Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America 1000 12:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Stephen W. Tayler

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

WP:NMUSIC doesn't make any mention of sound engineers or mixers, with relevant discussions concluding that being involved in producing notable music, does not make them notable i.e. WP:NOTINHERITED and therefore WP:BIO and WP:GNG apply to determining notability. Very little of the content present in the article at the moment is sourced and the few reliable sources present [1] [2] make no mention of the subject. My own searches turned up this interview in innerviews as being the best available source, but it's not a well-known reliable source for determining notability. Apart from that, all I could find were this and this from mixonline.com, which is probably a better RS, but there's not a huge amount of coverage. Definitely on the edge of notability, but I am not sure on which side and would like to know before I do any work to clean up the article. SmartSE ( talk) 16:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 16:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I am undecided on the gentleman's notability, because finding sources for studio personnel can be tough even though they worked with lots of famous people. However, if the article survives it needs severe reduction and removal of resume-like elements. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 17:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The provided sources are on the sparse side, but have not been substantially challenged. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

14 Nam Cheong Street

14 Nam Cheong Street (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL building with no claim to notability. Geschichte ( talk) 22:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Yeung, Siu (2019-02-04). "深水埗為群公寓翻新面目全非？網民劣評「核突」". zh:U Lifestyle (in Chinese). Hong Kong Economic Times Holdings. Archived from the original on 2021-08-22. Retrieved 2021-08-22.

      From Google Translate: "The predecessor of Weiqun Apartment was actually a two-story triangular tenement building. By 1964, a six-story apartment was built. It is said that due to title issues, it has been lost for nearly 20 years. By 2015, Defu Development Co., Ltd., owned by the founder of Mascotte Chen Ailing, purchased a group of apartments for approximately HK$34.6 million."

    2. "深水埗弧形街角樓易手". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2015-12-22. Archived from the original on 2019-04-11. Retrieved 2021-08-22.

      From Google Translate: "The entire old building at No. 14 Nanchang Street, Sham Shui Po, which was completed more than half a century ago, was just purchased by Chen Ailing, founder of Mascotte Group, for about 34.6 million yuan, which is expected to be worthy of reconstruction. ... The site area of the property is about 835 square feet. It is currently a six-storey triangular building with a curved corner tower design. It was completed in 1964. ... The site was originally owned by the invisible rich man Ma Shutou in Kowloon City. It was purchased for 6 million yuan in 1991 and was auctioned for 8.2 million yuan in 2000 but no one bid."

    3. 歐陽慧恩 (2020-11-26). "63歲唐樓翻新 呎租勝新樓". Ming Pao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-22. Retrieved 2021-08-22.

      From Google Translate: "Huihao Residence is one of the few existing corner-shaped curved tenement houses in Hong Kong. Before the 1980s, there were still wharves in Sham Shui Po. At that time, the building owners used the 4th floor and below as short-term rental apartments for rent. Since most of the tenants were singles, they were known as "Sanzai Pavilion" (Sanzai refers to bachelors). The highest two-story unit is rented out as a cubicle room, with relatively rudimentary internal equipment. The late Alice Lam Chui Lin ( zh:林翠蓮), a former member of the Eastern District Council of Hong Kong, lived here when she was young. In the late 1980s, the terminal was shut down and the major owner passed away. The building began to be emptied in the 1990s due to ownership issues. It was only in recent years that the consortium bought it and refurbished it."

    4. 鄺嘉仕 (2021-06-19). "鄺嘉仕．跑遊老香港｜深水埗睇樓團　穿過騎樓感應逝去日子" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2021-08-22. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
    5. "南昌街14號全幢 7千萬放售". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2015-10-22. Archived from the original on 2021-08-22. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
    6. 陈天权 (2014-09-25). 吴合琴 (ed.). "为群公寓" (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2021-08-22. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 14 Nam Cheong Street ( simplified Chinese: 为群公寓; traditional Chinese: 為群公寓 and simplified Chinese: 南昌街14号; traditional Chinese: 南昌街14號) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete The reason for notability is not asserted. The person who claims that it is notable should mention it on the article. Wasraw ( talk) 05:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

"The person who claims that it is notable should mention it on the article": that would be useful but there is no such rule. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 20:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 09:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Sun Vet Mall

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

This is a small local shopping mall with a gross leasable area of 280,000 and little in-depth reliable and verifiable coverage about the mall. Alansohn ( talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Alansohn ( talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alansohn ( talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All shopping malls are local, but semantics aside, this mall is larger than several of the other malls listed in the New York metropolitan area, like the Newburgh Mall. Since this article was listed for deletion, extra sources have been added to this page, and it has more sources (and information) than The Source at White Plains or The Grove at Shrewsbury, two other listed New York metropolitan malls (the latter of which also has a smaller listed size). (I do not have an actual Wikipedia account so I'm not exactly sure how to sign off, so... my bad.) 18:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, insignificant shopping mall, only a handful of stores and covering a very small retail area. Most notable malls have at least 100,000m2 of area, this barely reaches a third of that. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Not all shopping malls are local, some are interregional. Geschichte ( talk) 18:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Khali Sweeney

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

No apparent notability except for Downtown Boxing Gym Youth Program, a local youth gym with a very promotional article created by the same editor. I don't think there's even justification for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 18:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

John (Bam) Ransom

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

Hard to unpack this article, but despite having published in notable publications he doesn't seem to have the coverage to meet WP:GNG Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Henry West (director)

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

Video director, without enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NDIRECTOR. Onel5969 TT me 20:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Assembly language#Macros. The content will be preserved in the page history in case anyone wants to merge anything anywhere. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 18:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Conditional assembly language

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

Too narrow even in an IBM context, conflates conditional assembly with macros Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 23:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Assembly_language#Macros where the concept is mentioned. As evidenced by this old IBM 360 assembly tutorial, conditional assembly is an important part of macro assembly programming, but it is probably not independently notable from macro assembly. As a plausible search term that is verifiable, I think it is reasonable to redirect this topic to Assembly_language#Macros. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 22:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Since conditional assembly statements are also used outside of macros, that section would need some expansion. Alternatively, the redirect could be to a new macro and conditional assembly article that included text from the section and also examples from several different macro assemblers. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 16:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Assembly_language#Macros. Even if the topic did meet GNG I believe it would be more appropriate as a component of a larger article. For the moment, that article is Assembly language, but I would have no objection to the creation of a new article as detailed by Chatul. Merge is an option as well, but I'm not confident the current content would fit within the context of the discussed target without significant edits, at which point it would be easier to create a new mention. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

David Bushmich

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

Unverified article. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 ( talk) 23:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The Russian version has many sources. I copied 3 of them, including a printed publication about the most notable ophthalmologists from 1966, a recent scientific article and the Filatov Institute in Odessa. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 22:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Tembagapura Sport Hall

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Not nearly enough coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 23:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Anzio Storci

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

Promotion of a Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon ( talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
This is pretty meaningless in the absence of actual, you know, cited sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can’t find anything online to support this bio except for a single profile in Gazzetta di Parma. If anyone is able to demonstrate offline sourcing I’ll reconsider. Mccapra ( talk) 10:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Per rationale by Praxidicae & Mccapra. I too do not see anything cogent that suggests GNG or anybio is met. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. The best I could find was [3], which appears to be a collection of issues of a magazine; unclear if it has anything to do with Barilla the Pasta company; and this, the reliability of which I'm unsure of. However, there are several passing mentions, and a presumed language barrier for most people who have searched for sources thus far: so I could be missing some sources. Vanamonde ( Talk) 13:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Patrick Aaron Hodgkins

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG as an individual. Possible ATD is redirect to As Fast As. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 21:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 23:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Noush Skaugen

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. No specific merge/redirect I could propose. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 21:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Vinny Palermo

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

Promotional piece, completely devoid of proper sourcing, non-notable position. Drmies ( talk) 20:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Christo Kasabi

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

An WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY on an amateur rugby player who does not meet WP:NRU or WP:GNG. His club career is played at a level way, way below the professional level and his caps for Cyprus do not count towards NRU either as they are not listed as a High Performance Union.

The best sources cited in the article are a transfer announcement and a brief Q&A, none of which really count as significant coverage, where someone other than Kasabi has written about him extensively. I found a couple of hits in searches, this photo caption and this match report. The match report mentions his name in the title but it doesn't actually contain any in-depth coverage of Kasabi at all, just routine coverage. No reason why this amateur sportsperson needs to have their autobiography hosted here. Wikipedia isn't a web host. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Steve Davies (footballer, born 1960). Eddie891 Talk Work 22:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Marcus Holden

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

Notability concern as well as blatant COI concern with edits/hijackings like this edit. There has been an edit war about him being New Zealand or England born but no reliable sources to support either. The problem with these low-profile sports BLPs is it's really hard to tell whether any of the info is actually true or not and this is one of the reasons why I don't think that they should have an article.

Playing for semi-pro Stirling County RFC and non-High Performance Cyprus does not count towards WP:NRU in any case. None of the cited sources provide significant coverage of Holden; appearing in match reports does not confer notability. Statements about his playing style are unsourced, unfortunately.

Alleged claims to notability through his football career are not supported by any sources and I couldn't find him in any football databases so there is no proof that he has played in the top tier of Cyprus, which would have made him notable. WP:NFOOTBALL not met. Best sources in a search appear to be ones like [5] [6] which are just fairly standard match report mentions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 18:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Flannel (band)

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

This page has been tagged as possibly non-notable for nearly 11 years. It was Prodded in 2014 but soon de-prodded with the rationale that the band had appeared on TV and had collaborated with other musicians and "likely just need(ed) more references": however, I haven't been able to find any evidence that this one appearance even happened ( the episodes are not currently available to view) and in any case, I'm not convinced that this would constitute significant media coverage. The page is completely unsourced and the band's website is no longer extant. In short, there seems to be nothing here that would meet the criteria at WP:NBAND. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 19:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdraw. I apparently suck at using Google search. (non-admin closure) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor ( talk) 13:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Excelsior, Nevada

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

Non-notable topic. I checked for sources and all of them are either about places near Excelsior or a city of the same name in California. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor ( talk) 19:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor ( talk) 19:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor ( talk) 19:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Once notable, always notable. The existing references are adequate. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This community has been noted in books of the era and modern sources, as well, as shown in the existing references. A search using "Excelsior"+"Elko" (the county the place was in) pulls up a considerable number of results. There appear to be news articles, as well, although these results are mixed in with results for a site near Las Vegas, as well. Despite that, the existing references have noted the community, including two pages discussing the site in Hall's 2002 book. According to WP:GEOLAND, "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." No reason to delete this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    I actually kinda forgot that adding + to google's search as well as " would further narrow the search results. I had simply put in "Excelsior, Nevada" and some of my results were for Excelsior in Nevada County in California. Thanks for re-enlightening me on how Google's search works. I was about to withdraw anyways after seeing people had found sources related to the subject. It appears I need to get better at using Google search. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor ( talk) 13:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing while there are no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Tom Loizides

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

I can't find any evidence that he ever made a professional, senior appearance for Saracens F.C. or London Irish, which would not only qualify him for WP:NRU but likely WP:GNG as well. In the absence of evidence, it can't be presumed that he meets either guideline. The best I can find is a passing mention in a Cypriot sports blog and a database entry, which contains merely a name and DOB.

Caps for Cyprus do not count towards WP:NRU. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep itrugby stating 22 matches for Esher in the RFU Championship, a notable league under WP:NRU. His international appearances though aren't notable and didn't play for the Saracens of London Irish first team, however those appearances and the couple of sources found by the nom means a weak keep for me. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021

COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article that gives the cumulative number of deaths per country for each day in July. A single source is given, which links to an index page of WHO. None of the figures given in the article are on this page, which simply links to over 250 reports. The article therefore fails WP:VERIFY. The WHO index page lists daily reports to August 2020, and then weekly reports since then. The weekly reports don't seem to give a daily breakdown, so I'm not sure where the individual days figures come from. The creator presumably recognises the referencing issues as they created the article with a {{ more citations needed}} tag. [7]

The article consists mainly of two very large tables which are impossible to follow on a mobile. The information for each country is contained in a much more concise way in the individual country's pages, such as COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and also duplicates the overview in COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country. WP:NOTDATABASE may also be applicable here. John B123 ( talk) 19:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Anguswalker‎ usually copies the top part of the page each time he starts a new monthly page. That includes the {{ more citations needed}} tag. I assume he doesn't remove it because someone will just add it back, and he has more important things to do. I haven't seen anyone explain their reasoning for the tag on the monthly talk pages. I see this tag-cruft on many pages, and often don't see explanations on the talk page. And I don't have time to hunt down the adders to get their reasoning. I have better things to do. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Also nominating the following related pages because of the below comments:

COVID-19 pandemic deaths in January 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in February 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in March 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in April 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in May 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in June 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in August 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in September 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in October 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in November 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in December 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in January 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in February 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in March 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in April 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in May 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in June 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in August 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. John B123 ( talk) 19:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. John B123 ( talk) 19:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. John B123 ( talk) 19:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I have to point to a couple of guidelines: WP:POPULARPAGE, WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTNEWS. Honestly people will be dying of/with COVID-19 for the rest of my life most likely - do we seriously intend to have these pages created forever WP:NTEMP. This kind of data can be easily taken care of - in a simplified form - on one page. Can't people go to the WHO page rather than an encyclopaedia (which just reproduces it) for this kind of granular detail? This just seems to take the WP:NOTPAPER ethos way too far. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 07:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
If the page had this reference, which is where the figures come from, would that solve the problem? https://covid19.who.int/WHO-COVID-19-global-data.csv Anguswalker ( talk) 09:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The daily WHO data by country is also found here:
https://covid19.who.int/table - click the "data table" tab. Wait for it to load.
The Internet Archive has the previous days:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://covid19.who.int/table
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 10:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Searching the Internet Archive isn't a valid way of referencing. Beside that, not every day is archived. For the period of this article, July 2021, the Internet Archive doesn't have captures for the 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19 and 21st. -- John B123 ( talk) 13:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
OK. Then it is a supplemental way of referencing for those who want to look up some data without having to use a spreadsheet. The WHO .csv link that User:Anguswalker provided has all the days for all the countries. I just checked in freeware LibreOffice Calc. See:
https://covid19.who.int/WHO-COVID-19-global-data.csv
It is found in the "Data Download" section of this WHO page:
https://covid19.who.int/info
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this page and all like it for reasons of (1) current referencing failing WP:V, (2) page is barely usable on a laptop PC, not at all on a mobile phone (and there are other accessibility problems, but those could be fixed), and (3) per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we don't need to reproduce this kind of minutiae; we should let the WHO maintain WHO's data (including corrections and adjustments) instead of trying to mirror them here. I know we were all breathless (pun not intended but, aw, what the hell) to collate and present the relevant info when the pandemic was suddenly hitting us hard over a year ago, but now the mass of numbers for every single day in every single country is (sorry, here I go again) overkill. —  JohnFromPinckney ( talk / edits) 08:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
This data does not exist in this easily accessible form anywhere else authoritative on the web. I haven't found anything as easy to access. It also is part of the history of the pandemic.
I agree that the daily data is no longer needed. Weekly is what I prefer. We are still in the middle of a once in a century pandemic, and waiting 2 weeks for more data is too long. Readers would be happy with weekly data. I can easily use the visual editor to delete all columns except those for the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22st day of the month. This would solve the mobile problem too.
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. Over 1100 English Wikipedia articles link to COVID-19 pandemic deaths. See link count in article space:

