 1925 Premiere Atlas, with a population of "---", indicating a rail-only site. PostalHistory.com searches show there was never a Herrin post office. There isn't enough here to write an article, and all evidence I can find suggests there was never a population here. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cxbrx's excellent analysis. –dlthewave ☎ 17:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on topos, no sources that anyone's been able to come up with, and my own newspaper searches turn up nothing but crap. jp×g 01:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Osorio[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable actress/comedian. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allenhouse Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Pure piece of promotional stuff. Nothing found on a google search Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 00:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 00:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 00:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Masterhatch (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG.4meter4 (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Panhandle Milling[edit]

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

This subject clearly does not meet our notability guidelines for corporations. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - AFDs cannot be raised on drafts, sorry!

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