I think the history of Covid-19 is lacking without some breakdown of the monthly death data. Wikipedia is the only place that makes that breakdown so easily accessible. I can convert all the monthly tables to using only weekly data. It would only take me a few minutes with Visual Editor. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 16:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. The references have been updated on all of the monthly death pages. See them listed here:

-- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for this article and other month’s articles per WP:NOSTATS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTMIRROR. I acknowledge the work put into this by editors but am not convinced by their keep arguments as they seem fall into WP:MERCY. This data is available on the WHO site and it is not the point of Wikipedia to replicate it. Even though arguments have been made that this page makes the data easy to view, I find it still quite hard to view and there is little explanation of the raw data in the article. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 04:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Data buried in a .csv file at the WHO site is hardly accessible to the average reader looking for this history of a once in a century pandemic.
The July 2021 table is now easier to view. There are now only 5 date columns. Per previous discussion here above. And the table is now in alphabetical order since numerical order changes over the month. I also added row numbers. Click on any date header to sort in ascending or descending order for that date. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia, specifically WP:NOTSTATS. This is a prime example of Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The statistics are explained in the article intro. They are COVID-19 deaths over time. From WP:NOTSTATS (emphasis added): "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article."
The main article summarizes the deaths: COVID-19 pandemic deaths. The statistics are split into separate articles. The pandemic is still killing many people worldwide. See graph of daily deaths per million people worldwide. So the current statistics are very notable. Some day Covid will fade away enough that we won't need weekly statistics. That day is not now.
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 01:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. I would like to put 4 monthly reports on each page. So the 3 pages for 2021 would be:

  • COVID-19 pandemic deaths by country Jan-Apr 2021
  • COVID-19 pandemic deaths by country May-Aug 2021
  • COVID-19 pandemic deaths by country Sep-Dec 2021

The table of contents for the Jan-Apr 2021 page would be:

  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021

Each month would consist of 5 columns a week apart on these days: 1. 8. 15. 22. 29. It would be easy to scroll through on a cell phone. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. I have not found tables of cumulative deaths over time anywhere else. Here are 2 major lists of COVID-19 data sources to verify this:

So far all I have found is daily stuff. None of it compiled in tables over time. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Perhaps that indicates that people don't think that presenting the statistics in this format serves any useful purpose. -- John B123 ( talk) 20:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Why do others need to recreate what has been at Wikipedia for a long time? I created a related article last year in July 2020:
COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country
See the deletion discussion:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country
These monthly articles started in October 2020 by Anguswalker‎ are extensions of that.
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Main objection by the nominator the the article is too small for a standalone list has been addressed by expanding the article. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

List of international prime ministerial trips made by Sheikh Hasina

List of international prime ministerial trips made by Sheikh Hasina (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this is a proper subject for an article; I think that three items are not enough for a standalone list, and I can't see why the very small amount of information cannot be included in the relevant biog. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment This looks like a topic that would be better covered in prose in the main article Sheikh Hasina, to the extent that it would be in WP:PROPORTION. I hesitate to call doing so "merging", however, since there is basically no content on this list. I also don't think that this title would be useful as a redirect, so it could probably be deleted outright. An important question, though: how incomplete is this list? Are we missing so large a number of trips that it would be a bad idea to try to cover them all in the main article? TompaDompa ( talk) 15:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this article was created today, let us give some time to the creator to flesh the article. Maybe in drftspace. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 16:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I respectfully disagree with what TheLongTone has said. Virtually every world leader has a similar list article displaying the international trips they have made. Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Narendra Modi, Emmanuel Macron, Moon Jae-in, Angela Merkel and Xi Jinping just to name a few. There are innumerable others which I could list. I see no reason why such an article shouldn't exist for Sheikh Hasina who has served as Prime Minister of Bangladesh for a combined total of 17 years and has made countless international visits to various countries. As Vinegarymass911 has said, you ought to take into account that the article has existed for less than a day, I intend to add more to the article and I hope other users will assist in doing so. I have sent an email to the Prime Minister's Office enquiring about the total number of international visits made by the prime minister. Once I receive a response, I will be able to add more detail to the article. In the event I do not receive a response, it may take longer to add information as it will be extracted from news articles, but it will be added. I think it would be more helpful if more seasoned users such as TheLongTone endeavour to improve the article, as opposed to calling for its deletion. This article is very much a work-in-progress, but I think deletion would be untimely and uncalled for. — AMomen88 ( talk) 16:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

commernt See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I still fail to see that tehre is sufficient content to justify a standalone article. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Response TheRollBoss001: If Category:Lists of diplomatic trips are significant enough to have their own pages, I see no reason why List of international prime ministerial trips made by Sheikh Hasina is not. I do not think it is appropriate that there are pages such as List of international trips made by Antony Blinken as United States Secretary of State which are deemed significant, (despite the fact that the said individual is not a head of government) but a page for a sitting head of government is not.— AMomen88 ( talk) 20:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I think we have too many pages like this, but that would require a wider consensus. There's no good reason to delete this, and the list appears incomplete - it can almost certainly be expanded. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I’m not really a fan of these articles but there’s lots of them and the basis for this one is the same as for all the others. We either need an RfC or a massive bundled AfD to decide their fate, but until then there’s no basis for deleting this. Mccapra ( talk) 04:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
comment As before, see WP:OTHERSTUFF TheLongTone ( talk) 12:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jp× g 07:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment: The nominator has mentioned three items not being good enough, now there are 27. This was an incomplete article, not an invalid one. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 05:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 17:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Leandro Gil Miranda da Silva

Leandro Gil Miranda da Silva (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Talk:Leandro Gil Miranda da Silva. Doesn't appear to meet notability for significance and level he played at or coverage. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can get it resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 18:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 14:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Lydia Alty

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

Bypassed afc twice, no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Theroadislong ( talk) 15:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong ( talk) 15:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 15:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 15:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Anubhav Mukherjee

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

Article does not indicate how he is notable per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources provided are advertorials (i.e. promotional, no byline). I am unable to find significant neutral discussion of him in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Niall Cummins

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

As per WP:NSPORT - he has made appearances in the FA Cup but has never represented, or been on the books of, a professional club in a professional league. Scoring a goal for a semi-professional team in a cup competition alone doesn't cut it as far as notability is concerned. Montgomery15 ( talk) 14:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Montgomery15 ( talk) 14:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 15:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. Some claims of GNG but nothing presented that is in depth. Fenix down ( talk) 19:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Élie Junior Akobeto

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senior fully-pro caps, routine coverage. -- BlameRuiner ( talk) 12:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Correction: Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senior fully-pro caps, routine coverage. Erroneous. Last club stated player's caps for them in Lowland League before signing [8] ... Beside other recent sources such as: [9]

[10] [11] [12] [13], There are sources already present on Article Main Page in different languages such as: [14] [15] [16] [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7e:1716:4700:6992:bdb9:8827:2bcc ( talk • contribs) 14:52, August 26, 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Appearing in squad lists and match reports for pre-season friendlies does not meet GNG or NFOOTBALL Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 05:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Please provide WP:THREE sources that show significant coverage. I've looked at all of the sources from this discussion page and everything cited in the article and none of them are more than passing mentions or brief announcements. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Pioneer Street

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

Possibly unnotable road that fails WP:GEOROAD. Two of the three sources result to error messages. The only intact source, [27], mentions the road only trivially but mainly discusses the mall (this is better for the article of the mall and not the road). For the two other sources, [28] is probably for a landmark along the road (and perhaps has same problem as the PhilStar's article) and [29] is probably for its designation. It is not listed as a national primary or secondary highway at Philippine highway network. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 15:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 15:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 16:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Jol Shawola

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

Non notable film, there are some passing mentions but no significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 12:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Karin Slaughter. – bradv 🍁 16:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Grant County (Karin Slaughter)

Grant County (Karin Slaughter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has zero references and only the barest of real-world information, and is written in an entirely in-universe style, to the point that I had to move it from Grant County, Georgia. The novel series named under this title is likely notable from GScholar search, but the fictional location is not, and the article would need to be rewritten from scratch to be encyclopedic. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep, rework and improve. After a very cursory glance at sources I agree with LaundryPizza03 that the fictional location probably is not notable, but that the novel series very likely is. Actually, as the article is now written is much more about the novel series than the location. The only thing necessary to reflect this would be to change the one introductory sentence (and possibly categories). Otherwise it suffers from a common problem of articles about works of fiction: It contains mostly plot summary, and too much of it, and no analysis. However, plot summary is one required piece of a good article about a novel series. So the plot summary would need to be shortened and analysis added. This would be no problem, as there are secondary sources for this e.g. in the Google Scholar search LaundryPizza03 has already linked. So I see no reason at all why the statement "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." from our WP:Deletion policy should not apply here. Daranios ( talk) 10:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment the blatant hype ("Is this somehow related to the events in Sylacauga all those years ago?") makes it read as a back-cover blurb, not a neutral summary. The page is so bad I want to agree with Piotrus, but I also want various pages on individual books in the series to redirect here ( Indelible has the same summary and little else). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the author. The fictional setting definitely isn't notable. While it has now been repurposed, there's nothing showing the series as a topic has potential at the moment, but it can always be split out if sources are brought forth. TTN ( talk) 11:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
@ TTN: How is there "nothing showing the series as a topic has potential at the moment" in light of the secondary sources discussed above? Daranios ( talk) 15:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The author's article is pitifully small, so there is no reason to think it needs an article at this time. If the sources provide undue weight in the author's article, it can easily be split out. TTN ( talk) 20:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
@ TTN: I personally would prefer having two separate not-too-long but non-stubby articles about these related but distinct topics. But that aside, isn't what you say an argument for merging the trimmed plot-summaries we now have, rather than redirecting? Loosing that content through a pure redirect makes Wikipedia smaller, but the "pitifully small" Karin Slaughter article not one iota longer. Daranios ( talk) 10:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Mia Eve Rollow

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

Fails WP:GNG. When I searched, I found nothing but passing mentions of this woman, nothing in-depth. I did find one article from the Southern Maryland chronicle about her winning an award, but the article most of the article about her and there was nowhere near enough content to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. She is simply not notable. Helen( 💬 📖) 23:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this one is a bit tricky as she and her collaborators are working in decentralized groups that do not necessarily generate process for the members. She co-founded EDELO, which might be notable and worth of a standalone article, but I am not seeing enough material to make her notable under her own name. it seems like the same situation with her EDELO co-founder, Caleb Duarte. --- Possibly ☎ 02:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A quick check of Google with Books "on" turns up a chapter in Collective Situations: Readings in Contemporary Latin American Art, 1995–2010 edited by Bill Kelley Jr., Grant H. Kester (2017) (the editor both discusses and interviews Caleb Duarte; they both reference Rollow's work) and a 2 page discussion in Black Power Afterlives: The Enduring Significance of the Black Panther Party edited by Diane Fujino, Matef Harmachis (2020). Checking for "news" returns some coverage of art installations in Germany. That's the results of a trivial check in English, without doing any serious digging. Since not all of their work is done under the name EDELO, I would favor keeping two separate pages. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 05:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Mary Mark Ockerbloom:, the book chapter is, as you mention, an interview titled "interview with Caleb Duarte of EDELO Residency", so it is primarily not about her and also not an independent source. Having her collaborator mention her in print does not have value notability-wise. Regarding the Black Power Afterlives source, I cannot see it. Could you share roughly what it says? --- Possibly ☎ 05:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – EDELA itself has generated a bit of coverage (and thus could be notable on its own), but none of that coverage seems to discuss Rollow in any detail. A few single-sentence trivial mentions don't help, nor do comments by her colleagues. If in-depth coverage can be identified I'll gladly reevaluate, but what I'm finding isn't enough to meet the GNG. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Malibu (Toronto)

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

WP:NBUILDING. Nothing about notability except the public art. Either this should be deleted or the article should be about the art if someone thinks the art is notable. rsjaffe talk 16:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 16:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 16:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The condo itself has no discernible notability claim above and beyond the fact that it exists. The monument might qualify for an article under our notability criteria for public art, but one source about that isn't enough all by itself — and even if somebody can find more sourcing than that to get it over the bar, the article would still need to be about the monument itself rather than about the run of the mill condo building that it merely happens to be in front of. Bearcat ( talk) 15:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as all votes were for Keep/Strong Keep or either comments per WP:SIGCOV also clearly passed WP:GNG. ( non-admin closure) Aj Ajay Mehta 007 ( talk) 18:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Close vacacted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 August 26. New close is procedural no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 22:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Athar Aamir Khan

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

No indication of notability. Being a commissioner of a city doe not make anyone notable. Fails WP:GNG. Moreover 2nd runner of IAS Entrance Exam also not sufficient to make him Noable. DMySon ( talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Strong keep - The article passes WP:GNG. Kindly perform a WP:BEFORE, you can find enough to pass GNG. -- Sreeram Dilak ( talk) 07:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - although the article is copiously referenced (its creator, @Sreeram Dilak, has certainly found plenty of good press mentions) the question to me is whether his current career posts, although well-referenced, are sufficiently notable to make him notable. I do not know. Also being a CEO of a company does not automatically make someone notable. It may be Too Soon. Certainly the number of times he took a civil service exam, and his exact marks, are not relevant to an encyclopaedia article, and I'm not sure all the family details are appropriate. If the article survives, it probably needs editing to concentrate on more on his notable achievements and less on his personal life. Elemimele ( talk) 14:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep seems to have enough coverage to meet notability. Alice Jason ( talk) 05:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • 'Uncertain if hte position is intrinsically notable. But most of the references and text in the original version was PR, self-praise, and gossip. To give the article a chance, I removed those sections. The principles for doing so are NOT TABLOID and NOT AUTOBIOGRAPHY. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sharan Kaur Pabla. Daniel ( talk) 09:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Gurudwara Bibi Sharan Kaur Ji

Gurudwara Bibi Sharan Kaur Ji (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This gurudwara not a notable place of worship. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

*Keep. this page references shows notability and it has information about gurudwaras struck Juliana000 sockpuppet-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ The Battle of Chamkaur (22 December 1704), The Panjab past and present, Volume 20, pp 276, Devinder Kumar Varma, Punjabi University. Dept. of Punjab Historical Studies, 1986
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
PS: The sole reliable source cited at Sharan Kaur Pabla mentions her name as Sharan Kaur – the unsourced Pabla bit was added by the Saini SPA who created this article. And that seems like the only reliable source which gives her details. She was a common villager who was killed by Mughal soldiers while she tried to cremate two sons of Guru Gobind Singh after the Battle of Chamkaur. And there seems nothing else known about her. So the biography seems non-notable itself and List of gurdwaras seems like a better redirection target. But the page can also be redirected to the biography for the time being. BTW, here is the quote (from page no. 276) about her from the sole cited source of the article:
quote about Sharan Kaur

According to the local traditions, thoroughly verified by the author of this paper from a number of knowledgeable persons, Bibi Sharan Kaur of village Raipur (about 2 miles from Chamkaur) was very much perturbed on hearing the death of two sons of the Guru in the battle-field. Fully knowing about the dead bodies, she made up her mind to accomplish the last rites of the both. She, with a lamp in her hand, reached the battle-field. With great difficulty, she recognised the bodies from their plumes. What little she could do she did. She was caught and slain by the Mughal soldiers.

- NitinMlk ( talk) 22:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hockessin, Delaware. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 04:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Meeting House Hill, Delaware

Meeting House Hill, Delaware (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we come upon a novel issue: there are three different spots with this name in the immediate area. The spot from GNIS is another subdivision entered from the same commercial amp as the others; there is really no question that it isn't notable. There's another subdivision outside Newark which I would also assume does not merit notice. Meanwhile Delaware Place Names lists it as another name from Drummond Hill, which is a hill, and whose coordinates do not correspond with either of the other two. So I'm not seeing keeping this for any of the three. Mangoe ( talk) 20:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Hockessin, Delaware: USGS maps show a couple houses along a couple roads in 1901 and 1904. By 1943, there seem to be many more houses, and a couple new roads; in 1954, there's some expansion of the roads; the next 1:24k map, in 1993, is the first appearance of any label for this place, which is given as "Meeting House Meadow". The label "Meeting House Hill" first appears in 2011, at which point USGS had begun churning out maps automatically generated from GNIS data; prior to that, the same location was only labeled in the 1993 map, where it was called "Cameron Hills". Being labeled on old USGS topo maps is a pretty low bar to clear, and this doesn't even get that far. Google satellite maps tell a similar story: there just doesn't seem to be a whole lot going on here, and the coordinates themselves are given by Google as being a part of Hockessin. If someone can show a bunch of sources talking about Meeting House Hill as a real place, then I'll !vote to keep, but it doesn't seem likely to me. jp× g 23:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Non notable subdivisions. Google Street View shows small entrance signs for Meetinghouse Meadow here and Meeting House Hill here, which I would speculate are named after nearby Hockessin Friends Meeting. – dlthewave ☎ 17:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Valid disambiguation page per WP:DAB. The RfC, which established the primary redirect of Pahonia to coat of arms of Lithuania, did not prevent creating a disambiguation page, which serves a different purpose to provide clarity/navigation for users when there are articles with potentially ambiguous terms. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Pahonia (disambiguation)

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

Word Pahonia is one of the historical names of the Coat of arms of Lithuania, thus such page as Pahonia (disambiguation) should not exist as such solution was rejected by the RFC at Talk:Pahonia#RFC: Pahonia ( RFC closing statement and decision confirmation by an administrator). The decision was suggestion A, not suggestion B. Despite that, some users also implemented suggestion B. The main problem with existence of a separate page for Pahonia is that it gives a Belarusian/Ruthenian language name of the Lithuanian coat of arms a supremacy over other names (e.g. Lithuanian language counterparts Vytis, Waikymas). Points of this disambiguation page (e.g. "Pahonia (newspaper, 1992)" or "Pahonia (newspaper, 1920)") previously redirected to articles in the Belarusian Wikipedia ( old version of this page). Identical articles in the Lithuanian Wikipedia would be called "Vytis (laikraštis, 1992)" (laikraštis = newspaper in Lithuanian) because the Lithuanians do not use this Belarusian/Ruthenian word. One of the examples from the Lithuanian Wikipedia: Vytis (laikraštis). The equivalent of Pahonia / Vytis in the English language would be Chase. That's why the decision of this red-hot dispute at the RFC was that the "right" name of this symbol, which would satisfy WP:NPOV, does not exist. I request to delete this page in order to ensure WP:NPOV and WP:CONS of RFC. User GB fan ( 1) wrongfully interpreted RFC as it clearly did not select disambiguation page as a solution of this dispute. The solution was to make a redirect page. Please delete page Pahonia (disambiguation) and ensure WP:LISTEN, WP:CONS. -- Pofka ( talk) 11:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The deletion reason above is a misreading of the RFC. The RFC discussed what should be done with the title Pahonia. There were three options: A - Convert to a redirect; B - Convert to a DAB page; C - Leave as is. The consensus of the RFC was to change Pahonia to a redirect. This consensus was implemented. The RFC never addressed the creation of a disambiguation page with the disambiguator, (disambiguation). It only addressed the option of changing Pahonia into a disambiguation page and that was rejected. Czalex (who was not involved in the RFC or made any comments on the talk page created a new disambiguation page. This DAB page is a helpful page to find other articles that could be called Pahonia. ~ GB fan 12:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
If the decision at RFC would have been solution B, then Pahonia would have been replaced with Pahonia (disambiguation). But it was not selected as a solution. Articles named Pahonia can be called Vytis as well because one "right" name of this coat of arms does not exist. That's the main dispute of the RFC regarding article Pahonia and the main reason why it was remade into a redirect page. -- Pofka ( talk) 12:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
If the decision at the RFC was B then Pahonia would have been converted to a disambiguation page and Pahonia (disambiguation) would now be redirect to Pahonia. The RFC did not discuss Pahonia {disambiguation) at all. No one brought up whether or not this page should be created. ~ GB fan 12:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

 Comment: Creator of page Pahonia (disambiguation) user Czalex participated in revert warring following RFC decision, thus he was well aware of the situation and chose to disrespect RFC's decision by arbitrarily creating page ( his revert at article Pahonia). Consequently, it is incorrect to say that Czalex absolutely did not participate in this dispute. -- Pofka ( talk) 12:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Noted, did not look at the article itself, just looked at the talk page. I did not say they did not know of the RFC, just that they did not participate in it. ~ GB fan 12:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. From the close of the RfC (and a very quick glance at the discussion), I see that the decision there was for the article Pahonia to be turned into a redirect, with the implied assumption that the redirect target is the primary topic for the term (otherwise, Pahonia would have been turned into a disambiguation page). Now, even if there is one primary topic, there are three other topics with the name, and as along as we have content about them we need to provide navigation to those topics. Deletion of this dab page would be possible only if this navigation is provided instead by a hatnote at the primary title (with three entries, that would be too much), or if all existing content about those other topics is deleted from the encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Looking from the Lithuanian language perspective, all these three entries would be called Vytis or Waikymas ( WP:NPOV?). It depends on creator's nationality. I believe currently both suggestions: A and B were implemented. That's illogical. -- Pofka ( talk) 12:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Pofka, what you believe is illogical. It is impossible for Options A & B to have been implemented. To do that Pahonia would have to be both a Redirect and a Disambiguation page at the same time. That is impossible. Only Option A was implemented, Pahonia is a redirect. A brand new page, Pahonia (disambiguation), that was not discussed in the RFC was created as a disambiguation page. You need to give up on using an RFC that did not discuss Pahonia (disambiguation) as a rationale for deleting it. ~ GB fan 14:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Suggestion B would have remade article Pahonia into a Pahonia (disambiguation) with 2-3 points (or more). That's exactly what happened now. RFC rejected such solution and selected solution A in order to avoid choosing the "right" name (which does not exist) of the primarily Lithuanian coat of arms. There is no chance that there would have been two articles: Pahonia (with disambiguation page structure) and page Pahonia (disambiguation) (also with identical disambiguation page structure). Template prohibits to duplicate content. Since you are British, imagine your coat of arms being written in Indian (due to the British Empire). Would you support to have a disambiguation page for a British CoA under an Indian language term? Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Lithuanian Empire: Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe (book by a British author). -- Pofka ( talk) 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Option B would have made Pahonia into a page that looks similar to what Pahonia (disambiguation) looks like now, then Pahonia (disambiguation) would have redirected to Pahonia. That wasn't what happened. Options A was implemented and it is a redirect as the RFC decided. Then in a seperate action, a disambiguation page was created that did not effect the content of Pahonia. I am not British. Great Britian is not the only thing with the initials GB. I would support a disambiguation page for any title that has multiple pages that could be known by the same term. Disambiguation pages are pages to help navigate people to what they are actually looking for when a term is ambiguous. ~ GB fan 16:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless more entries are added to the disambiguation. I deleted two of them, as the coat of arms of the GDL and that of the Belarusian DR can hardly be considered different topics when Pahonia redirects to Coat of arms of Lithuania in Wikipedia. Also, is the poem notable? It isn't listed as an entry in any of the other Wikipedias in which there's a disambiguation of Pahonia. We thus only have right now the Coat of arms of Lithuania and the song as entries, and we could just use a {{Redirect}} template in the former to include the latter. Super Ψ Dro 12:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, valid dab page. The arguments for deletion appears to be that Lithuanians don't like this name. Well, that comes under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As long as the name is used at the target article, the dab entry is justified. Even if the Lithuanian coat of arms entry was removed there would still be a case for the existence of a dab page since there are three other entries. Spinning Spark 22:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
We can speak about Belarusian national symbols only since 1918, thus "Pahonia, a prominent poem by Maksim Bahdanovič" is as much Pahonia as Vytis/Waikymas (author died in 1917). "Pahonia, historical name of the Coat of arms of Lithuania since the 15th century" is equal to Pahonia (redirect) and "Pahonia, coat of arms of the Belarusian Democratic Republic and the Republic of Belarus, see National emblem of Belarus" is equal to National emblem of Belarus#Pahonia. So we have two links (not articles) and one article with a questionable name. -- Pofka ( talk) 13:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Why does any of that make this an invalid disambiguation page? That is the only issue here which would lead to deletion. The fact that two of the meanings are related does not really matter. We have four pages that discuss different (but perhaps related) meanings. The purpose of a dab page is to help the reader find the page that is most relevant to them. Dab page entries don't have to have the topic in their title, they just have to point to an article that discusses that topic. Spinning Spark 16:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The name of the poem is obviously Pahonia in accordance with the Belarusian Latin alphabet, because this name stands for the coat of arms since much earlier than 1918, regardless of the discussion about since when it became a national symbol of Belarus-- Czalex 20:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, obviously, as the original article was also referring to names of several Belarusian newspapers and organisations with that name, for which the articles will be created. User:Pofka and User:Cukrakalnis create an impression of an organised group of users (or the same user with two accounts) actively engaged in nationalistic POV vandalism of articles about Belarus (manipulating or cherry picking what sources say for content to promote or spread a certain national or historical narrative, et al.) -- Czalex 20:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Extended off-topic discussion about nationalism
What is truly nationalistic and absolutely does not comply with WP:NPOV is Беларуская (тарашкевіца) (be-tarask.wikipedia.org) wikiproject. I will probably soon report it and request for sanctions as a result of anti-Lithuanian national hatred, propaganda in it. Most of Беларуская (тарашкевіца) wikiproject's content is anti-Lithuanian hatred, thus it may result in closure of such nationalistic project. -- Pofka ( talk) 12:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The Lithianian editors' success in deleting the Pahonia article has been noticed by the Belarusian media, it has created a lot of negative publicity for Wikipedia. The pro-government media kept quiet of course: this coinsided with Lukashenko's desires - what an irony! A challenge to a Belarusian Wikipedia will surely be met with a request for mediation. Both sides will have to start talking calmly to each other at last. -- Nieszczarda2 ( talk) 08:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Nieszczarda2: Learn one lesson: nationalism is not patriotism. By humiliating other nations (e.g. Lithuanians) you will not achieve any positive change in your country. Pahonia was rightfully integrated following WP:CONS because it is one of the historical names of the Lithuanian coat of arms and Lithuania's identity is indivisible even if some aggressive nationalists want to do that. Litvinism ideology is a complete waste of time because it was already rejected scientifically and it will never be recognized internationally. The sooner the Belarusians will accept the scientific truth that their cultured flourished as being PART of Lithuania (not as FOUNDING of Lithuania), the better will be for them. And if nationalism which humiliates Lithuanians will continue, be sure that the Lithuanians will stand to defend their identity. -- Pofka ( talk) 11:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Pofka: What Litvinism has to do with me? What the idea of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a home for Lithuanians and Belarusians (and Ukrainians to some extent) has to do with humiliating your Lithuanian countrymen? Presenting Belarusians as hopeless vassals to ethnic Lithuanians creates a parody of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania you and I love. This is not an either/or game for Belarusian editors here. We are trying to convey the reality that the Belarusian history, culture, language - everything! - are deeply rooted in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. And not because of the Lithuanian oppression of my people - being vassals would would never bring that about. It was a pluralist multicultural country when this was an unbelievable novelty for the rest of the world. Why not to celebrate that? Why to fight for the idea of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a backward-looking, boring colonial power? It deserves so much more. Peace. Nieszczarda2 ( talk) 19:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Nieszczarda2: Litvinism statements attempts to make it too romantic to be true. Initially, the Lithuanians were vassals of the Kievan Rus, which was later destroyed by the Mongols. This allowed the Lithuanians to gather power and expand their country. What are the chances that somebody would voluntarily join country of your former vassal? This is an absolute scientific non-sense, created by Litvinism. The truth is that only in 1563 Grand Duke Sigismund II Augustus issued a privilege which equalized the rights of Orthodox and Catholics in Lithuania and abolished all previous restrictions on Orthodox. This is another fact which simply crushes any statements about Lithuanian-Belarusian state because the Gediminids actively discriminated Ruthenians. Formation of GDL is far from the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Unlike Litvinists, the Lithuanians do not attempt to humiliate Belarusians, but we must respect the scientific truth. If living in Lithuania was the best period for the Belarusians history, we will surely appreciate that (and we are one of the most active supporters of democracy in Belarus), but do not attempt to distort our identity and national symbols with pseudoscientific theories that Lithuania is not Lithuania. The Lithuanian ethnos is currently quite small due to exceptionally strong anti-tsarist, anti-Soviet attitude which resulted in executions of many, many Lithuanians and Lithuanian press ban, Soviet deportations from Lithuania. Content of be-tarask.wikipedia.org project resembles tsarists/Soviets attitude towards the Lithuanians, not some kind of patriotism. With all due respect, but without Lithuanians and Poles lead the Belarusian ethnos most likely would have ended in the same way as Principality of Smolensk. So widespread humiliation of Lithuanians (calling them as zmudzs, etc.) in the be-tarask.wikipedia.org project is an absurd because the Lithuanians aren't enemies. We are not responsible for nearly extinct Belarusian language and events like Kurapaty. -- Pofka ( talk) 20:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Pofka: We certainly disagree about the meaning of Lithuanian in the Grand Duchy (no, I don't think it meant Belarusian then, it just did not have an ethnic meaning in the same way we see it now). But let us leave it for articles. I wonder if you/we could contemplate a differnt approach to developing Wikipedia, e.g. letting alternative concepts to be critically explained. In Belarusian historiography, there are many competing concepts (and the same - in Lithuanian, of course), so obviously there will be differences between Belarusian and Lithuanian schools of thought too. In the 1990s, there was a cool attempt to bring Belarusian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Polish historians together for discovering commonalities. It stopped when Lukashenko came to power. Then, in more recent years, an university in Kaunas hosted huge Belarus-focused conferences for the scholars whose research wasn't welcome in Belarus. So there are examples how to talk slowly and friendly, rather than attacking each other. I totally agree that the content of the Belarusian Wikipedias lacks the Lithuanian perspective, but someone has to offer it in a comprehensible manner. I suspect the same is true about the Lithuanian Wikipedia. The English one has huge limitations too. So, practically speaking: we at least could stop removing each other's content without alerting other editors about it. We could use Talk pages to negotiate and/or collaborate. Maybe we could do even more, e.g. start the GDL-themed project, suggest topics for writing, invite each other - Lithuanian and Belarusian editors - to contribute to the articles of mutual interest. Please give a thought. Fighting here and trying to stay alert constantly is so wasteful. Nieszczarda2 ( talk) 12:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Nieszczarda2: There are historic documents in which Gediminas himself drew a line between Lithuanians and Ruthenians and between Lithuania and Ruthenia (pay attention that GDL of Gediminas mostly consisted of the present-day Lithuania and Belarus). For example, see this book by Rowell, pages 380-385 (you can use Google translate for the Lithuanian version in p. 383-385 because Old German version is untranslatable by Google translate). As descendants of Gediminas and old Lithuanians, we respect his words because he is like a saint for us. The Belarusians should appreciate their distinct Ruthenian heritage instead of trying to become Lithuanians because such pseudoscientific approach simply lead nowhere. The Ukrainians are successfully cherishing their distinct Ruthenian heritage and do not attempt to become Lithuanians. I cannot see any other way of success for the Belarusians than to follow the footsteps of the Ukrainians. However, by examining key articles in be-tarask.wikipedia.org project, I made a conclusion that the Belarusian nationalists who edit it want to wipe out Lithuania and Lithuanians, steal our capital Vilnius, etc. This really raised concerns for me about the anti-Lukashenko forces in Belarus and such content is a true negative hit for the reputation of the anti-Lukashenko opposition. The Lithuanians were risking their national security by organizing a new version of Baltic Way in support for the Belarusians, warmly welcomed Tsikhanouskaya, Pratasevič, and other members of the opposition. Currently, we are supporting economic sanctions for Lukashenko's regime which will result in the loss of hundreds of millions of euros for Lithuania. We certainly haven't done it all for the editors of be-tarask.wikipedia.org project and impressively long Belarusian national flag in Vilnius certainly did not meant that we will give up our capital ( photos of the flag). I have strong doubts if these 50,000 Lithuanians would be motivated to help Belarus after reading content of be-tarask.wikipedia.org project. Scientific point of view must be respected. -- Pofka ( talk) 13:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Pointless to go into a childish discussion trying to convince a radical nationalist but just a few scientific facts that you might want to study deeper: 1) The Grand Duchy of Lithuania (full name during most of its existence – Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia) was not a nation state but a multicultural medieval monarchy. 2) The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created under the domination of Eastern Slavic culture, language and statehood traditions (the name "Duchy" itself, "княства", is a direct analogy of the name of the earlier Duchies (also "княствы") of Kyiv, Polatsk, etc). The early Lithuanian dukes intermarried with Eastern Slavs and were often Orthodox themselves. There is virtually not a single state document of the GDL written in a Baltic language, let alone in modern Lithuanian - all early documents are in Old Belarusian, later in Latin or Polish. At some point, the vast majority of the Eastern Slavic nobility in the GDL converted to Catholicism and was never subject to any discrimination. There are now two million Catholics in Belarus (almost as many as in the Republic of Lithuania). 3) The very heartland of historical Lithuania, which is now the border region between Belarus and the Lithuanian Republic, including the city of Vilnius/Vilnia/Wilno, is today inhabited by Belarusian speaking Catholics who identify as Poles but not [modern] Lithuanians, and are in fact assimilated Balts, not migrants from Poland. This demonstrates how far the Slavic assimilation of Balts has come and, more importantly, how complex the history and the nation building processes of this region are. Not all descendants of medieval Lithuanians are modern Lithuanians. Like not all descendants of ancient Romans are modern Romanians or Italians. In the late 19th century, the local Polish speakers had a regional identity as Litviny/Litwini ("Lithuanians") but did not identify themselves with who we call Lithuanians now - they even fought a successful war against the Republic of Lithuania under Jozef Pilsudski (himself a Litwin). 4) The modern nations of Belarusians and Lithuanians are both 19th-century products. Belarusians are also to a notable degree descendants of assimilated Baltic tribes. History is a complicated thing and not black-and-white like some immature people try to paint it here. Trying to prove that your nation is better than some other using manipulation with sources and historical facts is not scientific and should not have a place on Wikipedia (same as nationalistic historical romanticism like "[Duke this and this] is like a saint for us", or calls for redrawing borders, or derogatory statements about other nations, etc). The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is a common heritage of modern Lithuanians, Belarusians, regional Poles, to some extent of Ukrainians and western Russians too - this is the upcoming consensus among historians now. It is pointless, childish and destructive to keep playing the privatisation game around the medieval GDL, modern historical science is far beyond that. -- Czalex 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Complete nonsense: most of the Belarusian classical Wikipedia doesn't even focus on topics related to Lithuania – neither the modern nation state, nor the historical feudal Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Funnily enough, the small Lithuanian Wikipedia seems to be far more objective and scientific when dealing with common Belarusian-Lithuanian history than what Lithuanian nationalistic vandalism creates here in the English Wikipedia.-- Czalex 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Systematic removal of the Pahonia and Belarusian heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from English Wikipedia is creating an increasingly widespread anomaly: everything slightly related to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is being conflated with Lithuanian in its modern ethnic sense. It is an actualised and reductionist reading of history. It should be reversed as it makes Wikipedia less reliable and less relevant. Removing this DAB page will prevent users from discovering the content not represented in the Coat of arms of Lithuania page which is heavily policed by a group of activist editors. Nieszczarda2 ( talk) 07:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Reza Fakhrabadipour

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

Has not yet played a fully professional game per WP:FPL ( his soccerway profile). My BEFORE could not establish GNG. JW 1961 Talk 10:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 10:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 10:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 15:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to International relations theory. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 06:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Neo-neo synthesis

Neo-neo synthesis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no reason for this stub to exist. This is a relatively obscure topic which can be adequately covered on Neorealism, Neoliberalism (international relations) and International relations theory. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 09:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Beşiktaş J.K.. I don't see a need to merge at the moment, but this will leave the history accessible if needed, or if Beşiktaş J.K. is expanded to cover all sports and a separate football article is warranted. -- BDD ( talk) 13:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Beşiktaş (football club)

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

Unnecessary fork of Beşiktaş J.K.. Geschichte ( talk) 09:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
 Comment: I think it can be stay. Here's another fork example: Galatasaray S.K. (football) 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 03:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
If anything is to be forked, the general Besiktas JK need to be moved to Besiktas JK football to preserve the history. Geschichte ( talk) 11:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G5: Created by Saqlainify. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Pakistani EDM

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

Per failed PROD: article appears to be comprised mostly of original research. Zudo ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Zudo ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Zudo ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 16:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Quibell Park Stadium

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn ( talk) 21:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - the sources included in the article itself go part of the way to establishing notability. It was obviously a more significant venue in the 60s and 70s than it is now. Recent mentions are just that and mostly relate to objections to a nearby housing development. None of those sources could seem to cover the venue itself in much detail. My hesitation is that there certainly are sources available and the manner in which it was opened suggests there would be a lot more coverage in older, non-digital sources. Notability not being temporary, its lasting impact on the community should be considered. So I wouldn't be upset if this was kept but I accept that any such sources aren't immediately available. St★lwart 111 03:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Well, this is another example of the general bias against contemporary history, both in the form of the well-discussed "digital black hole" and in terms of the way some people think it is "stealing their childhood". If the BNA had as much material from the 1960s and 1970s as it does from the 19th and early 20th centuries, it would be far easier to find reliable sources for articles like this. RobinCarmody ( talk) 15:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. As it is, it fails WP:GNG, and the possible existence of older, offline sources is not a sufficient reason to keep it. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 23:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views have balanced since the last relist but unclear what consensus is
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 11:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Notre Dame of Holy Cross School (Salem, India)

Notre Dame of Holy Cross School (Salem, India) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable school. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing, and no sources are provided in the article. It should be noted that I have not conducted a Hindi search. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rocky Point, Virginia. It is clear that consensus is that the topic is not notable. However, there are strong arguments for both the "delete" and "re-direct" options. I am judging consensus to be "re-direct" because I find compelling arguments for the re-direct to be stronger. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Alpine, Virginia

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

I think this one is a non-notable rail location, although it wouldn't hurt to get more eyes on this, as the rail ones sometimes have coverage my sourcing patterns don't turn up. Topos originally have Rocky Point, Virginia here, until 1961 when the name Alpine shows up and the Rocky Point name moves to a rail junction a little bit to the west. Topos showing the name "Alpine" have a single building and a rail siding on the C & O there.

Searching for this is a bit difficult due to the commonness of the name. I'm getting a single reference to Alpine is a list of communities in a county history that doesn't say anything at all about Alpine beyond that, a reference to the Alpine site in a list of new stops on a historic trail, and references in old railroad directories that indicate that there was neither a post office nor a telegraph office here. Maybe others can do better with searching, but I'm seeing a non-notable rail stop here. Hog Farm Talk 06:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 06:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 06:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Upon looking at Google Maps, there are other things in the area named for it; Alpine Boat Landing and Alpine Farms. So it appears there's a proper community here. Waddles  🗩  🖉 16:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ WaddlesJP13: - if you could provide actual sources, that would be appreciated. I don't we can base an article on Alpine, Virginia was listed on railroad time tables during the 1910s. It had neither a post office nor a telegraph office. The 1961 USGS topographic map shows a single building and a railroad siding here. According to Google Maps, the Alpine Boat Ramp is in the area. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ Hog Farm: Google Maps and OpenStreetMap can be used as references in articles, I believe. If they're labeled on the map I am quite sure its sufficient. There are thousands and thousands of other railroad sidings with articles on Wikipedia, and some are mass-created like this one while some actually have some minimal effort. I think the article is worth keeping if the nearby places bearing the name of the locality are noted and the article is brought beyond just a single sentence. Alpine Farms seems to have a couple proper references about it, but I'm not too sure about Alpine Boat Landing. Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I will caution when using Google Maps - Google maps is known to scrape a lot of names/descriptions from Wikipedia. So the name appearing on Google Maps should be taken with a grain of salt. Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
WaddlesJP13, according to the Sources section of WP:NGEO, maps and tables are not to be considered when establishing notability. GNG is the standard for places without legal recognition, and we've been systematically deleting rail siding articles for a few years now. – dlthewave ☎ 20:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: USGS topo maps from 1894 show the coordinates as a road and some train tracks by a river. The same is shown in 1907, plus some houses, a couple new roads and a bridge; there's no "Alpine" label, but there's a "Rockypoint" label. By 1961, there are fewer houses present (or perhaps fewer are marked), but there's now some quarries to the north, and the "Alpine" label is present next to "Rocky Point". It seems to stay about the same through 1999, and the Alpine / Rocky Point labels stay where they are through 2019. I don't see a whole lot on Google's satellite maps in the area. Perhaps someone can find something useful in historical archives (pinging @ Firsfron: and @ Cxbrx:). jp× g 23:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Rocky Point, Virginia. Checking Cram's 1887/1890, Cram's 1900, and Rand McNally 1925, 1890 does list both Rocky Point and Alpine. Rocky Point had 15 residents in 1900 and 14 in 1925. Alpine's population is listed as X, indicating a rail spot or post location only. PostalHistory.com indicates there was never an Alpine post office. [32] Rocky Point has a post office from 1852 to 1944 [33]. Both Alpine and Rocky Point were stops on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, [34] but Alpine had no express office. Alpine was approximately at mile marker 186, with Rocky Point at 187, but the sites are actually just a half a mile apart. All but one house in 1907 were at Rocky Point, with one lone house (possibly just the rail station) at Alpine. In 1961, Alpine still has just one house. Alpine seems to have been a rail stop, nothing more. But readers searching for Alpine, which shows up on maps for over 100 years, should be directed to the nearest actual settlement, Rocky Point, with a brief mention of the Alpine rail station and boat landing. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect, per Firsfron. jp× g 07:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Appears to just be a rail siding, not finding any sources that would justify a redirect although there are a lot of winter sports related false hits. Will reconsider if GNG coverage can be found. – dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • leaning delete The later maps that show both points make it clear that Rocky Point was then the junction and Alpine the passing siding (actually a small yard for some time). As such, I don't think the latter is notable. That said, the older topos show the Rocky Point label over at Alpine's location, so I'm not totally against a redirect. Mangoe ( talk) 15:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Nikolay Zak

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

Page does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC, all of the information outside Schooling and Career is featured in Jeanne_Calment#Skepticism_regarding_age and page views in the past 30 days were just 350. All of the sources are related to the Jeanne Calment hypothesis and all but one are focused on the study. The only criteria which appears to apply to Zak in WP:NACADEMIC is 7. But although, he has had media attention outside of his field, it is not covered under WP:NACADEMIC, A; he is not cited as an expert, B; Fringe-Theroes are not included and C; is not relevant.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 08:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 08:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Geschichte ( talk) 09:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Malaysia footballers born outside Malaysia

List of Malaysia footballers born outside Malaysia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

FMSky ( talk) 03:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. FMSky ( talk) 03:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 08:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 08:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 11:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

PQM

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

Coverage does not go beyond routine/local coverage. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Types of public housing estate blocks in Hong Kong. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

30-Story Cruciform Block

30-Story Cruciform Block (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be a notable topic. No reliable sources. There are some 30-story buildings in Hong Kong. So? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. I'm hesitant to do so, given my total lack of chinese ability and the reasonable possibility that coverage of a standard design of several major housing estates exists in Chinese, but having reviewed the Chinese article on the subject, and conducted a brief search on the internet, I agree with the nominator that this building doesn't meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Redirect per arguments presented below; I would opposing merging, on the grounds that the article is functionally unsourced. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I feel like that this is what that is it. I can't put any other sources because it is impossible to find any source related to this. Ant1234567 ( talk) 22:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 01:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Taki Toa Shield

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

Look at all of those issues! No sources, essay, orphaned page... Capsulecap ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, completely just an unencyclopedic essay article. Waddles  🗩  🖉 02:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of notability, and the lack of sources precludes us from merging the article into a parent page - though as far as I can tell no such page exists. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - it was all of those things, but all of those things are fix-the-problem sort of problems, so I did. It's not hard to add a proper heading, fix the image, and add a couple of references. Please, for the love of God, when will people understand that inclusion, or not, is about notability, and not the current quality of the article you stumbled across. It's been tagged like that since 2014 and most of the coverage relates to the ANZAC Anniversary tournament in 2015 (a year later). WP:BEFORE exists for a reason. With that out of the way, let's see if we can assess the sources here which include (for a sporting tournament) at least one academic study of Maori culture in Australia. The tournament has been going on for 30 years, includes multiple senior-club winners, and is (or was) a mainstay of the Maori community cultural calendar. St★lwart 111 03:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for digging those up Stalwart; excellent finds. I looked into them, and with the new name "Taki Toa Tournament" looked for other sources, with the idea towards creating a "Taki Toa Tournament" article that this could be merged into, but unfortunately I don't believe the content is there. The academic source is suitable; while the focus is elsewhere, it consists of more than a passing mention and likely contributes to GNG. However, I suspect the newsletter would be considered a self-published source (the organization, as far as I can tell, no longer exists, so I cannot confirm this) and the South West Voice article only contains a passing reference to the tournament. Further, my own searches turned up nothing; of note; a few passing reference, including one in a doctoral thesis, but nothing significant. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, I think the name is right (see the similar - but much older - Shute Shield) and I haven't seen many sources call it the "Taki Toa Tournament". Yes, that source is probably self-published, but provides confirmation of the translation (if nothing else). I've not gone digging for sources; those were just the first things I found (to see if WP:BEFORE had even been attempted. There is absolutely still an argument to be made that this doesn't pass WP:GNG, but bloody hell, citing improvement tags as a reason for deletion is just insanely lazy. St★lwart 111 05:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Following the excellent work from Stalwart111 I think there's enough there for this to be kept. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I would say it was per WP:HEY but all of the problems were easily solvable ones and required little to no effort. Significant coverage in major academic studies like this one probably gets it over the line in terms of notability. Again, this is a sporting tournament considered so significant to a particular community that its impact on the diaspora has been the subject of academic analysis... alongside the usual coverage that we'd expect for sporting tournaments. The total lack of WP:BEFORE here is enough to oppose this nomination on principle alone. St★lwart 111 22:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 07:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_August_26&oldid=1042370513"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America 1000 12:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Stephen W. Tayler

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

WP:NMUSIC doesn't make any mention of sound engineers or mixers, with relevant discussions concluding that being involved in producing notable music, does not make them notable i.e. WP:NOTINHERITED and therefore WP:BIO and WP:GNG apply to determining notability. Very little of the content present in the article at the moment is sourced and the few reliable sources present [1] [2] make no mention of the subject. My own searches turned up this interview in innerviews as being the best available source, but it's not a well-known reliable source for determining notability. Apart from that, all I could find were this and this from mixonline.com, which is probably a better RS, but there's not a huge amount of coverage. Definitely on the edge of notability, but I am not sure on which side and would like to know before I do any work to clean up the article. SmartSE ( talk) 16:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 16:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I am undecided on the gentleman's notability, because finding sources for studio personnel can be tough even though they worked with lots of famous people. However, if the article survives it needs severe reduction and removal of resume-like elements. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 17:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The provided sources are on the sparse side, but have not been substantially challenged. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

14 Nam Cheong Street

14 Nam Cheong Street (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL building with no claim to notability. Geschichte ( talk) 22:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Yeung, Siu (2019-02-04). "深水埗為群公寓翻新面目全非？網民劣評「核突」". zh:U Lifestyle (in Chinese). Hong Kong Economic Times Holdings. Archived from the original on 2021-08-22. Retrieved 2021-08-22.

      From Google Translate: "The predecessor of Weiqun Apartment was actually a two-story triangular tenement building. By 1964, a six-story apartment was built. It is said that due to title issues, it has been lost for nearly 20 years. By 2015, Defu Development Co., Ltd., owned by the founder of Mascotte Chen Ailing, purchased a group of apartments for approximately HK$34.6 million."

    2. "深水埗弧形街角樓易手". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2015-12-22. Archived from the original on 2019-04-11. Retrieved 2021-08-22.

      From Google Translate: "The entire old building at No. 14 Nanchang Street, Sham Shui Po, which was completed more than half a century ago, was just purchased by Chen Ailing, founder of Mascotte Group, for about 34.6 million yuan, which is expected to be worthy of reconstruction. ... The site area of the property is about 835 square feet. It is currently a six-storey triangular building with a curved corner tower design. It was completed in 1964. ... The site was originally owned by the invisible rich man Ma Shutou in Kowloon City. It was purchased for 6 million yuan in 1991 and was auctioned for 8.2 million yuan in 2000 but no one bid."

    3. 歐陽慧恩 (2020-11-26). "63歲唐樓翻新 呎租勝新樓". Ming Pao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-22. Retrieved 2021-08-22.

      From Google Translate: "Huihao Residence is one of the few existing corner-shaped curved tenement houses in Hong Kong. Before the 1980s, there were still wharves in Sham Shui Po. At that time, the building owners used the 4th floor and below as short-term rental apartments for rent. Since most of the tenants were singles, they were known as "Sanzai Pavilion" (Sanzai refers to bachelors). The highest two-story unit is rented out as a cubicle room, with relatively rudimentary internal equipment. The late Alice Lam Chui Lin ( zh:林翠蓮), a former member of the Eastern District Council of Hong Kong, lived here when she was young. In the late 1980s, the terminal was shut down and the major owner passed away. The building began to be emptied in the 1990s due to ownership issues. It was only in recent years that the consortium bought it and refurbished it."

    4. 鄺嘉仕 (2021-06-19). "鄺嘉仕．跑遊老香港｜深水埗睇樓團　穿過騎樓感應逝去日子" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2021-08-22. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
    5. "南昌街14號全幢 7千萬放售". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2015-10-22. Archived from the original on 2021-08-22. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
    6. 陈天权 (2014-09-25). 吴合琴 (ed.). "为群公寓" (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2021-08-22. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 14 Nam Cheong Street ( simplified Chinese: 为群公寓; traditional Chinese: 為群公寓 and simplified Chinese: 南昌街14号; traditional Chinese: 南昌街14號) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete The reason for notability is not asserted. The person who claims that it is notable should mention it on the article. Wasraw ( talk) 05:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

"The person who claims that it is notable should mention it on the article": that would be useful but there is no such rule. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 20:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 09:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Sun Vet Mall

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

This is a small local shopping mall with a gross leasable area of 280,000 and little in-depth reliable and verifiable coverage about the mall. Alansohn ( talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Alansohn ( talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alansohn ( talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All shopping malls are local, but semantics aside, this mall is larger than several of the other malls listed in the New York metropolitan area, like the Newburgh Mall. Since this article was listed for deletion, extra sources have been added to this page, and it has more sources (and information) than The Source at White Plains or The Grove at Shrewsbury, two other listed New York metropolitan malls (the latter of which also has a smaller listed size). (I do not have an actual Wikipedia account so I'm not exactly sure how to sign off, so... my bad.) 18:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, insignificant shopping mall, only a handful of stores and covering a very small retail area. Most notable malls have at least 100,000m2 of area, this barely reaches a third of that. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Not all shopping malls are local, some are interregional. Geschichte ( talk) 18:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Khali Sweeney

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

No apparent notability except for Downtown Boxing Gym Youth Program, a local youth gym with a very promotional article created by the same editor. I don't think there's even justification for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 18:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

John (Bam) Ransom

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

Hard to unpack this article, but despite having published in notable publications he doesn't seem to have the coverage to meet WP:GNG Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Henry West (director)

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

Video director, without enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NDIRECTOR. Onel5969 TT me 20:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Assembly language#Macros. The content will be preserved in the page history in case anyone wants to merge anything anywhere. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 18:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Conditional assembly language

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

Too narrow even in an IBM context, conflates conditional assembly with macros Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 23:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Assembly_language#Macros where the concept is mentioned. As evidenced by this old IBM 360 assembly tutorial, conditional assembly is an important part of macro assembly programming, but it is probably not independently notable from macro assembly. As a plausible search term that is verifiable, I think it is reasonable to redirect this topic to Assembly_language#Macros. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 22:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Since conditional assembly statements are also used outside of macros, that section would need some expansion. Alternatively, the redirect could be to a new macro and conditional assembly article that included text from the section and also examples from several different macro assemblers. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 16:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Assembly_language#Macros. Even if the topic did meet GNG I believe it would be more appropriate as a component of a larger article. For the moment, that article is Assembly language, but I would have no objection to the creation of a new article as detailed by Chatul. Merge is an option as well, but I'm not confident the current content would fit within the context of the discussed target without significant edits, at which point it would be easier to create a new mention. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

David Bushmich

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

Unverified article. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 ( talk) 23:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The Russian version has many sources. I copied 3 of them, including a printed publication about the most notable ophthalmologists from 1966, a recent scientific article and the Filatov Institute in Odessa. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 22:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Tembagapura Sport Hall

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Not nearly enough coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 23:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Anzio Storci

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

Promotion of a Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon ( talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
This is pretty meaningless in the absence of actual, you know, cited sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can’t find anything online to support this bio except for a single profile in Gazzetta di Parma. If anyone is able to demonstrate offline sourcing I’ll reconsider. Mccapra ( talk) 10:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Per rationale by Praxidicae & Mccapra. I too do not see anything cogent that suggests GNG or anybio is met. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. The best I could find was [3], which appears to be a collection of issues of a magazine; unclear if it has anything to do with Barilla the Pasta company; and this, the reliability of which I'm unsure of. However, there are several passing mentions, and a presumed language barrier for most people who have searched for sources thus far: so I could be missing some sources. Vanamonde ( Talk) 13:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Patrick Aaron Hodgkins

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG as an individual. Possible ATD is redirect to As Fast As. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 21:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 23:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Noush Skaugen

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. No specific merge/redirect I could propose. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 21:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Vinny Palermo

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

Promotional piece, completely devoid of proper sourcing, non-notable position. Drmies ( talk) 20:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Christo Kasabi

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

An WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY on an amateur rugby player who does not meet WP:NRU or WP:GNG. His club career is played at a level way, way below the professional level and his caps for Cyprus do not count towards NRU either as they are not listed as a High Performance Union.

The best sources cited in the article are a transfer announcement and a brief Q&A, none of which really count as significant coverage, where someone other than Kasabi has written about him extensively. I found a couple of hits in searches, this photo caption and this match report. The match report mentions his name in the title but it doesn't actually contain any in-depth coverage of Kasabi at all, just routine coverage. No reason why this amateur sportsperson needs to have their autobiography hosted here. Wikipedia isn't a web host. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Steve Davies (footballer, born 1960). Eddie891 Talk Work 22:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Marcus Holden

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

Notability concern as well as blatant COI concern with edits/hijackings like this edit. There has been an edit war about him being New Zealand or England born but no reliable sources to support either. The problem with these low-profile sports BLPs is it's really hard to tell whether any of the info is actually true or not and this is one of the reasons why I don't think that they should have an article.

Playing for semi-pro Stirling County RFC and non-High Performance Cyprus does not count towards WP:NRU in any case. None of the cited sources provide significant coverage of Holden; appearing in match reports does not confer notability. Statements about his playing style are unsourced, unfortunately.

Alleged claims to notability through his football career are not supported by any sources and I couldn't find him in any football databases so there is no proof that he has played in the top tier of Cyprus, which would have made him notable. WP:NFOOTBALL not met. Best sources in a search appear to be ones like [5] [6] which are just fairly standard match report mentions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 18:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Flannel (band)

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

This page has been tagged as possibly non-notable for nearly 11 years. It was Prodded in 2014 but soon de-prodded with the rationale that the band had appeared on TV and had collaborated with other musicians and "likely just need(ed) more references": however, I haven't been able to find any evidence that this one appearance even happened ( the episodes are not currently available to view) and in any case, I'm not convinced that this would constitute significant media coverage. The page is completely unsourced and the band's website is no longer extant. In short, there seems to be nothing here that would meet the criteria at WP:NBAND. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 19:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdraw. I apparently suck at using Google search. (non-admin closure) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor ( talk) 13:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Excelsior, Nevada

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

Non-notable topic. I checked for sources and all of them are either about places near Excelsior or a city of the same name in California. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor ( talk) 19:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor ( talk) 19:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor ( talk) 19:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Once notable, always notable. The existing references are adequate. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This community has been noted in books of the era and modern sources, as well, as shown in the existing references. A search using "Excelsior"+"Elko" (the county the place was in) pulls up a considerable number of results. There appear to be news articles, as well, although these results are mixed in with results for a site near Las Vegas, as well. Despite that, the existing references have noted the community, including two pages discussing the site in Hall's 2002 book. According to WP:GEOLAND, "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." No reason to delete this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    I actually kinda forgot that adding + to google's search as well as " would further narrow the search results. I had simply put in "Excelsior, Nevada" and some of my results were for Excelsior in Nevada County in California. Thanks for re-enlightening me on how Google's search works. I was about to withdraw anyways after seeing people had found sources related to the subject. It appears I need to get better at using Google search. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor ( talk) 13:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing while there are no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Tom Loizides

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

I can't find any evidence that he ever made a professional, senior appearance for Saracens F.C. or London Irish, which would not only qualify him for WP:NRU but likely WP:GNG as well. In the absence of evidence, it can't be presumed that he meets either guideline. The best I can find is a passing mention in a Cypriot sports blog and a database entry, which contains merely a name and DOB.

Caps for Cyprus do not count towards WP:NRU. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep itrugby stating 22 matches for Esher in the RFU Championship, a notable league under WP:NRU. His international appearances though aren't notable and didn't play for the Saracens of London Irish first team, however those appearances and the couple of sources found by the nom means a weak keep for me. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021

COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article that gives the cumulative number of deaths per country for each day in July. A single source is given, which links to an index page of WHO. None of the figures given in the article are on this page, which simply links to over 250 reports. The article therefore fails WP:VERIFY. The WHO index page lists daily reports to August 2020, and then weekly reports since then. The weekly reports don't seem to give a daily breakdown, so I'm not sure where the individual days figures come from. The creator presumably recognises the referencing issues as they created the article with a {{ more citations needed}} tag. [7]

The article consists mainly of two very large tables which are impossible to follow on a mobile. The information for each country is contained in a much more concise way in the individual country's pages, such as COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and also duplicates the overview in COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country. WP:NOTDATABASE may also be applicable here. John B123 ( talk) 19:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Anguswalker‎ usually copies the top part of the page each time he starts a new monthly page. That includes the {{ more citations needed}} tag. I assume he doesn't remove it because someone will just add it back, and he has more important things to do. I haven't seen anyone explain their reasoning for the tag on the monthly talk pages. I see this tag-cruft on many pages, and often don't see explanations on the talk page. And I don't have time to hunt down the adders to get their reasoning. I have better things to do. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Also nominating the following related pages because of the below comments:

COVID-19 pandemic deaths in January 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in February 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in March 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in April 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in May 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in June 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in August 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in September 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in October 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in November 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in December 2020 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in January 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in February 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in March 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in April 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in May 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in June 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic deaths in August 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. John B123 ( talk) 19:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. John B123 ( talk) 19:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. John B123 ( talk) 19:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I have to point to a couple of guidelines: WP:POPULARPAGE, WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTNEWS. Honestly people will be dying of/with COVID-19 for the rest of my life most likely - do we seriously intend to have these pages created forever WP:NTEMP. This kind of data can be easily taken care of - in a simplified form - on one page. Can't people go to the WHO page rather than an encyclopaedia (which just reproduces it) for this kind of granular detail? This just seems to take the WP:NOTPAPER ethos way too far. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 07:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
If the page had this reference, which is where the figures come from, would that solve the problem? https://covid19.who.int/WHO-COVID-19-global-data.csv Anguswalker ( talk) 09:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The daily WHO data by country is also found here:
https://covid19.who.int/table - click the "data table" tab. Wait for it to load.
The Internet Archive has the previous days:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://covid19.who.int/table
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 10:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Searching the Internet Archive isn't a valid way of referencing. Beside that, not every day is archived. For the period of this article, July 2021, the Internet Archive doesn't have captures for the 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19 and 21st. -- John B123 ( talk) 13:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
OK. Then it is a supplemental way of referencing for those who want to look up some data without having to use a spreadsheet. The WHO .csv link that User:Anguswalker provided has all the days for all the countries. I just checked in freeware LibreOffice Calc. See:
https://covid19.who.int/WHO-COVID-19-global-data.csv
It is found in the "Data Download" section of this WHO page:
https://covid19.who.int/info
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this page and all like it for reasons of (1) current referencing failing WP:V, (2) page is barely usable on a laptop PC, not at all on a mobile phone (and there are other accessibility problems, but those could be fixed), and (3) per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we don't need to reproduce this kind of minutiae; we should let the WHO maintain WHO's data (including corrections and adjustments) instead of trying to mirror them here. I know we were all breathless (pun not intended but, aw, what the hell) to collate and present the relevant info when the pandemic was suddenly hitting us hard over a year ago, but now the mass of numbers for every single day in every single country is (sorry, here I go again) overkill. —  JohnFromPinckney ( talk / edits) 08:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
This data does not exist in this easily accessible form anywhere else authoritative on the web. I haven't found anything as easy to access. It also is part of the history of the pandemic.
I agree that the daily data is no longer needed. Weekly is what I prefer. We are still in the middle of a once in a century pandemic, and waiting 2 weeks for more data is too long. Readers would be happy with weekly data. I can easily use the visual editor to delete all columns except those for the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22st day of the month. This would solve the mobile problem too.
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. Over 1100 English Wikipedia articles link to COVID-19 pandemic deaths. See link count in article space:

I think the history of Covid-19 is lacking without some breakdown of the monthly death data. Wikipedia is the only place that makes that breakdown so easily accessible. I can convert all the monthly tables to using only weekly data. It would only take me a few minutes with Visual Editor. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 16:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. The references have been updated on all of the monthly death pages. See them listed here:

-- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for this article and other month’s articles per WP:NOSTATS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTMIRROR. I acknowledge the work put into this by editors but am not convinced by their keep arguments as they seem fall into WP:MERCY. This data is available on the WHO site and it is not the point of Wikipedia to replicate it. Even though arguments have been made that this page makes the data easy to view, I find it still quite hard to view and there is little explanation of the raw data in the article. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 04:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Data buried in a .csv file at the WHO site is hardly accessible to the average reader looking for this history of a once in a century pandemic.
The July 2021 table is now easier to view. There are now only 5 date columns. Per previous discussion here above. And the table is now in alphabetical order since numerical order changes over the month. I also added row numbers. Click on any date header to sort in ascending or descending order for that date. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia, specifically WP:NOTSTATS. This is a prime example of Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The statistics are explained in the article intro. They are COVID-19 deaths over time. From WP:NOTSTATS (emphasis added): "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article."
The main article summarizes the deaths: COVID-19 pandemic deaths. The statistics are split into separate articles. The pandemic is still killing many people worldwide. See graph of daily deaths per million people worldwide. So the current statistics are very notable. Some day Covid will fade away enough that we won't need weekly statistics. That day is not now.
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 01:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. I would like to put 4 monthly reports on each page. So the 3 pages for 2021 would be:

  • COVID-19 pandemic deaths by country Jan-Apr 2021
  • COVID-19 pandemic deaths by country May-Aug 2021
  • COVID-19 pandemic deaths by country Sep-Dec 2021

The table of contents for the Jan-Apr 2021 page would be:

  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021

Each month would consist of 5 columns a week apart on these days: 1. 8. 15. 22. 29. It would be easy to scroll through on a cell phone. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. I have not found tables of cumulative deaths over time anywhere else. Here are 2 major lists of COVID-19 data sources to verify this:

So far all I have found is daily stuff. None of it compiled in tables over time. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Perhaps that indicates that people don't think that presenting the statistics in this format serves any useful purpose. -- John B123 ( talk) 20:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Why do others need to recreate what has been at Wikipedia for a long time? I created a related article last year in July 2020:
COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country
See the deletion discussion:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country
These monthly articles started in October 2020 by Anguswalker‎ are extensions of that.
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Main objection by the nominator the the article is too small for a standalone list has been addressed by expanding the article. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

List of international prime ministerial trips made by Sheikh Hasina

List of international prime ministerial trips made by Sheikh Hasina (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this is a proper subject for an article; I think that three items are not enough for a standalone list, and I can't see why the very small amount of information cannot be included in the relevant biog. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment This looks like a topic that would be better covered in prose in the main article Sheikh Hasina, to the extent that it would be in WP:PROPORTION. I hesitate to call doing so "merging", however, since there is basically no content on this list. I also don't think that this title would be useful as a redirect, so it could probably be deleted outright. An important question, though: how incomplete is this list? Are we missing so large a number of trips that it would be a bad idea to try to cover them all in the main article? TompaDompa ( talk) 15:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this article was created today, let us give some time to the creator to flesh the article. Maybe in drftspace. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 16:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I respectfully disagree with what TheLongTone has said. Virtually every world leader has a similar list article displaying the international trips they have made. Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Narendra Modi, Emmanuel Macron, Moon Jae-in, Angela Merkel and Xi Jinping just to name a few. There are innumerable others which I could list. I see no reason why such an article shouldn't exist for Sheikh Hasina who has served as Prime Minister of Bangladesh for a combined total of 17 years and has made countless international visits to various countries. As Vinegarymass911 has said, you ought to take into account that the article has existed for less than a day, I intend to add more to the article and I hope other users will assist in doing so. I have sent an email to the Prime Minister's Office enquiring about the total number of international visits made by the prime minister. Once I receive a response, I will be able to add more detail to the article. In the event I do not receive a response, it may take longer to add information as it will be extracted from news articles, but it will be added. I think it would be more helpful if more seasoned users such as TheLongTone endeavour to improve the article, as opposed to calling for its deletion. This article is very much a work-in-progress, but I think deletion would be untimely and uncalled for. — AMomen88 ( talk) 16:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

commernt See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I still fail to see that tehre is sufficient content to justify a standalone article. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Response TheRollBoss001: If Category:Lists of diplomatic trips are significant enough to have their own pages, I see no reason why List of international prime ministerial trips made by Sheikh Hasina is not. I do not think it is appropriate that there are pages such as List of international trips made by Antony Blinken as United States Secretary of State which are deemed significant, (despite the fact that the said individual is not a head of government) but a page for a sitting head of government is not.— AMomen88 ( talk) 20:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I think we have too many pages like this, but that would require a wider consensus. There's no good reason to delete this, and the list appears incomplete - it can almost certainly be expanded. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I’m not really a fan of these articles but there’s lots of them and the basis for this one is the same as for all the others. We either need an RfC or a massive bundled AfD to decide their fate, but until then there’s no basis for deleting this. Mccapra ( talk) 04:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
comment As before, see WP:OTHERSTUFF TheLongTone ( talk) 12:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jp× g 07:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment: The nominator has mentioned three items not being good enough, now there are 27. This was an incomplete article, not an invalid one. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 05:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 17:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Leandro Gil Miranda da Silva

Leandro Gil Miranda da Silva (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Talk:Leandro Gil Miranda da Silva. Doesn't appear to meet notability for significance and level he played at or coverage. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can get it resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 18:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 14:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Lydia Alty

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

Bypassed afc twice, no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Theroadislong ( talk) 15:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong ( talk) 15:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 15:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 15:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Anubhav Mukherjee

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

Article does not indicate how he is notable per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources provided are advertorials (i.e. promotional, no byline). I am unable to find significant neutral discussion of him in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Niall Cummins

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

As per WP:NSPORT - he has made appearances in the FA Cup but has never represented, or been on the books of, a professional club in a professional league. Scoring a goal for a semi-professional team in a cup competition alone doesn't cut it as far as notability is concerned. Montgomery15 ( talk) 14:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Montgomery15 ( talk) 14:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 15:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. Some claims of GNG but nothing presented that is in depth. Fenix down ( talk) 19:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Élie Junior Akobeto

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senior fully-pro caps, routine coverage. -- BlameRuiner ( talk) 12:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Correction: Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senior fully-pro caps, routine coverage. Erroneous. Last club stated player's caps for them in Lowland League before signing [8] ... Beside other recent sources such as: [9]

[10] [11] [12] [13], There are sources already present on Article Main Page in different languages such as: [14] [15] [16] [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7e:1716:4700:6992:bdb9:8827:2bcc ( talk • contribs) 14:52, August 26, 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Appearing in squad lists and match reports for pre-season friendlies does not meet GNG or NFOOTBALL Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 05:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Please provide WP:THREE sources that show significant coverage. I've looked at all of the sources from this discussion page and everything cited in the article and none of them are more than passing mentions or brief announcements. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Pioneer Street

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

Possibly unnotable road that fails WP:GEOROAD. Two of the three sources result to error messages. The only intact source, [27], mentions the road only trivially but mainly discusses the mall (this is better for the article of the mall and not the road). For the two other sources, [28] is probably for a landmark along the road (and perhaps has same problem as the PhilStar's article) and [29] is probably for its designation. It is not listed as a national primary or secondary highway at Philippine highway network. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 15:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 15:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 16:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Jol Shawola

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

Non notable film, there are some passing mentions but no significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 12:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Karin Slaughter. – bradv 🍁 16:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Grant County (Karin Slaughter)

Grant County (Karin Slaughter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has zero references and only the barest of real-world information, and is written in an entirely in-universe style, to the point that I had to move it from Grant County, Georgia. The novel series named under this title is likely notable from GScholar search, but the fictional location is not, and the article would need to be rewritten from scratch to be encyclopedic. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep, rework and improve. After a very cursory glance at sources I agree with LaundryPizza03 that the fictional location probably is not notable, but that the novel series very likely is. Actually, as the article is now written is much more about the novel series than the location. The only thing necessary to reflect this would be to change the one introductory sentence (and possibly categories). Otherwise it suffers from a common problem of articles about works of fiction: It contains mostly plot summary, and too much of it, and no analysis. However, plot summary is one required piece of a good article about a novel series. So the plot summary would need to be shortened and analysis added. This would be no problem, as there are secondary sources for this e.g. in the Google Scholar search LaundryPizza03 has already linked. So I see no reason at all why the statement "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." from our WP:Deletion policy should not apply here. Daranios ( talk) 10:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment the blatant hype ("Is this somehow related to the events in Sylacauga all those years ago?") makes it read as a back-cover blurb, not a neutral summary. The page is so bad I want to agree with Piotrus, but I also want various pages on individual books in the series to redirect here ( Indelible has the same summary and little else). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the author. The fictional setting definitely isn't notable. While it has now been repurposed, there's nothing showing the series as a topic has potential at the moment, but it can always be split out if sources are brought forth. TTN ( talk) 11:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
@ TTN: How is there "nothing showing the series as a topic has potential at the moment" in light of the secondary sources discussed above? Daranios ( talk) 15:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The author's article is pitifully small, so there is no reason to think it needs an article at this time. If the sources provide undue weight in the author's article, it can easily be split out. TTN ( talk) 20:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
@ TTN: I personally would prefer having two separate not-too-long but non-stubby articles about these related but distinct topics. But that aside, isn't what you say an argument for merging the trimmed plot-summaries we now have, rather than redirecting? Loosing that content through a pure redirect makes Wikipedia smaller, but the "pitifully small" Karin Slaughter article not one iota longer. Daranios ( talk) 10:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Mia Eve Rollow

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

Fails WP:GNG. When I searched, I found nothing but passing mentions of this woman, nothing in-depth. I did find one article from the Southern Maryland chronicle about her winning an award, but the article most of the article about her and there was nowhere near enough content to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. She is simply not notable. Helen( 💬 📖) 23:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this one is a bit tricky as she and her collaborators are working in decentralized groups that do not necessarily generate process for the members. She co-founded EDELO, which might be notable and worth of a standalone article, but I am not seeing enough material to make her notable under her own name. it seems like the same situation with her EDELO co-founder, Caleb Duarte. --- Possibly ☎ 02:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A quick check of Google with Books "on" turns up a chapter in Collective Situations: Readings in Contemporary Latin American Art, 1995–2010 edited by Bill Kelley Jr., Grant H. Kester (2017) (the editor both discusses and interviews Caleb Duarte; they both reference Rollow's work) and a 2 page discussion in Black Power Afterlives: The Enduring Significance of the Black Panther Party edited by Diane Fujino, Matef Harmachis (2020). Checking for "news" returns some coverage of art installations in Germany. That's the results of a trivial check in English, without doing any serious digging. Since not all of their work is done under the name EDELO, I would favor keeping two separate pages. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 05:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Mary Mark Ockerbloom:, the book chapter is, as you mention, an interview titled "interview with Caleb Duarte of EDELO Residency", so it is primarily not about her and also not an independent source. Having her collaborator mention her in print does not have value notability-wise. Regarding the Black Power Afterlives source, I cannot see it. Could you share roughly what it says? --- Possibly ☎ 05:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – EDELA itself has generated a bit of coverage (and thus could be notable on its own), but none of that coverage seems to discuss Rollow in any detail. A few single-sentence trivial mentions don't help, nor do comments by her colleagues. If in-depth coverage can be identified I'll gladly reevaluate, but what I'm finding isn't enough to meet the GNG. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Malibu (Toronto)

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

WP:NBUILDING. Nothing about notability except the public art. Either this should be deleted or the article should be about the art if someone thinks the art is notable. rsjaffe talk 16:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 16:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 16:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The condo itself has no discernible notability claim above and beyond the fact that it exists. The monument might qualify for an article under our notability criteria for public art, but one source about that isn't enough all by itself — and even if somebody can find more sourcing than that to get it over the bar, the article would still need to be about the monument itself rather than about the run of the mill condo building that it merely happens to be in front of. Bearcat ( talk) 15:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as all votes were for Keep/Strong Keep or either comments per WP:SIGCOV also clearly passed WP:GNG. ( non-admin closure) Aj Ajay Mehta 007 ( talk) 18:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Close vacacted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 August 26. New close is procedural no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 22:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Athar Aamir Khan

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

No indication of notability. Being a commissioner of a city doe not make anyone notable. Fails WP:GNG. Moreover 2nd runner of IAS Entrance Exam also not sufficient to make him Noable. DMySon ( talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Strong keep - The article passes WP:GNG. Kindly perform a WP:BEFORE, you can find enough to pass GNG. -- Sreeram Dilak ( talk) 07:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - although the article is copiously referenced (its creator, @Sreeram Dilak, has certainly found plenty of good press mentions) the question to me is whether his current career posts, although well-referenced, are sufficiently notable to make him notable. I do not know. Also being a CEO of a company does not automatically make someone notable. It may be Too Soon. Certainly the number of times he took a civil service exam, and his exact marks, are not relevant to an encyclopaedia article, and I'm not sure all the family details are appropriate. If the article survives, it probably needs editing to concentrate on more on his notable achievements and less on his personal life. Elemimele ( talk) 14:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep seems to have enough coverage to meet notability. Alice Jason ( talk) 05:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • 'Uncertain if hte position is intrinsically notable. But most of the references and text in the original version was PR, self-praise, and gossip. To give the article a chance, I removed those sections. The principles for doing so are NOT TABLOID and NOT AUTOBIOGRAPHY. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sharan Kaur Pabla. Daniel ( talk) 09:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Gurudwara Bibi Sharan Kaur Ji

Gurudwara Bibi Sharan Kaur Ji (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This gurudwara not a notable place of worship. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

*Keep. this page references shows notability and it has information about gurudwaras struck Juliana000 sockpuppet-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ The Battle of Chamkaur (22 December 1704), The Panjab past and present, Volume 20, pp 276, Devinder Kumar Varma, Punjabi University. Dept. of Punjab Historical Studies, 1986
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
PS: The sole reliable source cited at Sharan Kaur Pabla mentions her name as Sharan Kaur – the unsourced Pabla bit was added by the Saini SPA who created this article. And that seems like the only reliable source which gives her details. She was a common villager who was killed by Mughal soldiers while she tried to cremate two sons of Guru Gobind Singh after the Battle of Chamkaur. And there seems nothing else known about her. So the biography seems non-notable itself and List of gurdwaras seems like a better redirection target. But the page can also be redirected to the biography for the time being. BTW, here is the quote (from page no. 276) about her from the sole cited source of the article:
quote about Sharan Kaur

According to the local traditions, thoroughly verified by the author of this paper from a number of knowledgeable persons, Bibi Sharan Kaur of village Raipur (about 2 miles from Chamkaur) was very much perturbed on hearing the death of two sons of the Guru in the battle-field. Fully knowing about the dead bodies, she made up her mind to accomplish the last rites of the both. She, with a lamp in her hand, reached the battle-field. With great difficulty, she recognised the bodies from their plumes. What little she could do she did. She was caught and slain by the Mughal soldiers.

- NitinMlk ( talk) 22:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hockessin, Delaware. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 04:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Meeting House Hill, Delaware

Meeting House Hill, Delaware (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we come upon a novel issue: there are three different spots with this name in the immediate area. The spot from GNIS is another subdivision entered from the same commercial amp as the others; there is really no question that it isn't notable. There's another subdivision outside Newark which I would also assume does not merit notice. Meanwhile Delaware Place Names lists it as another name from Drummond Hill, which is a hill, and whose coordinates do not correspond with either of the other two. So I'm not seeing keeping this for any of the three. Mangoe ( talk) 20:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Hockessin, Delaware: USGS maps show a couple houses along a couple roads in 1901 and 1904. By 1943, there seem to be many more houses, and a couple new roads; in 1954, there's some expansion of the roads; the next 1:24k map, in 1993, is the first appearance of any label for this place, which is given as "Meeting House Meadow". The label "Meeting House Hill" first appears in 2011, at which point USGS had begun churning out maps automatically generated from GNIS data; prior to that, the same location was only labeled in the 1993 map, where it was called "Cameron Hills". Being labeled on old USGS topo maps is a pretty low bar to clear, and this doesn't even get that far. Google satellite maps tell a similar story: there just doesn't seem to be a whole lot going on here, and the coordinates themselves are given by Google as being a part of Hockessin. If someone can show a bunch of sources talking about Meeting House Hill as a real place, then I'll !vote to keep, but it doesn't seem likely to me. jp× g 23:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Non notable subdivisions. Google Street View shows small entrance signs for Meetinghouse Meadow here and Meeting House Hill here, which I would speculate are named after nearby Hockessin Friends Meeting. – dlthewave ☎ 17:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Valid disambiguation page per WP:DAB. The RfC, which established the primary redirect of Pahonia to coat of arms of Lithuania, did not prevent creating a disambiguation page, which serves a different purpose to provide clarity/navigation for users when there are articles with potentially ambiguous terms. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Pahonia (disambiguation)

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

Word Pahonia is one of the historical names of the Coat of arms of Lithuania, thus such page as Pahonia (disambiguation) should not exist as such solution was rejected by the RFC at Talk:Pahonia#RFC: Pahonia ( RFC closing statement and decision confirmation by an administrator). The decision was suggestion A, not suggestion B. Despite that, some users also implemented suggestion B. The main problem with existence of a separate page for Pahonia is that it gives a Belarusian/Ruthenian language name of the Lithuanian coat of arms a supremacy over other names (e.g. Lithuanian language counterparts Vytis, Waikymas). Points of this disambiguation page (e.g. "Pahonia (newspaper, 1992)" or "Pahonia (newspaper, 1920)") previously redirected to articles in the Belarusian Wikipedia ( old version of this page). Identical articles in the Lithuanian Wikipedia would be called "Vytis (laikraštis, 1992)" (laikraštis = newspaper in Lithuanian) because the Lithuanians do not use this Belarusian/Ruthenian word. One of the examples from the Lithuanian Wikipedia: Vytis (laikraštis). The equivalent of Pahonia / Vytis in the English language would be Chase. That's why the decision of this red-hot dispute at the RFC was that the "right" name of this symbol, which would satisfy WP:NPOV, does not exist. I request to delete this page in order to ensure WP:NPOV and WP:CONS of RFC. User GB fan ( 1) wrongfully interpreted RFC as it clearly did not select disambiguation page as a solution of this dispute. The solution was to make a redirect page. Please delete page Pahonia (disambiguation) and ensure WP:LISTEN, WP:CONS. -- Pofka ( talk) 11:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The deletion reason above is a misreading of the RFC. The RFC discussed what should be done with the title Pahonia. There were three options: A - Convert to a redirect; B - Convert to a DAB page; C - Leave as is. The consensus of the RFC was to change Pahonia to a redirect. This consensus was implemented. The RFC never addressed the creation of a disambiguation page with the disambiguator, (disambiguation). It only addressed the option of changing Pahonia into a disambiguation page and that was rejected. Czalex (who was not involved in the RFC or made any comments on the talk page created a new disambiguation page. This DAB page is a helpful page to find other articles that could be called Pahonia. ~ GB fan 12:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
If the decision at RFC would have been solution B, then Pahonia would have been replaced with Pahonia (disambiguation). But it was not selected as a solution. Articles named Pahonia can be called Vytis as well because one "right" name of this coat of arms does not exist. That's the main dispute of the RFC regarding article Pahonia and the main reason why it was remade into a redirect page. -- Pofka ( talk) 12:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
If the decision at the RFC was B then Pahonia would have been converted to a disambiguation page and Pahonia (disambiguation) would now be redirect to Pahonia. The RFC did not discuss Pahonia {disambiguation) at all. No one brought up whether or not this page should be created. ~ GB fan 12:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

 Comment: Creator of page Pahonia (disambiguation) user Czalex participated in revert warring following RFC decision, thus he was well aware of the situation and chose to disrespect RFC's decision by arbitrarily creating page ( his revert at article Pahonia). Consequently, it is incorrect to say that Czalex absolutely did not participate in this dispute. -- Pofka ( talk) 12:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Noted, did not look at the article itself, just looked at the talk page. I did not say they did not know of the RFC, just that they did not participate in it. ~ GB fan 12:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. From the close of the RfC (and a very quick glance at the discussion), I see that the decision there was for the article Pahonia to be turned into a redirect, with the implied assumption that the redirect target is the primary topic for the term (otherwise, Pahonia would have been turned into a disambiguation page). Now, even if there is one primary topic, there are three other topics with the name, and as along as we have content about them we need to provide navigation to those topics. Deletion of this dab page would be possible only if this navigation is provided instead by a hatnote at the primary title (with three entries, that would be too much), or if all existing content about those other topics is deleted from the encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Looking from the Lithuanian language perspective, all these three entries would be called Vytis or Waikymas ( WP:NPOV?). It depends on creator's nationality. I believe currently both suggestions: A and B were implemented. That's illogical. -- Pofka ( talk) 12:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Pofka, what you believe is illogical. It is impossible for Options A & B to have been implemented. To do that Pahonia would have to be both a Redirect and a Disambiguation page at the same time. That is impossible. Only Option A was implemented, Pahonia is a redirect. A brand new page, Pahonia (disambiguation), that was not discussed in the RFC was created as a disambiguation page. You need to give up on using an RFC that did not discuss Pahonia (disambiguation) as a rationale for deleting it. ~ GB fan 14:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Suggestion B would have remade article Pahonia into a Pahonia (disambiguation) with 2-3 points (or more). That's exactly what happened now. RFC rejected such solution and selected solution A in order to avoid choosing the "right" name (which does not exist) of the primarily Lithuanian coat of arms. There is no chance that there would have been two articles: Pahonia (with disambiguation page structure) and page Pahonia (disambiguation) (also with identical disambiguation page structure). Template prohibits to duplicate content. Since you are British, imagine your coat of arms being written in Indian (due to the British Empire). Would you support to have a disambiguation page for a British CoA under an Indian language term? Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Lithuanian Empire: Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe (book by a British author). -- Pofka ( talk) 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Option B would have made Pahonia into a page that looks similar to what Pahonia (disambiguation) looks like now, then Pahonia (disambiguation) would have redirected to Pahonia. That wasn't what happened. Options A was implemented and it is a redirect as the RFC decided. Then in a seperate action, a disambiguation page was created that did not effect the content of Pahonia. I am not British. Great Britian is not the only thing with the initials GB. I would support a disambiguation page for any title that has multiple pages that could be known by the same term. Disambiguation pages are pages to help navigate people to what they are actually looking for when a term is ambiguous. ~ GB fan 16:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless more entries are added to the disambiguation. I deleted two of them, as the coat of arms of the GDL and that of the Belarusian DR can hardly be considered different topics when Pahonia redirects to Coat of arms of Lithuania in Wikipedia. Also, is the poem notable? It isn't listed as an entry in any of the other Wikipedias in which there's a disambiguation of Pahonia. We thus only have right now the Coat of arms of Lithuania and the song as entries, and we could just use a {{Redirect}} template in the former to include the latter. Super Ψ Dro 12:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, valid dab page. The arguments for deletion appears to be that Lithuanians don't like this name. Well, that comes under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As long as the name is used at the target article, the dab entry is justified. Even if the Lithuanian coat of arms entry was removed there would still be a case for the existence of a dab page since there are three other entries. Spinning Spark 22:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
We can speak about Belarusian national symbols only since 1918, thus "Pahonia, a prominent poem by Maksim Bahdanovič" is as much Pahonia as Vytis/Waikymas (author died in 1917). "Pahonia, historical name of the Coat of arms of Lithuania since the 15th century" is equal to Pahonia (redirect) and "Pahonia, coat of arms of the Belarusian Democratic Republic and the Republic of Belarus, see National emblem of Belarus" is equal to National emblem of Belarus#Pahonia. So we have two links (not articles) and one article with a questionable name. -- Pofka ( talk) 13:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Why does any of that make this an invalid disambiguation page? That is the only issue here which would lead to deletion. The fact that two of the meanings are related does not really matter. We have four pages that discuss different (but perhaps related) meanings. The purpose of a dab page is to help the reader find the page that is most relevant to them. Dab page entries don't have to have the topic in their title, they just have to point to an article that discusses that topic. Spinning Spark 16:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The name of the poem is obviously Pahonia in accordance with the Belarusian Latin alphabet, because this name stands for the coat of arms since much earlier than 1918, regardless of the discussion about since when it became a national symbol of Belarus-- Czalex 20:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, obviously, as the original article was also referring to names of several Belarusian newspapers and organisations with that name, for which the articles will be created. User:Pofka and User:Cukrakalnis create an impression of an organised group of users (or the same user with two accounts) actively engaged in nationalistic POV vandalism of articles about Belarus (manipulating or cherry picking what sources say for content to promote or spread a certain national or historical narrative, et al.) -- Czalex 20:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Extended off-topic discussion about nationalism
What is truly nationalistic and absolutely does not comply with WP:NPOV is Беларуская (тарашкевіца) (be-tarask.wikipedia.org) wikiproject. I will probably soon report it and request for sanctions as a result of anti-Lithuanian national hatred, propaganda in it. Most of Беларуская (тарашкевіца) wikiproject's content is anti-Lithuanian hatred, thus it may result in closure of such nationalistic project. -- Pofka ( talk) 12:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The Lithianian editors' success in deleting the Pahonia article has been noticed by the Belarusian media, it has created a lot of negative publicity for Wikipedia. The pro-government media kept quiet of course: this coinsided with Lukashenko's desires - what an irony! A challenge to a Belarusian Wikipedia will surely be met with a request for mediation. Both sides will have to start talking calmly to each other at last. -- Nieszczarda2 ( talk) 08:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Nieszczarda2: Learn one lesson: nationalism is not patriotism. By humiliating other nations (e.g. Lithuanians) you will not achieve any positive change in your country. Pahonia was rightfully integrated following WP:CONS because it is one of the historical names of the Lithuanian coat of arms and Lithuania's identity is indivisible even if some aggressive nationalists want to do that. Litvinism ideology is a complete waste of time because it was already rejected scientifically and it will never be recognized internationally. The sooner the Belarusians will accept the scientific truth that their cultured flourished as being PART of Lithuania (not as FOUNDING of Lithuania), the better will be for them. And if nationalism which humiliates Lithuanians will continue, be sure that the Lithuanians will stand to defend their identity. -- Pofka ( talk) 11:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Pofka: What Litvinism has to do with me? What the idea of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a home for Lithuanians and Belarusians (and Ukrainians to some extent) has to do with humiliating your Lithuanian countrymen? Presenting Belarusians as hopeless vassals to ethnic Lithuanians creates a parody of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania you and I love. This is not an either/or game for Belarusian editors here. We are trying to convey the reality that the Belarusian history, culture, language - everything! - are deeply rooted in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. And not because of the Lithuanian oppression of my people - being vassals would would never bring that about. It was a pluralist multicultural country when this was an unbelievable novelty for the rest of the world. Why not to celebrate that? Why to fight for the idea of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a backward-looking, boring colonial power? It deserves so much more. Peace. Nieszczarda2 ( talk) 19:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Nieszczarda2: Litvinism statements attempts to make it too romantic to be true. Initially, the Lithuanians were vassals of the Kievan Rus, which was later destroyed by the Mongols. This allowed the Lithuanians to gather power and expand their country. What are the chances that somebody would voluntarily join country of your former vassal? This is an absolute scientific non-sense, created by Litvinism. The truth is that only in 1563 Grand Duke Sigismund II Augustus issued a privilege which equalized the rights of Orthodox and Catholics in Lithuania and abolished all previous restrictions on Orthodox. This is another fact which simply crushes any statements about Lithuanian-Belarusian state because the Gediminids actively discriminated Ruthenians. Formation of GDL is far from the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Unlike Litvinists, the Lithuanians do not attempt to humiliate Belarusians, but we must respect the scientific truth. If living in Lithuania was the best period for the Belarusians history, we will surely appreciate that (and we are one of the most active supporters of democracy in Belarus), but do not attempt to distort our identity and national symbols with pseudoscientific theories that Lithuania is not Lithuania. The Lithuanian ethnos is currently quite small due to exceptionally strong anti-tsarist, anti-Soviet attitude which resulted in executions of many, many Lithuanians and Lithuanian press ban, Soviet deportations from Lithuania. Content of be-tarask.wikipedia.org project resembles tsarists/Soviets attitude towards the Lithuanians, not some kind of patriotism. With all due respect, but without Lithuanians and Poles lead the Belarusian ethnos most likely would have ended in the same way as Principality of Smolensk. So widespread humiliation of Lithuanians (calling them as zmudzs, etc.) in the be-tarask.wikipedia.org project is an absurd because the Lithuanians aren't enemies. We are not responsible for nearly extinct Belarusian language and events like Kurapaty. -- Pofka ( talk) 20:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Pofka: We certainly disagree about the meaning of Lithuanian in the Grand Duchy (no, I don't think it meant Belarusian then, it just did not have an ethnic meaning in the same way we see it now). But let us leave it for articles. I wonder if you/we could contemplate a differnt approach to developing Wikipedia, e.g. letting alternative concepts to be critically explained. In Belarusian historiography, there are many competing concepts (and the same - in Lithuanian, of course), so obviously there will be differences between Belarusian and Lithuanian schools of thought too. In the 1990s, there was a cool attempt to bring Belarusian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Polish historians together for discovering commonalities. It stopped when Lukashenko came to power. Then, in more recent years, an university in Kaunas hosted huge Belarus-focused conferences for the scholars whose research wasn't welcome in Belarus. So there are examples how to talk slowly and friendly, rather than attacking each other. I totally agree that the content of the Belarusian Wikipedias lacks the Lithuanian perspective, but someone has to offer it in a comprehensible manner. I suspect the same is true about the Lithuanian Wikipedia. The English one has huge limitations too. So, practically speaking: we at least could stop removing each other's content without alerting other editors about it. We could use Talk pages to negotiate and/or collaborate. Maybe we could do even more, e.g. start the GDL-themed project, suggest topics for writing, invite each other - Lithuanian and Belarusian editors - to contribute to the articles of mutual interest. Please give a thought. Fighting here and trying to stay alert constantly is so wasteful. Nieszczarda2 ( talk) 12:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Nieszczarda2: There are historic documents in which Gediminas himself drew a line between Lithuanians and Ruthenians and between Lithuania and Ruthenia (pay attention that GDL of Gediminas mostly consisted of the present-day Lithuania and Belarus). For example, see this book by Rowell, pages 380-385 (you can use Google translate for the Lithuanian version in p. 383-385 because Old German version is untranslatable by Google translate). As descendants of Gediminas and old Lithuanians, we respect his words because he is like a saint for us. The Belarusians should appreciate their distinct Ruthenian heritage instead of trying to become Lithuanians because such pseudoscientific approach simply lead nowhere. The Ukrainians are successfully cherishing their distinct Ruthenian heritage and do not attempt to become Lithuanians. I cannot see any other way of success for the Belarusians than to follow the footsteps of the Ukrainians. However, by examining key articles in be-tarask.wikipedia.org project, I made a conclusion that the Belarusian nationalists who edit it want to wipe out Lithuania and Lithuanians, steal our capital Vilnius, etc. This really raised concerns for me about the anti-Lukashenko forces in Belarus and such content is a true negative hit for the reputation of the anti-Lukashenko opposition. The Lithuanians were risking their national security by organizing a new version of Baltic Way in support for the Belarusians, warmly welcomed Tsikhanouskaya, Pratasevič, and other members of the opposition. Currently, we are supporting economic sanctions for Lukashenko's regime which will result in the loss of hundreds of millions of euros for Lithuania. We certainly haven't done it all for the editors of be-tarask.wikipedia.org project and impressively long Belarusian national flag in Vilnius certainly did not meant that we will give up our capital ( photos of the flag). I have strong doubts if these 50,000 Lithuanians would be motivated to help Belarus after reading content of be-tarask.wikipedia.org project. Scientific point of view must be respected. -- Pofka ( talk) 13:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Pointless to go into a childish discussion trying to convince a radical nationalist but just a few scientific facts that you might want to study deeper: 1) The Grand Duchy of Lithuania (full name during most of its existence – Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia) was not a nation state but a multicultural medieval monarchy. 2) The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created under the domination of Eastern Slavic culture, language and statehood traditions (the name "Duchy" itself, "княства", is a direct analogy of the name of the earlier Duchies (also "княствы") of Kyiv, Polatsk, etc). The early Lithuanian dukes intermarried with Eastern Slavs and were often Orthodox themselves. There is virtually not a single state document of the GDL written in a Baltic language, let alone in modern Lithuanian - all early documents are in Old Belarusian, later in Latin or Polish. At some point, the vast majority of the Eastern Slavic nobility in the GDL converted to Catholicism and was never subject to any discrimination. There are now two million Catholics in Belarus (almost as many as in the Republic of Lithuania). 3) The very heartland of historical Lithuania, which is now the border region between Belarus and the Lithuanian Republic, including the city of Vilnius/Vilnia/Wilno, is today inhabited by Belarusian speaking Catholics who identify as Poles but not [modern] Lithuanians, and are in fact assimilated Balts, not migrants from Poland. This demonstrates how far the Slavic assimilation of Balts has come and, more importantly, how complex the history and the nation building processes of this region are. Not all descendants of medieval Lithuanians are modern Lithuanians. Like not all descendants of ancient Romans are modern Romanians or Italians. In the late 19th century, the local Polish speakers had a regional identity as Litviny/Litwini ("Lithuanians") but did not identify themselves with who we call Lithuanians now - they even fought a successful war against the Republic of Lithuania under Jozef Pilsudski (himself a Litwin). 4) The modern nations of Belarusians and Lithuanians are both 19th-century products. Belarusians are also to a notable degree descendants of assimilated Baltic tribes. History is a complicated thing and not black-and-white like some immature people try to paint it here. Trying to prove that your nation is better than some other using manipulation with sources and historical facts is not scientific and should not have a place on Wikipedia (same as nationalistic historical romanticism like "[Duke this and this] is like a saint for us", or calls for redrawing borders, or derogatory statements about other nations, etc). The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is a common heritage of modern Lithuanians, Belarusians, regional Poles, to some extent of Ukrainians and western Russians too - this is the upcoming consensus among historians now. It is pointless, childish and destructive to keep playing the privatisation game around the medieval GDL, modern historical science is far beyond that. -- Czalex 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Complete nonsense: most of the Belarusian classical Wikipedia doesn't even focus on topics related to Lithuania – neither the modern nation state, nor the historical feudal Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Funnily enough, the small Lithuanian Wikipedia seems to be far more objective and scientific when dealing with common Belarusian-Lithuanian history than what Lithuanian nationalistic vandalism creates here in the English Wikipedia.-- Czalex 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Systematic removal of the Pahonia and Belarusian heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from English Wikipedia is creating an increasingly widespread anomaly: everything slightly related to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is being conflated with Lithuanian in its modern ethnic sense. It is an actualised and reductionist reading of history. It should be reversed as it makes Wikipedia less reliable and less relevant. Removing this DAB page will prevent users from discovering the content not represented in the Coat of arms of Lithuania page which is heavily policed by a group of activist editors. Nieszczarda2 ( talk) 07:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Reza Fakhrabadipour

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

Has not yet played a fully professional game per WP:FPL ( his soccerway profile). My BEFORE could not establish GNG. JW 1961 Talk 10:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 10:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 10:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 15:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to International relations theory. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 06:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Neo-neo synthesis

Neo-neo synthesis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no reason for this stub to exist. This is a relatively obscure topic which can be adequately covered on Neorealism, Neoliberalism (international relations) and International relations theory. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 09:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Beşiktaş J.K.. I don't see a need to merge at the moment, but this will leave the history accessible if needed, or if Beşiktaş J.K. is expanded to cover all sports and a separate football article is warranted. -- BDD ( talk) 13:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Beşiktaş (football club)

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

Unnecessary fork of Beşiktaş J.K.. Geschichte ( talk) 09:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
 Comment: I think it can be stay. Here's another fork example: Galatasaray S.K. (football) 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 03:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
If anything is to be forked, the general Besiktas JK need to be moved to Besiktas JK football to preserve the history. Geschichte ( talk) 11:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G5: Created by Saqlainify. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Pakistani EDM

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

Per failed PROD: article appears to be comprised mostly of original research. Zudo ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Zudo ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Zudo ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 16:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Quibell Park Stadium

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn ( talk) 21:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - the sources included in the article itself go part of the way to establishing notability. It was obviously a more significant venue in the 60s and 70s than it is now. Recent mentions are just that and mostly relate to objections to a nearby housing development. None of those sources could seem to cover the venue itself in much detail. My hesitation is that there certainly are sources available and the manner in which it was opened suggests there would be a lot more coverage in older, non-digital sources. Notability not being temporary, its lasting impact on the community should be considered. So I wouldn't be upset if this was kept but I accept that any such sources aren't immediately available. St★lwart 111 03:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Well, this is another example of the general bias against contemporary history, both in the form of the well-discussed "digital black hole" and in terms of the way some people think it is "stealing their childhood". If the BNA had as much material from the 1960s and 1970s as it does from the 19th and early 20th centuries, it would be far easier to find reliable sources for articles like this. RobinCarmody ( talk) 15:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. As it is, it fails WP:GNG, and the possible existence of older, offline sources is not a sufficient reason to keep it. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 23:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views have balanced since the last relist but unclear what consensus is
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 11:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Notre Dame of Holy Cross School (Salem, India)

Notre Dame of Holy Cross School (Salem, India) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable school. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing, and no sources are provided in the article. It should be noted that I have not conducted a Hindi search. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rocky Point, Virginia. It is clear that consensus is that the topic is not notable. However, there are strong arguments for both the "delete" and "re-direct" options. I am judging consensus to be "re-direct" because I find compelling arguments for the re-direct to be stronger. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Alpine, Virginia

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

I think this one is a non-notable rail location, although it wouldn't hurt to get more eyes on this, as the rail ones sometimes have coverage my sourcing patterns don't turn up. Topos originally have Rocky Point, Virginia here, until 1961 when the name Alpine shows up and the Rocky Point name moves to a rail junction a little bit to the west. Topos showing the name "Alpine" have a single building and a rail siding on the C & O there.

Searching for this is a bit difficult due to the commonness of the name. I'm getting a single reference to Alpine is a list of communities in a county history that doesn't say anything at all about Alpine beyond that, a reference to the Alpine site in a list of new stops on a historic trail, and references in old railroad directories that indicate that there was neither a post office nor a telegraph office here. Maybe others can do better with searching, but I'm seeing a non-notable rail stop here. Hog Farm Talk 06:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 06:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 06:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Upon looking at Google Maps, there are other things in the area named for it; Alpine Boat Landing and Alpine Farms. So it appears there's a proper community here. Waddles  🗩  🖉 16:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ WaddlesJP13: - if you could provide actual sources, that would be appreciated. I don't we can base an article on Alpine, Virginia was listed on railroad time tables during the 1910s. It had neither a post office nor a telegraph office. The 1961 USGS topographic map shows a single building and a railroad siding here. According to Google Maps, the Alpine Boat Ramp is in the area. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ Hog Farm: Google Maps and OpenStreetMap can be used as references in articles, I believe. If they're labeled on the map I am quite sure its sufficient. There are thousands and thousands of other railroad sidings with articles on Wikipedia, and some are mass-created like this one while some actually have some minimal effort. I think the article is worth keeping if the nearby places bearing the name of the locality are noted and the article is brought beyond just a single sentence. Alpine Farms seems to have a couple proper references about it, but I'm not too sure about Alpine Boat Landing. Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I will caution when using Google Maps - Google maps is known to scrape a lot of names/descriptions from Wikipedia. So the name appearing on Google Maps should be taken with a grain of salt. Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
WaddlesJP13, according to the Sources section of WP:NGEO, maps and tables are not to be considered when establishing notability. GNG is the standard for places without legal recognition, and we've been systematically deleting rail siding articles for a few years now. – dlthewave ☎ 20:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: USGS topo maps from 1894 show the coordinates as a road and some train tracks by a river. The same is shown in 1907, plus some houses, a couple new roads and a bridge; there's no "Alpine" label, but there's a "Rockypoint" label. By 1961, there are fewer houses present (or perhaps fewer are marked), but there's now some quarries to the north, and the "Alpine" label is present next to "Rocky Point". It seems to stay about the same through 1999, and the Alpine / Rocky Point labels stay where they are through 2019. I don't see a whole lot on Google's satellite maps in the area. Perhaps someone can find something useful in historical archives (pinging @ Firsfron: and @ Cxbrx:). jp× g 23:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Rocky Point, Virginia. Checking Cram's 1887/1890, Cram's 1900, and Rand McNally 1925, 1890 does list both Rocky Point and Alpine. Rocky Point had 15 residents in 1900 and 14 in 1925. Alpine's population is listed as X, indicating a rail spot or post location only. PostalHistory.com indicates there was never an Alpine post office. [32] Rocky Point has a post office from 1852 to 1944 [33]. Both Alpine and Rocky Point were stops on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, [34] but Alpine had no express office. Alpine was approximately at mile marker 186, with Rocky Point at 187, but the sites are actually just a half a mile apart. All but one house in 1907 were at Rocky Point, with one lone house (possibly just the rail station) at Alpine. In 1961, Alpine still has just one house. Alpine seems to have been a rail stop, nothing more. But readers searching for Alpine, which shows up on maps for over 100 years, should be directed to the nearest actual settlement, Rocky Point, with a brief mention of the Alpine rail station and boat landing. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect, per Firsfron. jp× g 07:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Appears to just be a rail siding, not finding any sources that would justify a redirect although there are a lot of winter sports related false hits. Will reconsider if GNG coverage can be found. – dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • leaning delete The later maps that show both points make it clear that Rocky Point was then the junction and Alpine the passing siding (actually a small yard for some time). As such, I don't think the latter is notable. That said, the older topos show the Rocky Point label over at Alpine's location, so I'm not totally against a redirect. Mangoe ( talk) 15:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Nikolay Zak

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

Page does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC, all of the information outside Schooling and Career is featured in Jeanne_Calment#Skepticism_regarding_age and page views in the past 30 days were just 350. All of the sources are related to the Jeanne Calment hypothesis and all but one are focused on the study. The only criteria which appears to apply to Zak in WP:NACADEMIC is 7. But although, he has had media attention outside of his field, it is not covered under WP:NACADEMIC, A; he is not cited as an expert, B; Fringe-Theroes are not included and C; is not relevant.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 08:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 08:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Geschichte ( talk) 09:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Malaysia footballers born outside Malaysia

List of Malaysia footballers born outside Malaysia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

FMSky ( talk) 03:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. FMSky ( talk) 03:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 08:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 08:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 11:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

PQM

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

Coverage does not go beyond routine/local coverage. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Types of public housing estate blocks in Hong Kong. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

30-Story Cruciform Block

30-Story Cruciform Block (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be a notable topic. No reliable sources. There are some 30-story buildings in Hong Kong. So? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. I'm hesitant to do so, given my total lack of chinese ability and the reasonable possibility that coverage of a standard design of several major housing estates exists in Chinese, but having reviewed the Chinese article on the subject, and conducted a brief search on the internet, I agree with the nominator that this building doesn't meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Redirect per arguments presented below; I would opposing merging, on the grounds that the article is functionally unsourced. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I feel like that this is what that is it. I can't put any other sources because it is impossible to find any source related to this. Ant1234567 ( talk) 22:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 01:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Taki Toa Shield

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

Look at all of those issues! No sources, essay, orphaned page... Capsulecap ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, completely just an unencyclopedic essay article. Waddles  🗩  🖉 02:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of notability, and the lack of sources precludes us from merging the article into a parent page - though as far as I can tell no such page exists. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - it was all of those things, but all of those things are fix-the-problem sort of problems, so I did. It's not hard to add a proper heading, fix the image, and add a couple of references. Please, for the love of God, when will people understand that inclusion, or not, is about notability, and not the current quality of the article you stumbled across. It's been tagged like that since 2014 and most of the coverage relates to the ANZAC Anniversary tournament in 2015 (a year later). WP:BEFORE exists for a reason. With that out of the way, let's see if we can assess the sources here which include (for a sporting tournament) at least one academic study of Maori culture in Australia. The tournament has been going on for 30 years, includes multiple senior-club winners, and is (or was) a mainstay of the Maori community cultural calendar. St★lwart 111 03:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for digging those up Stalwart; excellent finds. I looked into them, and with the new name "Taki Toa Tournament" looked for other sources, with the idea towards creating a "Taki Toa Tournament" article that this could be merged into, but unfortunately I don't believe the content is there. The academic source is suitable; while the focus is elsewhere, it consists of more than a passing mention and likely contributes to GNG. However, I suspect the newsletter would be considered a self-published source (the organization, as far as I can tell, no longer exists, so I cannot confirm this) and the South West Voice article only contains a passing reference to the tournament. Further, my own searches turned up nothing; of note; a few passing reference, including one in a doctoral thesis, but nothing significant. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, I think the name is right (see the similar - but much older - Shute Shield) and I haven't seen many sources call it the "Taki Toa Tournament". Yes, that source is probably self-published, but provides confirmation of the translation (if nothing else). I've not gone digging for sources; those were just the first things I found (to see if WP:BEFORE had even been attempted. There is absolutely still an argument to be made that this doesn't pass WP:GNG, but bloody hell, citing improvement tags as a reason for deletion is just insanely lazy. St★lwart 111 05:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Following the excellent work from Stalwart111 I think there's enough there for this to be kept. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I would say it was per WP:HEY but all of the problems were easily solvable ones and required little to no effort. Significant coverage in major academic studies like this one probably gets it over the line in terms of notability. Again, this is a sporting tournament considered so significant to a particular community that its impact on the diaspora has been the subject of academic analysis... alongside the usual coverage that we'd expect for sporting tournaments. The total lack of WP:BEFORE here is enough to oppose this nomination on principle alone. St★lwart 111 22:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 07:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_August_26&oldid=1042370513"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE