Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 06 August 08 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Modern Pascal

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

Non-encyclopedical and promotional article about hardly notable proprietary software. Andrej Shadura ( talk) 20:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Andrej Shadura ( talk) 20:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was about to say that whoever wrote this article lacks basic programming knowledge when I saw the notes on the talk page. So, it's maintained by the owners of this software. In such case there is little point in trying to improve it. The article is saying that the subject doesn't need Apache or IIS. The same can be said about any programming language. The website mentions that the subject is a scripting engine for Apache... Later on the article is saying that the subject is no longer a simple scripting engine because it supports external libraries. Comparing the subject to Java was really bold. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 22:19, 31 July 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 23:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There are only two references in the article; one is to the developer's web site and the other is a blog post by the developer. By a Google search I have not been able to find a single reliable source discussing the language, only forum posts and passing mentions that don't contribute to notability. On the article talk page, the developer himself said (just a few months ago in February 2021) that the language "does not have much 'online reference'" and that "once finished and accepted", their customers "may publish product information, allowing us to reference full third-party opinion". So apparently even the language developer is unaware of any in-depth coverage of the language in reliable sources. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON. CodeTalker ( talk) 01:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article needs a rewrite by someone without a COI, but there aren't enough additional sources of information to do one. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 12:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails GNG. OCLC  22190678 notes existence of an academic report on it, but is unpublished. WIKINIGHTS  talk 02:06, 13 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) 05:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Christian Rosa

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

Previous nomination was "no consensus" with little participation. I'm not seeing any significant coverage in strong third party sources. The Vice articles is about his mentor, and the Variety article is a review of a film he was executive producer on. As far as WP:CREATIVE, I don't see anything about him having permanent works in a major collection, or obviously meeting any of the other criteria. ArtNet might qualify as an RS, though an editor to the article seems very adamant about not including recent articles about Rosa from Artnet. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I found another in-depth mention in the Observer. --- Possibly ☎ 20:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there are enough reviews in RS to easily pass WP:GNG even if many of the sources slight his work. Some of his pieces reportedly selling for over $200K adds credibility if not notability as well. Curiocurio ( talk) 01:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Curiocurio:, as far as I know, sale prices of artworks have zero impact on notability here. I have never seen it mentioned in any policy or guideline. The main reason something sells for a high price is a result of there being a buyer with lots of money who wants the work, as well as other market factors. A big ticket art sale is not based on what we find useful for judging notability: writers and critics providing critical opinions. Without the rich people, you have no story there; said another way, rich people do not have any input on who we consider notable. --- Possibly ☎ 02:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree that auction prices do not contribute to notability, but at the same time it's hard to command those sorts of prices without some sort of critical attention (although it does happen). I think reviews in the Observer, Guardian, L. A. Times, and N.Y. Times (from the first AFD) are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio ( talk) 13:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I should note that only one of his works have sold for over 200k back in the early 2010's when he was for a short time hot, more recently, his works have sold for less than 50k. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I made an effort and found 10 examples of very strong coverage recognizing his work and creativity for also WP:CREATIVE, from White Cube Gallery, Nowness, the Guardian, Zeit, Artforum, Coveteur, Harpers Bazaar to THE People from the Art’s field. See Simon de Pury photographing Mr. Rosas at his own studio ( see link). Happy to include these links for accuracy on the page.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/arts/international/galleries-try-to-find-their-niche.html?_r=0 2. http://www.welt.de/kultur/kunst-und-architektur/article136996297/Rosa-ist-gross-unerwachsen-und-transformierwillig.html 3. https://harpersbazaar.uol.com.br/cultura/christina-rosa-mais-que-nada/ 4. http://www.complex.com/style/2014/01/artists-to-watch-2014/christian-rosa 5. http://whitecube.com/artists/christian_rosa/ 6. https://www.nowness.com/story/christian-rosa 7. https://coveteur.com/2017/07/13/artist-christian-rosa-painter-leonardo-dicaprio-jay-z/ 8. https://www.welt.de/kultur/kunst-und-architektur/article136996297/Rosa-ist-gross-unerwachsen-und-transformierwillig.html 9. https://www.kunstverein-heilbronn.de/node/316 10. http://cargocollective.com/flatsurface/Christian-Rosa 11. https://whitecube.com/exhibitions/exhibition/christian_rosa_sao_paulo_2015 12. https://www.thedailybeast.com/simon-de-purys-studio-tours-of-los-angeles-artists-photos Further two publications of Christian Rosa were published so far over Snoeck Publishing : 15. https://www.apollo-magazine.com/provisional-painting-or-slacker-abstraction-christian-rosa-at-white-cube/ 16. https://www.kunstverein-heilbronn.de/node/316 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panghea ( talk • contribs) — Panghea ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: User Panghea has not responded to COI notices and a request for clarification on the COIN noticeboard. --- Possibly ☎ 20:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations ( talk) 19:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The 2015 article in Apollo which I added as a reference includes discussion of the critical reception elsewhere of the artist's work. That, along with the Anne Phillipi's 2015 Die Welt article and other reviews from critics such as Laura Cumming (also added as a reference), and possibly a David Geers article in frieze which no longer appears to be available online, is indicative of the attention needed for WP:NARTIST criterion 4(c). AllyD ( talk) 08:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per the sources provided here and the previous deletion discussion on Rosa's talk page, the reasons for keeping are stronger than 5 years ago. There is enough for a WP:GNG pass and Rosa's 2011 Walter Koschatzky Art Prize win passes WP:ANYBIO as well. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 13:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Coverage and prize easily enough. Sheijiashaojun ( talk) 01:31, 15 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. Arguments such as "is notable" (without explanation) and "per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES" are highly discounted (and the latter suggests the commenter may not have read that page recently), but enough RS coverage was brought forward to support a WP:GNG claim. RL0919 ( talk) 05:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Kadjebi-Asato Secondary School

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

Non-notable school; sources cited are all primary and/or don't provide sigcov, and a search finds nothing of substance. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 18:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 18:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 18:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 18:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Adequate coverage by ModernGhana.com and myshsrank.com Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This school article is notable and verifiable. Jwale2 ( talk) 12:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This school article is notable and verifiable. daSupremo [talk] 12:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment just saying 'notable and verifiable' is not a meaningful argument — 'notable' how? None of the sources cited are secondary and WP:RS, which is what notability requires. Sorry, but you need to present some actual evidence, not just your opinions. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 20:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. None of the sources provided are providing WP:SIGCOV. The source indeed prove that the schools existed, but none of them are providing significant coverage. Myshsrank.com looks just like a directory of schools, which in my opinion, does not satisfy notability. The source modernghana.com is quite reliable, but it does not provide WP:SIGCOV and only covers about the school's sport achievements, which in my opinion, does not satisfy notability. SunDawn talk 08:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I've added a couple of additional sources. The school has received local news coverage which I believe establishes notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate sourcing provided by NemesisAT a couple of days ago. Note that I significantly discounted Jwale2 and daSupremo's contributions when assessing whether consensus already existed or not. Further, I found SunDawn's contribution more persuasive than Eastmain.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Originally was going with delete until I found out we have an article on ModernGhana - Sources aren't great and shite like the school directories and Youtube videos should be removed but by a very bare minimum I'm seeing some notability here... not much mind but enough to push me into Keeping. – Davey2010 Talk 20:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - we invariably keep high schools as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - especially those that are 60-years old with thousands of students. I'm not sure what is different here, other than it being in Africa. Also meets GNG with references added to article, and other easily findable recent coverage such as One and two, and [ three]. I have no doubt there's be references older than the last year or so, if there was an archive of the last 60 years of Ghanian news. Nfitz ( talk) 18:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Bryan M. Ferguson

AfDs for this article:
Bryan M. Ferguson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. KnightMight ( talk) 14:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KnightMight ( talk) 14:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment So you just said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan M. Ferguson (2nd nomination), closed with no consensus less than a fornight ago. I'm no advocate of the article but if "Not notable" wasn't enough to convince anyone, the redundant addition of "...enough to be on Wikipedia" seems unlikely to swing it this time. You'll have to lay out the specifics as to why the numerous citations don't cut it in your view. Nobody's likely to check them all without a steer from you. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 18:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 21:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete more information is not better. Music video creators are very rarely notable, and there is nothing here that suggests an exception to this rule. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Already a lengthy article with plenty of sources. Yes, a lot of the sources are interviews, but this still demonstrates that people are talking about the subject. Bringing all this information together into one article is helpful for our readers, improves Wikipedia, and thus this article should be kept. NemesisAT ( talk) 21:05, 8 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) 05:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Amotz Plessner

AfDs for this article:
Amotz Plessner (  | 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, especially significant coverage. Since closing of the previous discussion, which resulted in delete, no significant coverage could be presented. Throast ( talk | contribs) 23:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Throast ( talk | contribs) 23:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 21:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 12:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Interestingly, the current nominator voted to keep the article during the first AfD in 2016. The problem back then was the "there must be sources" fallacy for a composer who has a lot of credits in notable movies and TV shows. Well, there are still no sources for someone who should maybe have some. Plessner has never received any significant media coverage in his own right. It looks like he may have once been interviewed by a magazine but that link is dead. Otherwise he is only visible in basic professional directories and lists of credits. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I don't think noting how I voted the first time around is of relevance at all. My keep argument back in 2016 (five years ago now) was obviously flawed. This is about as obvious a case of lack of significant coverage as they come. Throast ( talk | contribs) 21:45, 14 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 Procedural close. It's a little early, but I'm here now and the only plausible outcome for this is a procedural close. Evaluating so many articles in one AfD would be tough in any case, but with variations in article state, and with the subjects being from different countries (implying the need to consider possible sources in different languages), a big group nomination was definitely the wrong approach. No prejudice against speedy renomination or even using WP:PROD for eligible articles. RL0919 ( talk) 21:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Lexi Wilson

Lexi Wilson (  | 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 one of about 40 biographies related to pageant contestants at Miss Universe 2013. There's evidence that many of them were created by a paid-editing sockfarm; the SPI states that the pageant organizer was the editor. None of these appears to be notable under the WP:BLP1E policy, none has anything like references that would sustain WP:ANYBIO. Many articles are sourced to Facebook, Instagram, and blogs; and google searches return many sites we don’t recognize as RS. For !voters not familiar with the beauty pageant space please refer to WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources to identify bad sources. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following because of the reasons stated above -- creation by the sockfarm/UPE editor for many, and poor sourcing:

☆ Bri ( talk) 23:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Bundling about 40 more biographies from Miss Universe 2014 pageant. Every article bundled below was created by a beauty pageant sockfarm (mostly the sockfarm referenced above), appears to be BLP1E, and has minimal sourcing.

☆ Bri ( talk) 02:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following. Miss Universe 2015 biographies. All nominations below are created by sockfarms and suit BLP1E.

☆ Bri ( talk) 02:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There are way too many articles of various quality and notability to review for one AfD. BabbaQ ( talk) 16:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: Agree with BabbaQ. Some articles have been decently brushed off or changed completely since they were started years ago. The beauty pageants from your list that I checked were notable, and sources were OK. Some were not up-to-date. Feel free to nominate for deletion articles written as advertisements, and ask for better sources if needed, but nomination of all these articles is a step too far. Vysotsky ( talk) 19:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • But if needed I lean towards Keep and then re-nominate a smaller number of articles or the individual articles that are not notable. As I stated above these are too many articles of different notability. BabbaQ ( talk) 11:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep, without prejudice to re-nominating in smaller, more manageable groups. Per the above comments, such a large AfD is impossible to discuss, and many of the articles have received substantial input by editors other than the creator. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 19:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I think what is needed is an RfC on notability of national pageant winners and (as has been already said) individual nominations of the above as appropriate. Furius ( talk) 13:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The Set-Up (1995 film)

The Set-Up (1995 film) (  | 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:NFSOURCES; I found little to no coverage about this film. The Film Creator ( talk) 22:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No sources? Within seconds found a review at TV Guide [1] and Variety [2] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: 1995 is a bit of a tough year (among recent decades) for sourcing pop culture because the internet was new, but I've added a few more sources. It was a movie release on a major American pay television network, made by a major studio, I think it is notable.-- Milowent • has spoken 13:45, 11 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 00:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Gursimran Singh

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

This individual does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO as the sources do not demonstrate in-depth coverage. There are some routine mentions in school-level and regional-level hockey match reports and an announcement of him being appointed as vice president of a regional body. According to FIH there isn't any player with that name who has played at the international level, so the claim of him representing India in 3 matches is false. The article seems to have been extensively edited by the subject himself. Dee 03 21:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2018-09 ✍️ create
-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I don't see a consensus for a merge to the state article. That's not typical practice for non-notable places that fail GEOLAND, and it strikes me as UNDUE. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Piney Grove Manor, Delaware

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

A grandly named subdivision backing onto a sand pit and an asphalt plant, entered into GNIS from a county road map. This doesn't afford the kind of official recognition WP:GEOLAND expects, and there's no other claim to notability. Mangoe ( talk) 21:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Subdivision fails GEOLAND and GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 21:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - subdivision, coverage is not significant. Neither WP:GNG nor WP:GEOLAND is met. Hog Farm Talk 19:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non-notable subdivision. GBooks has only passing references in geographic lists. Newspapers.com has trivial non-notable coverage concerning the subdivision. JStor had nothing. As this location is not legally recognized, it does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. As there is no notable coverage WP:GNG and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. Cxbrx ( talk) 12:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Delaware. It can be listed as an unincorporated place in the Municipalities section. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 13:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I don't see a consensus for a merge to the state article. That's not typical practice for non-notable places that fail GEOLAND, and it strikes me as UNDUE. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Holiday Acres, Delaware

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

The name all but shouts "subdivision", and in fact it is a grander-than-usual mobile home park. Another entry courtesy the county road map, with no other claim for notability. Mangoe ( talk) 21:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable mobile home park, fails GEOLAND and GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 21:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - trailer park that fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm Talk 17:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Non-notable trailer park. Newspapers.com has a number of brief obits that mention this location. Newspapers.com has one passing mention that describes the park. GBooks says that in 1994, there were 36 homes. The coverage is trivial for this non-notable location, so WP:GNG and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. This location is not legally recognized so #1 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. Cxbrx ( talk) 19:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Delaware. It can be listed as an unincorporated place in the Municipalities section. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 13:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I see now reason why mention of this place would be WP:DUE in the overall state article. Hog Farm Talk 13:20, 13 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Abdillah El Oufir

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

PROD rationale was Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE from the sources presented and from a quick search. The prizes that he is said to have won are not sufficient enough to count as an WP:ANYBIO pass.

Contested with Improvement of WP:ANYBIO wish it was removed due to lack of valid information about the prizes that the article says.

Still not convinced that there is enough notability here. Source analysis to follow. Nothing decent found in a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://femmesdumaroc.com/actualite/les-grands-gagnants-du-concours-international-de-films-courts-ana-maghribia-devoiles-45658 Yes ? No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.networthspot.com/abdillah-el-oufir/net-worth/ No No Totally unreliable database scraper with no reputation for fact checking No Coverage is trivial ✘ No
https://lnt.ma/video-youtubeur-tourne-derision-service-militaire/ Yes Yes No Has one sentence about him ✘ No
https://www.medi1tv.com/ar/%D9%85%D8%B9-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%88%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%88-%D8%A3%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%AC-57440-225 Yes Yes No Appearing as a guest on a news program is not enough to justify a stand-alone article on its own. ✘ No
https://vcc.careercenter.ma/vcc/fiche-evenement/5/5541 No No No I can't see where he is mentioned ✘ No
https://iq-tik.ixspy.com/influencers/detail/6766279185335944198_abdillah.eloufir Yes No No Social media stats page ✘ No
https://www.picuki.com/media/2162027830576204357 No No Self-published No Social media post with very little coverage ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
  • Delete – I agree with Spiderone that none of the sources currently in the article are adequate, and my searches find nothing else that could constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails the GNG/ WP:BASIC. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Spiderone We made some changes to the previous post to improve the theme by replacing the more reliable and notable links. Jhonricke ( talk) 23:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
this and this were added but neither of them show significant coverage (see WP:SIGCOV so my opinion is still 'delete' Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Spiderone This is a new stub. This topic isn't reliable enough at the moment, but it will take longer to finish with serious research. It shouldn't be abandoned until further notice. Jhonricke ( talk) 11:14, 8 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of AFC Asian Cup penalty shoot-outs

List of AFC Asian Cup penalty shoot-outs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Lists of penalty shoot-outs, where I raised notability concerns about this topic, I still have some concerns. This is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these penalty shoot-outs have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS.

Due to the wide variety of languages spoken in Asia, it's impossible to do a completely comprehensive WP:BEFORE search. Yet again, I found significant coverage of individual instances, such as Reuters and BBC Arabic but struggled to find any analysis or coverage of them as a group. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 7 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Africa Cup of Nations penalty shoot-outs

List of Africa Cup of Nations penalty shoot-outs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Lists of penalty shoot-outs, where I raised notability concerns about this topic, I still have some concerns. This is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these penalty shoot-outs have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS.

Some of the finals have been decided on penalties, most famously 2015 Africa Cup of Nations Final and 1992 African Cup of Nations Final but these have their own articles. Whilst some of the individual matches do receive significant coverage, such as Goal.com on 1992 and Guardian on 2015, the shoot-outs, as a group, do not appear to have received much in the way of coverage or analysis. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 7 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, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Jesse Boone

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

Fails (1) WP:NGRIDIRON (never appeared in a regular season game in the NFL or other qualifying league -- NFL Europe and UFL are not qualifying leagues), (2) WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or Halls of Fame), (3) WP:NBUSINESSPERSON (his small, local real estate practice is not qualifying); and (4) WP:GNG (my searches in both Google and Newspapers.com fail to turn up WP:SIGCOV outside of this and this -- both from The Salt Lake Tribune and GNG requires multiple reliable sources). In addition, much of the content (including early years, college career, education, and personal) is unsourced, raising BLP concerns. Cbl62 ( talk) 09:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The newspaper clippings include a couple non-trivial mentions but do not provide sufficient independent SIGCOV to meet GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    What, to you, would constitute significant coverage? It sure looks significant enough to me, and there are sources from several different media markets, not just Utah. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 00:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the provided sources would be useful in determining consensus; as things stand it isn't clear whether they are substantive enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep To me, I think three pieces of SIGCOV from different sources is enough to meet GNG. The two sources found by Cbl62 are SIGCOV (same newspaper), while I would say the first found by Editorofthewiki also is; I'm unsure about the second he listed; pieces three and four don't seem to be significant. This, that I've found in Deseret News, seems SIGCOV to me, convincing me that Boone is a weak GNG pass. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:18, 7 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of CONCACAF Gold Cup penalty shoot-outs

List of CONCACAF Gold Cup penalty shoot-outs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Lists of penalty shoot-outs, where I raised notability concerns about this topic, I still have some concerns. This is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these penalty shoot-outs have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS.

I don't believe that we've had a discussion on the notability of these lists before, and there are quite a few of them. The only slightly similar discussion that has occurred before was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national football teams by penalty shootout record. I have decided to nominate the articles for deletion separately as to bundle them would be a WP:TRAINWRECK.

For this tournament, I can find reports on some of the individual shoot-outs (e.g. 2019 and 2015) but no coverage or analysis of them as a group. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:24, 7 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) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Kaszëbskô Jednota

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

The page does not cotain much neutral content. It has positive and unsourced content which is probably original research or direct translation from some promotional material. Most sources are not neutral while looking at their titles alone. The claims are not supported by any English sources, only by Polish ones, though it isn't so important. What is important, though, that it does not really abide by WP:ORGCRIT. Also, I'll ignore the first 3 references, as they are primary sources. The first reference is a passing mention of a quote by the former leader of the organisation. The second one is acceptable, though it calls the organisation "Kashubs". The third is similar. The fourth cotains a quote of an organisation member. The fifth mentions two organisations on the same level in a video interview. The sixth reference includes a quote and some other stuff from the organisation, which is considered mentions. The seventh reference basically says that the organisation is fighting for Kashubians' independence. So, I wouldn't say these were the best sources. Alongside that, it has many other issues listed on the top of the article. MatEditzWiki ( talk) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MatEditzWiki ( talk) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MatEditzWiki ( talk) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of FIFA Confederations Cup penalty shoot-outs

List of FIFA Confederations Cup penalty shoot-outs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Lists of penalty shoot-outs, where I raised notability concerns about this topic, I still have some concerns. This is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these penalty shoot-outs have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS.

I don't believe that we've had a discussion on the notability of these lists before, and there are quite a few of them. The only slightly similar discussion that has occurred before was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national football teams by penalty shootout record. I have decided to nominate the articles for deletion separately as to bundle them would be a WP:TRAINWRECK. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:23, 7 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

2021 Pentagon attack

2021 Pentagon attack (  | 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 event Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The outcome of this hinges largely on whether the position this individual holds counts towards WP:PROF#5. Most users address this in their !votes, and while there's clearly legitimate room for disagreement, I do not see anything to overcome the numerical tilt in those arguments. Vanamonde ( Talk) 01:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

D. N. Samarasekera

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

I originally created this bio as I thought that the Chair he holds was sufficient to pass WP:PROF ("The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon"), but looking at his academic output on Google Scholar I am no longer convinced that the unnamed Chair in this instance is enough to carry it over the line. Uhooep ( talk) 15:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • delete I agree that his GS profile is too weak of WP:NPROF#1 and that he does not have a named chair, so NPROF#5 doesnt apply. Also no indication of any awards and the memberships (Royal college of surgeons) are not selective enough. -- hroest 18:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The newspaper article about the legal squabble over whether he was qualified to be given his post over a seemingly-more-qualified competitor [7], the only independent source in the article, makes interesting reading, but I don't think it's enough for WP:GNG-type notability. And I agree with the previous comments that we don't have any real suggestion of WP:PROF-notability; it seems like his post is more or less a standard professorship, not one at the level of a distinguished professorship, and being department chair is also too low an administrative position for automatic notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, should have been a procedural delete in that the article's creator is proposing the article be deleted. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NSCHOLAR/ WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt ( talk) 04:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:PROF #5: The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. Prestigious chairs at American universities tend to be named; equivalent chairs at universities elsewhere in the world tend not to be. This is why the second clause exists; otherwise this whole section would be biased in favour of American academics. It's amazing how many editors (as all three above) conveniently ignore this clause and fixate only on the "named chair" one. He holds the Chair of Surgery (not just a personal chair) and is also a senior professor, which probably meets the "distinguished professor" criterion too (again, this latter tends to be an American thing). [8] -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree with Necrothesp: having held "the Chair in Surgery" (more than just a personal professorship) at a significant university outside the United States is indicative of meeting criterion 5 of WP:PROF. Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. The position doesn't look to be comparable to a named chair (in particular, there is another person in the small surgery department of the University of Colombo with a chair professor of surgery). Citations are weak for WP:NPROF C1, no other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 15:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • There are three professors in the department. Of these, two hold established chairs and one holds a personal chair. Established chairs (i.e. those which always exist and are held by a succession of people appointed to them, as opposed to personal chairs which are conferred on an individual for the term of their tenure) in universities of the Commonwealth tradition are equivalent to named chairs in the modern American tradition. Named chairs are not that common in Commonwealth universities. The concept that chairs that are named, usually after an individual or foundation that endowed them, are somehow automatically more prestigious than those that are not is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding of how these things work outside America. The holder of any chair that is established by a major university meets the requirements of WP:PROF #5. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • But very very few places in the US have 2/3 of their faculty having named chairs. Hobit ( talk) 18:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Actually, the department has twelve academic staff (I suspect there may be some confusion here about the term "professors" - only in America are all academics known as professors; elsewhere, "professor" only refers to those who hold chairs), of whom two hold established chairs. I'm no mathematical expert, but that is certainly not two thirds! I make it one sixth! Plenty of departments in American universities have one sixth (or more) of their faculty holding named chairs. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. His position does not seem to be equivalent to a named chair, and even among Sri Lankan surgeons his citation record is below the median. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:02, 10 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 00:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Eleanor Seigler

Eleanor Seigler (  | 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, non-active actress. Only source present is about her husband, not her. Searches bring up few results, just passing mentions to her role on The Office. Fails GNG – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, inclined to agree with nominator, as this is someone who has seemingly just had very minor roles in a handful of shows which doesn't indicate any particular notability. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 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 African Minifootball Cup#Results. Vanamonde ( Talk) 01:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

2021 African Minifootball Cup

2021 African Minifootball Cup (  | 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. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I m sorry but this is crazy this sport is kinda ne and i have link to result i dont kno i should do more you can find video of compt in youtube dear in such way e only should pub football artical only so ho e can kno other sport i m out e try to make it clear that e love this port but you pp just keep delting without even make any effore of searching — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amara94 ( talk • contribs)

Having videos on YouTube does not make a topic automatically notable Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to African Minifootball Cup#Results as a valid WP:ATD. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. There's also an article for the 2018 tournament, which is also questionable at best. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • So beach soocer is questionable and thousand of sport that i can find here because i never see an event of them before personally because you say video its not a source 1st it start since 2017 i don t think that the website of Wmf just a big lie of years the problem that the media don t cover it for a reason its not that popular sport so there's no revenue from cover it so lets just stop talking about news sport and lets name it wiki popular sport so pp don t waste their time trying to explain new sport event in the World and thank you and its not myprobleme that most of artical are in frensh or arabic main 2 language in africa.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amara94 ( talk • contribs)
If there is significant coverage in reliable French or Arabic sources then please link us to those. The sources do not need to be in English. If there are some articles on beach soccer events of questionable notability then please feel free to put them up for deletion in a separate discussion. The reason this is up for discussion is because nobody has found any evidence that this passes WP:GNG, a statement that still seems to be valid. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • so explain the problem its it ith the event it self or the result off matchs ? because i found some result not all of them in press and i m sorry
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Niklas Stråhlén

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

I couldn't find specific guidelines for windsurfers, but it doesn't seem to meet any sports or general notability guideline, but borderline. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years, hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 14:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. For disclosure, I don't know anything about windsurfing, but it's not a completely unknown activity – there are plenty of windsurfers out there. Apparently he was at least at one point ranked as the first (a shared first rank) professional freestyle surfer in Europe. This seems notable to me. I've fixed the reference to one article and added another. / Julle ( talk) 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Also added Swedish and Nordic Championships wins, and competing in the World Championship. / Julle ( talk) 15:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per Julles improvements. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 16:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw nomination per great comments above and improvements. Thanks to both of you :) Boleyn ( talk) 17:07, 7 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Slow Roosevelt

Slow Roosevelt (  | 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. Boleyn ( talk) 14:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article is full of promotional peacock words about how the band "started it all for hard rock" - a style that existed for decades previously, and were "Grandfathers of modern Dallas metal" - which is not a known sub-genre. Article was created in 2009 by either a fan or member who then disappeared from WP. The band did get a fairly decent write up in a local paper, which shows as a dead link in the article but can now be found here: [9]. I can find nothing else beyond brief and very local gig announcements and some songs in the usual streaming services, and even those are rare. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doomsdayer said it best, as usual. Also, the introduction is very PR/fansite-like: "Slow Roosevelt (1996-2004) was one of the premier hard rock acts in the famous Deep Ellum music during its peak from 1999-2004. Although other bands in that genre were on the scene (e.g., Drowning Pool and Jibe), Slow Roosevelt was the band that started it all for hard rock during that time.[citation needed] Considered the Grandfathers of modern Dallas metal, the band accomplished many successes such as a nationally released album..." with no sources to back it up. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 19:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Promotional in tone, and lacking the sources to satisfy WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. -- Kinu  t/ c 18:24, 12 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. ✗ plicit 13:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Union Bay Post Office

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

I couldn't establish that it has the coverage or significance to meet WP:N Boleyn ( talk) 13:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Being one of two surviving wooden post offices in Canada is impressive. The article says that it was given heritage building status after the restoration, but this may just be by the local municipality rather than a national recognition. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I added a newspaper article from the Comox Valley Record as a reference. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 16:36, 7 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. ✗ plicit 14:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Beğlan Birand Toğrol

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

Successful, but doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 13:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. She died a few years ago. I expected to see more articles and more citations at Google Scholar, but two awards stand out: being a Fulbright Scholar, and being a Honorary Fellow of Newnham College at Cambridge. One reference, presumably taken from her CV, says that she was Chair of Experimental Psychology (1969–1977), and was the Head of the Department of Psychology (1982–1994) at Istanbul University. I don't know what her h-index was. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • keep as far as I can tell, the Honorary Fellow thing is fairly rarely given over a long period of time. Overall body of work seems quite impressive. Maybe meets WP:PROF, but at the least I'm happy to invoke WP:IAR. Hobit ( talk) 02:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per Hobit. -- Artoria 2e5 🌉 15:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Appears to have held an established chair, not just a personal chair, so meets WP:PROF #5, as outside the USA named chairs are uncommon and were even more uncommon in her day. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets NPROF for holding the Chair of Psychology and the Head of Dept positions at Istanbul University. Furius ( talk) 13:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Leslie Dougher

Leslie Dougher (  | 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 politician. BEFORE returns only one usable source (string: "leslie dougher") which in turn makes sourcing a potentially fatal issue for the article; I'm willing to buy that there are offline sources but what I can find on Google isn't making weight. — A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I found plenty of media references to Leslie Dougher on Google, as well as what appeared to be public records of election results and so forth. I think being chair of a major political party at state level is notable. If she were some sort of precinct boss I'd be happy to lose this article, but Florida's got more than 20 million people, so this is a significant position. I do note that the article is a bit thinner than those of her predecessor and successor, but no doubt some politics junky will get round to filling this in over time. RomanSpa ( talk) 12:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Her predecessor and successor were elected to notable offices, unlike Dougher, so RomanSpa's argument does not hold water. Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. State level Chairperson of a major political party is a notable position. See also Harold Alexander (Florida politician). SWP13 ( talk) 11:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 18:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ezhar Cezairli

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

City councillors don't tend to meet WP:NPOL and dentists certainly meet no part of WP:N. I couldn't establish that she meets WP:N, but something might be lost in translation. Possible redirect to her political party? Boleyn ( talk) 13:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The German Wikipedia article is longer than the English one, with more references. She is also notable as a representative of secular and liberal Muslims, and many of the references seem to deal with her disagreements with mor traditional Muslims. The Frankfurt article says "Its 763,380 inhabitants as of 31 December 2019 make it the fifth-most populous city in Germany.", which suggests that Frankfurt may be big enough that its city councillors are notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - does not meet WP:NPOL, and not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 22:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - my German is awful, but if I try to look up German-language sources, there does seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG. Like, it seems like there's coverage of her in Die Tageszeitung, in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, in Frankfurter Rundschau, mention of her in Die Welt, etc... Could someone with better German take a look for German-language sources? NHCLS ( talk) 11:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A google search with the Books option on shows paragraphs discussing her in Dilemmas of Inclusion: Muslims in European Politics (2017) and Religion, Identity and Politics: Germany and Turkey in Interaction (2013). She's quoted in Legal Integration of Islam (2013) and mentioned among others in Governing Muslims and Islam in Contemporary Germany (2018). Then there's a whole string of German-language books. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 04:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As a town councillor she doesn't pass NPOL, but the German wiki article has a range of reliable sources for her political activism, which seems to take her past GNG. Furius ( talk) 13:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Dirty Sanchez (band)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Possible ATD is redirect to Jackie Beat, but not sure it is worth it. Boleyn ( talk) 13:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. There's coverage at Allmusic ( bio, album review), LA Weekly ( [10]), LA Times mentions them in connection with the electroclash wave ( [11]), The Advocate ( [12]), Billboard ( [13]). Chubbles ( talk) 14:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Their nasty name may cause you some discomfort while searching, but search in conjunction with member Jackie Beat and you will find the sources noted by Chubbles above and a few more, especially publications from the queer music scene. It's not a lot but enough for a basic stub article here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:08, 8 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 Nikos Karvelas#Discography. ✗ plicit 14:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ikto!: 20 Megales Epitihies Tou

Ikto!: 20 Megales Epitihies Tou (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish it meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG, but bringing to AfD as I am aware I may have lost something linguistically. Possible ATD is redirect to Nikos Karvelas - not sure if this is worth doing. Boleyn ( talk) 12:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:43, 7 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 14:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Left of Center (Sirius)

Left of Center (Sirius) (  | 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. Some of the associated radio stations are possible ATDs, but I wouldn't propose a merge (this has no sourced info) and not sure any are worth a redirect. Boleyn ( talk) 12:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Satellite radio channels must meet the GNG, and this one doesn't. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 00:54, 9 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. While this discussion is evenly divided numerically, the source analysis table makes a convincing case for deletion, and has not been answered effectively despite having been there for six days; as such I'm seeing clear consensus to delete. I'm sensitive to the concern about gender bias, but I would argue that if we have similarly-sourced articles about male journalists we should be giving them a hard look with respect to WP:N, rather than giving this one a free pass. Vanamonde ( Talk) 01:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Rachel Brookes

Rachel Brookes (  | 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 currently has three sources: a Wordpress blog ( WP:SPS, unreliable) and two articles which are by the subject, not about the subject. I've searched for better sourcing, and I did find one interview with the subject which contains a reasonable amount of stuff in the author's voice rather than the subject's (see WP:INTERVIEW for discussion of the primary/secondary nature of interviews), so some of that is usable. There is also this interview, but that is almost exclusively primary. While I can find lots of stuff that she has written, I can't find anything else about her, so I'm not convinced that WP:BASIC is met.

I'll add that I'm nominating this after it came up at ANI. Someone has been engaging in a year-long harassment campaign against the subject of the article on multiple on-line platforms, which has included numerous BLP-violating edits to our article (which I have revision deleted). I have protected it, but am bringing it here for discussion on whether or not we should actually keep it. If it is deleted, I would suggest salting the title to prevent abusive recreation; if it is kept, I'd like us to ensure that it is properly sourced, and stripped back so that the only assertions remaining are properly supported. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nearly AfD'd this myself when it appeared at ANI. There isn't notability demonstrated for her (yet). - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sourcing is inadequate and I don’t see the significant coverage in high-quality sources that's needed for a BLP. Plus, of course, Wikipedia should not enable the harassment of women. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
That all we can write about her life is a list of where she has worked and that she’s interviewed some people demonstrates that there is no significant coverage of her. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • On balance, keep. I've added a reference, and to me the level of referencing is at a level where it's acceptable, certainly compared to a number of other Sky Sports journalists in the same cat as her - who tend, of course, to be male. There are certainly two or three I found very quickly that are worse than this. Given the well established bias against articles about women on Wikipedia, in this case I'd suggest that I'd be much happier to keep this article, for now at least. Protection and watchers will help deal with the abuse, but that's very, very clearly not a reason for deleting the article. So, yeah, on balance I think right now that we should keep this. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 08:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'd agree with Blue Square Thing, I think there's just enough there for a GNG pass in this instance. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'd also agree with Blue Square Thing NHCLS ( talk) 10:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I just want to make it clear, in case it wasn't already, that I was not meaning to suggest that the harassment was a reason for deletion - I just wanted to explain the circumstances that led me to look at the article, and explain why its editing history looks the way it does, with a great many of the edits (including some of the edit summaries and even the usernames of the accounts that made them) missing. Girth Summit (blether) 13:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, that was clear - and thank you for the sterling work you've done with the edit summaries and so on on the the article. I was responding to the comment by someone else up there which gave the impression that it was. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 14:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I reviewed the sources in the article and created a source assessment table:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Women's Sport: How Rachel Brookes got into Formula One and what she loves about life in the paddock (GiveMeSport, 2020) Yes article is based on an interview, text mostly prefaces/rephrases quotes from subject ? "GiveMeSport (GMS) is a sport media outlet providing exclusive player and manager interviews, and providing fans with up-to-date features, match previews and match reviews." ( About Us) ~ "Now she is one of the most recognisable women in F1." ? Unknown
I am proof that if you work hard and are very determined you will eventually be in the right place at the right time (Fast and Fearles, 2018) Yes article is based on an interview, text mostly prefaces/rephrases quotes from subject No A blog: "My name is Georgia and I started my ‘Fast and Fearless’ website in 2018." ( About) No "Rachel Brookes is one of the country’s leading sports broadcasters, now regularly seen fronting Sky’s F1 coverage." ✘ No
Rachel Brookes on Life Covering F1 and Working For Sky Sports (SportsGrill, 2021) Yes article is based on an interview, with leading questions adding some content No A blog: "Sport Grill is the perfect blog for those wanting in depth articles and interviews across, Football, Motorsport and Tennis." ( About) No "Having initially started out without a career plan other than an ambition to work in radio, Rachel has slowly but surely risen up the media ladder to become a member of Sky Sports F1 on-screen team." ✘ No
In conversation with Rachel Brookes (Motorsport Broadcasting, 2021) Yes article is based on an interview, begins with a 3-sentence overview of her Sky Formula 1 career No A blog: "The F1 Broadcasting Blog was set up in April 2012... I have never worked in motor sport, this website is an outlet for me to give my opinions." ( About) No "Rachel Brookes has been an integral part of Sky’s Formula 1 coverage since 2013." ✘ No
Interviewing Bernie Ecclestone... (SkySports, 2017) No by Rachel Brookes Yes No by Rachel Brookes ✘ No
Rachel's Diary: Interviewing Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton after Baku mayhem (SkySports, 2017) No by Rachel Brookes Yes No by Rachel Brookes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Based on the assessment above and my own research, WP:BASIC/ WP:GNG does not appear to be supported by an interview conducted by a source that may be reliable, three blog interviews, and two sources written by the subject, so my !vote is to Delete at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 01:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Libscore

Libscore (  | 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 seem worth to keep it. The poor sourcing (e.g. [14]) and notability justifies removal I think. I believe that the only goal of this article is the promotion. I have requested speedy deletion in the past but it was reverted by JBW (see [15:56, July 21, 2021] [15:18, July 21, 2021]) so I propose to delete it hereby. Any objections? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

To be clear, when Alexander says that I reverted his speedy deletion nomination, that means I declined the nomination because the article doesn't satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria. It wasn't an indication that I thought the article shouldn't be deleted. JBW ( talk) 12:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your clarification. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. The references include promotional websites, blogs, an interview with a person involved in the subject, pages barely mentioning the subject, and a couple that don't even mention it at all. Not a single one of them is substantial coverage in a reliable independent source. JBW ( talk) 12:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Redirect to DigitalOcean or Stripe (company). Meets the minimum expectations of WP:GNG. The VentureBeat source has 164 words of uninterrupted and nonrepetitive prose dedicated specifically to the subject. The main topic of the source is Libscore and it includes “Libscore” in the title. As far as I can tell the author of the article is independent of the subject and WP:RSP lists VentureBeat as “Generally Reliable” (although the discussion appears to be stale). The TNW source has 179 words of uninterrupted and nonrepetitive prose dedicated specifically to the subject. The main topic of the source is Libscore and it includes “Libscore” in the title. As far as I can tell the author of the article is independent of the subject and WP:RSP lists the parent company, The Financial Times, as “Generally Reliable.” The InfoWorld source is mainly an WP:INTERVIEW so most of it would be considered a primary source, but there’s over 100 words in the introduction of non-interview content that is uninterrupted and nonrepetitive prose dedicated specifically to the subject. The main topic of the source is Libscore and it includes “Libscore” in the subtitle. As far as I can tell InfoWorld is reliable and the author is the editor at large of the site. I would argue that these sources have more than a trivial mention and that they meet the WP:GNG requirement that “multiple sources are generally expected.” Libscore also appears to be cited in Google Scholar articles as a reliable method of obtaining statistics. For instance, this UCOL paper. I think overall the sources are limited in number and quality, but I’m not sure if merging into DigitalOcean or Stripe (company) would make sense and Julian Shapiro doesn’t have an article. TipsyElephant ( talk) 16:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ TipsyElephant: The TNW source has 179 words of uninterrupted and nonrepetitive... Thanks for heads up. That source is basically enumerating a list of Libscore features in increasingly advertising manner. The linked domain of latter isn't leading to Libscore: [15]. I disagree that this is reliable in any way.
    For instance, this UCOL paper. Well, I think this isn't enough for a separate article. I think it would much better to save some of this information in DigitalOcean article. The Libscore may be redirected to a relevant subsection. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Alexander Davronov: I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the URL not working. From what I understand defunct websites can still be notable. Is there a way to confirm that the TNW is, in fact, a paid promotion as opposed to a positive review? TipsyElephant ( talk) 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ TipsyElephant: Is there a way to confirm that the TNW is .... a paid promotion Hardly I know any one of. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and clean up, possibly turning this into a stub. Initially I thought this was a promotional piece for non-notable defunct software, but when I looked deeper into the content, I found sufficient number of reliable sources hiding amid the poorly written content. The poorly written/unsupported content can be removed or replaced. I volunteer to do the cleanup. Anton.bersh ( talk) 08:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Would you like to cite them? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Response to discussion above about merger: TipsyElephant and Alexander_Davronov, I oppose merge into DigitalOcean and Stripe (company) because it is a separate unrelated project. These companies provide resources (financial and server time), but are not affiliated with the project directly. The mere fact that there is ambiguety which one of the two unrelated companies would be the better merger target suggests that neither one is a good merger target. Anton.bersh ( talk) 08:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Tend to agree with you unless sources proving otherwise are provided. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Eduard Anton Eugène van Meeuwen

Eduard Anton Eugène van Meeuwen (  | 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:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible ATDs are merge/redirect to father or family's page Boleyn ( talk) 12:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Judges are automatically notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a historic figure so there is no WP:BLP concern. Given the amount of coverage that Van Meeuwen's career and his cases received in various dailies in the Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies, he does meet the WP:GNG. gidonb ( talk) 23:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets WP:GNG per the sources found by User:Gidonb. VocalIndia ( talk) 04:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. All judges aren't notable, but supreme court judges certainly are per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:12, 11 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 12:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Norport Handling

Norport Handling (  | 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:CORP / WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 12:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete the article, despite 2 relists. The single !vote isn't strong enough to consider a keep consensus either. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Friedhelm Loh

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

Businessman does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is inherited from Friedhelm Loh Group. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The German language article demonstrates that expansion is feasible and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉( talk) 09:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Serpantinka

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

The proposed deletion is based on the fact that the original (Russian) version of this article has been removed due to a lack of credibility to the original (Russian) sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucidlook ( talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A perusal of Google Books would list numerous WP:RS sources in English confirming the existence of the camp. As an example, consider the Pulitzer Prize-winning Gulag: A History ("Dalstroi set up a punishment lagpunkt, which became, by the late 1930s, one of the most notorious in the Gulag: Serpantinnaya--or Serpantinka--located in the hills far to the north of Magadan....") pp. 246--247. The idea that this "notorious" (i.e. notable) camp did not exist would be WP:FRINGE unless reliable sources calling it a hoax were produced. Even then, it would be a notable hoax ( WP:NHOAX) and not suitable for deletion. 68.189.242.116 ( talk) 16:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are no creditable sources in any reference provided proven the claim that Serpantinnaya gold mine was indeed the "major place for the enforcement of their death sentences". The fact that such location existed does not mean that it was a place of mass execution as it states on the page: "estimates the number of victims at 30 thousands, shot or died of exhaustion" (by Alexander Mikaberidze) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucidlook ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
information Administrator note: The above comment is a double !vote by the nominator. ✗ plicit 00:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Most sources are referring to the same fake publication. The first source doesn't even mention the subject. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 22:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus – no prejudice against speedy renomination. Under longstanding practice, articles are not eligible for soft-deletion if they've previously been discussed at AfD. Per WP:NACD, please do not revert this closure: it "may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; or by consensus at deletion review." (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ali Faik Zaghloul

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

Essentially an unverified article as the only source is a dead link with no publication details identifying the source or author. I was unable to find sources in a WP:BEFORE search, but granted foreign language sources may exist outside of my expertise in locating. Arguments from the first AFD 13 years ago about future editing don't seem to have panned out in reality. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 12:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Please let an admin close this AFD, as soft deletion is still an option. While it's true that soft deletion is not an automatic outcome under policy in this case, WP:NOQUORUM explicitly states that in this kind of case soft deletion is one of four possible outcomes at the discretion of a closing administrator. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ 4meter4: "This kind of case" as you refer is not necessarily valid where soft deletion has already been excluded by a relisting administrator ( Explicit). You have reverted the NC closes of two editors (myself included). I don't quite get why, as that would not prejudice a renomination. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • User:Bungle, I think you are misinterpreting User:Explicit's comment. WP:NOQUORUM is essentially broken into two kinds of cases. One where there is no controversy and no prior AFD, where soft deletion is the expected outcome. The other, where there has been a prior AFD or there is some sort of controversy about the nomination. In these cases soft deletion is not prohibited/excluded but is one of four possible outcomes at the time of closing per admin discretion. As only admins can soft delete, this close should really only be made by an admin for procedural reasons. As a non-admin, you don't have access to the necessary tools to close with all the available options; hence why this should be an admin close. I am not beholden to any given ruling. I can easily except a no consensus, but I want procedure followed properly. Non-administrative closes shouldn't occur in WP:NOQUORUM circumstances at any point in time. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • @ 4meter4: In reality, if soft deletion was an option, I would have thought that either of the two relisting administrators above could and probably would have done so. That they each chose to relist and give a chance for consensus to be reached (which ultimately, hasn't happened), rather than soft deleting, is quite telling. You also don't need to tell me what I do and do not have access to, administratively. FWIW, I can sympathise with your rationale for deletion but Explicit would not have ruled out soft deleting for no reason. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
          • I don't disagree with that reasoning, my objection is procedural and nothing more (see WP:NACD). 4meter4 ( talk) 16:48, 14 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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 12:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

2021–22 FC Barcelona B season

2021–22 FC Barcelona B season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Team is not in a professional division this season, per Wikipedia:NSEASONS. Crowsus ( talk) 11:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Crowsus ( talk) 11:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability per GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 14:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Yes, the team does not currently play in a professional division, but I think there's enough coverage to say Wikipedia:GNG is met. Information in the article can be verified through Barcelona's website and news reports from Mundo Deportivo and Diario Sport that may contribute towards notability. The article also isn't just statistics, there is a well-sourced prose. Oblow14 17:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sources indeed exist and are reliable, but all of them are either from Barcelona's website (not independent of the subject) or describe coaching changes and player transfers, which says nothing of the notability of the season. Transfer market sources cover non-professional leagues (below the top professional tiers) quite often. As the article stands right now, I'd say it fails WP:NSEASONS, as the only prose in the article describes summer transfers and the remainder of the article is just statistics, which appear insufficient on their own to demonstrate notability. ComplexRational ( talk) 21:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I would agree with this assessment here. If this does get deleted, there should be no prejudice against recreating, though, as the season may well become notable as the season progresses. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
It undoubtedly fails NSEASONS because Primera RFEF is not a professional division. A reorganisation reduced the number of Level 3 groups from 4 to 2 and re-named the division, but it hasn't moved up and is still administered separately from the levels above which are professional. There has never been a season article on the Spanish third tier. The question is whether this article meets GNG. I don't believe so as the sources are mostly from the club itself or routine transfer info. Crowsus ( talk) 11:10, 12 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. ✗ plicit 12:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

2021 Konya massacre

2021 Konya massacre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a news event, a simple dispute (the kind that unfortunately happen with regularity around the globe), that turned violent, and then headlined by some as a "Massacre". Wikipedia is not the news. GenQuest "scribble" 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - article sources are good. Search gave plenty of hits. For now this is within WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 14:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • BabbaQ GNG is not the only bar an article must cross at AfD. There is no doubt this event happened, and that it has gotten a lot of recent local publicity. It's just too common an event for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not about EVERYTHING. See also RECENTISM. GenQuest "scribble" 15:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it is a septuple murder by a single person and it has an ethnic twist. Even if it does not have an ethnic motif, the case likely will have, as is a portrayed to have an ethnic motif by several pro-Kurdish parties (the largest being the HDP) and other media while the Turkish Government represented by the Interior Minister until now denies so. It has many sources already and will receive much more coverage in the future. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 15:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This obviously has WP:LASTING repercussions due to the alleged ethnic targeting. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:LASTING. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 23:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A septuple murder with a possible ethnic motive is clearly lasting, and notability is not in doubt. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 11:34, 14 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Christos Efstathiou

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

Poorly sourced BLP on a subject who does not appear to meet notability guidelines. A previous version shows that he was playing in the lower divisions of Cyprus except for one loan spell at Omonia, where it is alleged that he played in a cup game (not clear whether it was against a team in the same division or not so may or may not pass WP:NFOOTBALL). These appearances are reflected on Playmaker Stats but, again, they are lower division appearances mostly - there is no further info on the 1 appearance for Omonia so I am unable to verify NFOOTBALL.

Searches were made tricky because there is another younger player with the same name. However, a Greek language search did not yield any significant coverage to cover WP:GNG. Even if he somehow does scrape an NFOOTBALL pass, there is consensus within the community that GNG takes priority in such cases as this one. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:56, 7 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) 10:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Manoj Dey

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

The three cited sources in the article all have a disclaimer at the bottom of the page, which reads Disclaimer: This is a Brand Desk content. Sponsored content is unacceptable and does not count towards WP:GNG. Searching "Manoj Dey" yields many similar sources across a variety of Indian news sources but I was unable to find one that contained significant coverage as well as not being marked as a press release. For this reason, I believe that the article should be deleted for having a lack of independent and reliable coverage about him. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus exists that the subject passed WP:AUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 07:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

James Heartfield

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

The subject of the page does not meet the notability criteria for academics as described in these guidelines: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

The subject was an unsuccessful candidate for an election. The subject of the page does not meet the notability criteria for politicians as described here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maud.Clowd ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • He may, however, meet the requirements of an author. He's published quite a lot of books, which sit somewhere in between academic and popular, making it hard to know exactly what standards to use. However, I note that his book "The British and Foreign Anti Slavery Society" has been subject to a number of independent reviews [16] [17] Elemimele ( talk) 09:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Elemimele: I hadn't considered that his notability might come from him being an author. However, the reviews you reference are published in academic journals. I think academic books in history will usually have independent book reviews. So I'm not sure this makes the author notable. Perhaps a historian could confirm or deny this. Maud.Clowd ( talk) 12:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I haven't the foggiest idea! I know we're encouraged to use common sense about academic books that may have smaller print-runs and appeal to a narrower range of people (i.e. a truly academic book that got reviewed twice in academic journals would have been one that made an exceptional impact; most fade into literature without mention!), but my impression is that these are supposed to appeal more widely, in which case you're completely right. I have no strong feelings either way. Elemimele ( talk) 12:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Heartfield01 ( talk) 17:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC) I tend to agree that losing an election is not notable. But I think that my research and written work has made a valuable contribution in a number of areas. Both books The Aborigines' Protection Society and the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society are the acknowledged leaders on their particular subjects. According to Google Scholar, my book on the Aborigines' Protection Society has been cited in 99 collected books and articles. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5704919096256914697&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en reply

For the Royal Geographical Society Jonathan Wright named The Aborigines' Protection Society 'book of the month' when it was published in November 2011, saying it was 'a major, well-written and closely researched contribution to the study of 19th century imperialism' (Geographical, November 2011, p 65) It was, according the the journal Settler Colonial Studies 'A welcome and long overdue history of one of the most influential lobby groups in Britain and its emerging empire during the nineteenth century.'

Senior Lecturer in colonial and indigenous histories of Australia and the Pacific at La Trobe University Tracey Banivanua Mar, while critical, accepted that the Aborigines' Protection Society was 'formidably researched, and for any student of British imperialism the book will be instructive and fascinating'. (Arena) I think that the reason that the APS book (and this is also true of the BFASS book) was successful was that it was based on close research of the thousands of pages that the Society published on different parts of the world where Britain was active. The material covered simply had not been looked at in the detail before. I'll add more about the other works later.

Heartfield01 ( talk) 17:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC) My book The Death of the Subject Explained has been cited 190 times https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=list_works&hl=en&hl=en&user=nm5fgNEAAAAJ Munira Mirza, when she was culture secretary at the Greater London Authority wrote that it was 'one of the most useful guides to why we thing about culture and arts in the way we do'. (International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol 16, No 1, February 2010, 58-9) reply


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • keep with a number of reviews including [18] [19] [20] and the ones found by @ Elemimele: he passes WP:NAUTHOR. @ Maud.Clowd: Generally academic reviews are counted towards notability per WP:NAUTHOR. I would fail to see how reviews in academic journals are less important than other reviews, I would rather suggest that they are held to a higher standard and assess scholarly contribution. In general as long as the venue in which the review appears is reliable, we can use it -- there are many niche genres outside academia where authors become notable by being reviewed in a specialized journal (eg science fiction etc). Given that multiple books of his have multiple reviews, this also means WP:BLP1E doesnt apply here but this shows a consistent streak of recognized scholarship. -- hroest 16:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Hannes Röst: I'm not suggesting that academic reviews are in any way unreliable sources, just that if one publishes an academic book (in some disciplines) then it extremely likely to be reviewed (in an academic journal) - so it doesn't really indicate notability. In particular, it seems that the majority of academic historians employed by British universities (beyond the early career stage) will have published a book which will have been reviewed in academic journals (so it isn't particularly notable). Mathematics is an extreme case i.e. all papers published in maths journals of good standing are reviewed on mathscinet - so clearly don't contribute to notability. As mentioned in my reply to Elemimele, I didn't consider notability as an author. The WP:NAUTHOR guidelines are a lot more vague, so personally, I find it hard to determine whether he is notable or not under those guideline. If the page is kept, it would be good if someone reviewed it as it looks like it may have been mainly written by someone close to James Heartfield and in earlier times, James Heartfield himself. Maud.Clowd ( talk) 11:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- I see no evidence that he is an academic. He has certainly produced a number of books, whose titles suggest to me that he has some kind of political slant to his history. A few good reviews in specialist periodicals do not make an author notable without more. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Peterkingiron: the argument is not that he fulfills NPROF but that he passes WP:NAUTHOR#3. Whether he is politically biased or not does not matter here. -- hroest 02:07, 14 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 Maharana Pratap#Reconquest of Mewar. The arguments to not keep this article are substantially more convincing in the light of Wikipedia policy. On the keep side there are vague assertions of importance and the existence of sources, but the detailed analysis of the sources by FDW777, who argues that the battle is nowhere described in any detail, has not been rebutted. A redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion that takes into account the high number of "keep" opinions. Sandstein 07:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Battle of Dewair (1582)

Battle of Dewair (1582) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no WP:INDEPTH coverage of this event, references are either trivial mentions or about other subjects entirely and don't even mention this battle. The aftermath section is the most obvious example of this, with sentences like "Bhamashah's birth anniversary or Bhamashah Jayanti is celebrated on 29 June every year" and "Bhamashah Yojana bas been started on his name by government of Rajastha" which are pure padding and nothing whatsoever to do with the battle, the references cited don't mention the battle at all. See also Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582) for the long and inglorious history of this page, you'd think if there are actually any reliable references that deal with this article in any depth at all someone would have been capable of adding them at some point, the failure of anyone to do so suggests they don't exist. FDW777 ( talk) 07:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a very important battle in Indian history. This was has undone the gains of Akbar in previous battle of Haldighati. Article is well sourced. Seems the nominator wants to delete this artcle as this is one of the battle that shows defeat of Mughal Empire, after which the empire changed their capital from Delhi to Lahore. Crashed greek ( talk) 08:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Crashed greek, Please don't cast aspersions. The nominator provided valid reasons for nomination. Curbon7 ( talk) 10:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • The nominator tried to remove referenced content from the article, before nominating. I think he tried to vandalise the article before nomination. Crashed greek ( talk) 14:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per this source, this seems to be a consequential battle, as it directly resulted in the surrender of a Mughal army sized 36,000 and led to the ejection of the Mughals from Mewar. A couple of more websources I came across that aren't cited in the page: [21] [22]. Here are a number of books that discuss the battle to some degree, though some may be passingly as an example of Pratap's strategies or general Mughal history: [23] [24] [25]. There are several other books at this Google books search link that don't have previews so I'm unsure which mention the battle or not, but being an offline source isn't disqualifying. Also, I take issue with the last sentence in the nom, considering the page was created in mainspace 5 days ago. The page certainly needs work, clean-up, additions, verification, and better integration with other articles; however, I see it as a notable battle. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I refer you to the history of Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582), which I mentioned before the comment you take exception to. This isn't a five-day old problem, it's a months old problem. How much significant coverage is there really in the first link you provide? The battle itself gets less than two tiny paragraphs of coverage. That's the constant problem, there is no significant coverage of this battle which is why the article completely fails to actually say anything about the battle itself for the overwhelming majority of the time. FDW777 ( talk) 10:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • FDW777, Just the plain comparison to a draft that the person who created this page has never edited is a horribly flawed argument in and of itself, and I'll give you credit for having the guts to say that unironically. Almost no one checks draftspace for things to edit. All of that is disregarding the fact that the entire argument of "if it had sources, then it would be sourced by now" is bogus; even if sources exist but aren't presently cited, the sources still exist; that's the point of conducting a WP:BEFORE check, to check for sources that aren't cited in the article.
      Regarding notability, the first source I provided established the battle, the reasons for it, and the effects of the battle, which I should remind was the surrender of a large Mughal army and the expulsion of the Mughals from Mewar. Col. Tod's annals also account the battle (though I'm unsure if an online version exists). The battle occurred 550 years ago, so of course sources are scarce and not in-depth on the battle itself; not every article on a battle has to be as well detailed as the Battle of Gettysburg, especially considering information on pre-modern battles tends to be inherently lacking. As long as there is a significant effect of the battle and it has reliable sourcing, of which it has both, then it's good to go. Curbon7 ( talk) 10:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Sources are scarce for battles from 1582? Battle of Hastings (1066), Battle of Agincourt (1415), Battle of Bosworth Field (1485) and countless others beg to differ. FDW777 ( talk) 15:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Also Crashed geek has never edited the draft. But if they weren't aware of its existence, it's remarkable that Battle of Dewair (1582)#Memorial is pretty much word for word the same as Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582)#Memorial, and remarkably even manages to use the exact same non-refrerences that don't even mention this battle. FDW777 ( talk) 15:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • And further also, as explained below the draft was in article space until July, when I moved the appalling article to draft space. Since then there's been no improvement whatsoever, in fact the draft was semi-protected due to the constant addition of unreferenced claims (which might be a first for draftspace). FDW777 ( talk) 16:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Regarding Tod, his work can be seen at Project Gutenburg. He uses "Dawer", rather than "Dewair". The only three mentions in the entire text are
        • With this splendid proof of gratitude, and the sirvente of Prithiraj as incitements, he again “screwed his courage to the sticking-place,” collected his bands, and while his foes imagined that he was endeavouring to effect a retreat through the desert, surprised Shahbaz in his camp at Dawer, whose troops were cut in pieces.
        • There is not a pass in the alpine Aravalli 407that is not sanctified by some deed of Partap,—some brilliant victory or, oftener, more glorious defeat. Haldighat is the Thermopylae of Mewar; the field of Dawer her Marathon
        • Elevated with every sentiment of generosity and valour, they passed on to Dawer, where they encountered the royal army led by the brother of the Khankhanan, as it entered the pass, and which, after a long and sanguinary combat, they entirely defeated
      • Given there is also Battle of Dewair (1606), these may not even be about the same battle and it would involve some cross-checking with the documented history of people mentioned in connection with the quotes. Even if they are all about this battle, they are trivial coverage dealing with the battle in a handful of words. FDW777 ( talk) 17:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • The source clearly mentions that it was Pratap who led the force. Pratap was not alive by year 1606, it was his son Amar Singh I who was the leader in that 1606 battle. Crashed greek ( talk) 04:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC, I'm just not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources here. Most of the sources seem to be blogs or vague passing mentions. If the battle was as significant as the bloggers claim I'd expect more detail of the battle in reliable sources. As the nom has pointed out there's almost nothing about the battle here. The fact the battle was 550 years ago is irrelevant, we have many sources for notable battles from antiquity, if this "battle" doesn't have sourcing that means it isn't notable. Mztourist ( talk) 11:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete JSTOR, Google Scholar: no results; Google Books three very minor passing mentions. Fails WP:EVENT. Google search reveals a bunch of unsourced blogs and self-published materials which discuss the Battle which seem to emerge around 2017 ... given the state-sponsored historical revisionism of this period; extra vigilance is necessary. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 01:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: this was the major battle after Haldighati which has great importance in history. I was surprised there is no article about it. Bharat0078 ( talk)
  • Keep and combine/replace with Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582). The only problem is that this article is weak? It's not controversial or offensive? This seems like an important event to the sub-continent. The Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582) shows what this article could be, the only problem is sources? This one has GF attempts to find them. Frankly, I think the draft should be here with the combined sources and a flag that more are needed.
I find the nominator's last sentence just so backward that it supports "keep". If nothing else, nobody has seen the draft article to look for any sources. Thinking that a draft will get more than a few enthusiast editors is probably dreaming, I doubt that most editors use them and I'm comfortable thinking that virtually no readers do. Sammy D III ( talk) 15:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The only thing backward is your version of history. The draft was in article space until 11 July, when it was moved into draft space. FDW777 ( talk) 15:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Also if you think this article includes GF attempts to find references, I suggest you translate reference #10 (note, BitDefender blocks this on my PC due to potential security certificate issues). You will find absolutely no mention of Dewair, 1582, or any other connection with the historical Bhamashah. I note his article doesn't even mention Dewair at all, so exactly what is going on here? Is that text and reference really a good faith addition to this article? Or is it padding, a smokescreen to cover up how little has actually been written about this supposedly important battle? FDW777 ( talk) 15:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Wrong person to BS. I just re-read this and the draft and I see no mention of it being moved to a draft. You didn't mention that before? Could I see a diff to where you provided that history? And since you are the one who moved it there to start with, is there a diff for some consensus to do that. You didn't do that on your own, you have consensus? Maybe you do and I just don't see it? If you do have consensus then I apologize now and will agasin later. If you can show me a diff.
GF is subjective. Can you connect the editor of that source to the Draft? Sammy D III ( talk) 16:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
So you didn't click on the diff labelled 11 July in my post then? The one that clearly says in the edit summary/description FDW777 moved page Battle of Dewair (1582) to Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582)? A move which can also be seen in the page log for Battle of Dewair (1582), which also says 21:05, 11 July 2021 FDW777 talk contribs moved page Battle of Dewair (1582) to Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582). So would you like to strike your inaccuarate claims now? FDW777 ( talk) 16:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I also suggest you look at the entry for the draft at Wikipedia:Requests for page_protection/Archive/2021/07#17 July 2021, where I state I would like to see this draft back in article space. But every day constant unreferenced changes are made by a variety of different IPs. It would appear the only way forward is if they are prevented from disrupting the draft article any further. Moving to draft space was intended to be temporary, since the article appeared to be beyond fixing by normal editing at that point. I would have absolutely no objection to the creation of a proper, well referenced article about this battle. But the history to date says that doesn't appear to be possible, I see several assertions it's an important battle but no actual references to write an article from. If the battle is as important as claimed, why has nobody written anything significant about it? FDW777 ( talk) 16:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I was gone. The link didn't work for me, but I believe you. I am sorry, you did provide the diff I asked for. Thank you.
I was judging on this article, not the history of the subject. I think the Greek may (I don't know the back story) have just stumbled in, I saw some of the same hero-worship lines in the sources.
Your major problem is that you know that the completely un-sourced Draft stuff will be jammed in here, that this article can't evolve naturally? I'm going to strike-through "Keep" because I think that will probably happen.
I don't know anything about the sub-continent, what happened and who wrote about it in what language at what time, so I don't want to judge by a US POV. "No source" is "no source" everywhere, but notable is subjective. I think that's for the local's POV.
Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III ( talk) 21:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

There are enough references verify notability of the subject.

It pass WP:GNG, WP:N. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 06:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

That's the "best version"? Wow! Tod has been dealt with above, he mentions Dawer three times and is trival coverage. Bhawan Singh Rana's book is incorrectly cited, it doesn't even have 152 pages. Presumably the "79" is the actual page number? That page does mention some of the people apparently involved in the battle, only it doesn't mention the battle itself. Indeed, there is no mentioon of Dewair or Dawer in the entire book. A. N. Bhattachary is citing a single sentence in the "best version". Laxman Prasad Mathur isn't even cited in the "best version". The other quotes you provide demonstrate passing mentions of the subject, not in-depth coverage. If this in-depth coverage does in fact exist in the claimed references, then why did the "best version" of the article consist of so little information about the battle itself? Both the draft and live article and capable of being edited at present, please add the claimed in-depth coverage from the references to either, or both. FDW777 ( talk) 07:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Which? The blogs? The one sentence mentions that give us nothing to write an article from? FDW777 ( talk) 15:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Which books have any significant coverage of this battle? FDW777 ( talk) 16:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I agree there is no significant coverage in any book. Mztourist ( talk) 03:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
About a sentence in each about the battle. No depth. Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Precisely the point I was coming to make. There is no sigmificant coverage in any of those news articles from which we can write a standalone article. FDW777 ( talk) 06:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus appears keep. The minority dissenting !votes seem to bring up problems that are already identified on WP:CLN - and those apply to all lists, not just this one. (non-admin closure) Ifnord ( talk) 13:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of fantasy worlds

List of fantasy worlds (  | 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:INDISCRIMINATE. One would assume there are as many fantasy worlds as there are works of fantasy, so it would be ridiculously extensive to attempt to list them all. There is also no clear criteria for inclusion, either. What results is a list that is largely context-less nonsense. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A lengthy, indiscriminate list of items without clear inclusion criteria — I saw at least one sci-fi work mixed in ( Mass Effect), which listed, of all things, the Milky Way. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    I also have the sneaking suspicion that the fantasy world article itself is something of a duplication of fictional universe and should be merged into it. A fictional universe is a little more general in that it can also include science fiction and alternate history, but otherwise there seems to be little different about it. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 07:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Zxcvbnm: I'd disagree on that point, I think the fantasy world article starts with "Not to be confused with Fictional universe" for good reason. As you've said, fictional universe is more general. But as far as I've seen fantasy world does not simply talk about its fictious nature, but about what makes these worlds specifically fantasy. Saying there is little difference seems to me like saying that fantasy, science-fiction and alternate history are more or less the same genre, not three different ones, and that it might be a good idea to merge those three articles. Oh, wait, there's a parent article speculative fiction for that. So it's like saying we should probably delete the fantasy, science-fiction and alternate history articles because we already have the speculative fiction one. Daranios ( talk) 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ditto above. Sciencefish ( talk) 08:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Terrible mess. Too broad, pretty much unreferenced, unclear criteria. (Would the world of Watership Down qualify? How about Mickey Mouse? What about the world created by my kid brother? Or the pretty awesome one our game master made few years ago - it even has a fan wiki too!). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Disorganized list lacking criteria. ArvindPalaskar ( talk) 11:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:PRESERVE. Here's a selection of sources:
  1. Literary Wonderlands : A Journey Through the Greatest Fictional Worlds Ever Created
  2. Imaginary Worlds: The Art of Fantasy
  3. Exploring Fantasy Worlds: Essays on Fantastic Literature
  4. Fantasy Worlds: New Ways to Explore, Adventure, and Play
  5. War of the Fantasy Worlds: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien ...
  6. Revisiting Imaginary Worlds: A Subcreation Studies Anthology
  7. Alternative Worlds in Fantasy Fiction
  8. Exploring Imaginary Worlds: Essays on Media, Structure, and Subcreation
  9. 25 fantasy worlds from the past 25 years we'd want to visit
  10. Top Fantasy Worlds in Literature: A Definitive List
  11. The Top 10 Greatest Fictional Worlds Ever Created
  12. The Routledge Companion to Imaginary Worlds
Andrew🐉( talk) 11:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Contextal discussion of the best fantasy worlds are not justification for a context-free list of all non-notable fantasy worlds. The copy-pasted list of names of Google Books hits remains typically petulent and useless: How the hell does War of the Fantasy Worlds: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien on Art and Imagination, which is only about these two specific, highly notable worlds, maintain a list of all of these that are often just mere fictional places like Bikini Bottom and single-appearance settings than similar "worlds"? Some of these sources may be valuable for Fantasy world, but not this junk. Reywas92 Talk 14:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • WP:LISTN explains that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability.." Sources will naturally tend to focus on the most famous and significant examples. Tolkien's Middle Earth was especially seminal as it spawned a huge wave of lookalikes, which created fantasy as a publishing genre. See the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series which was a key component of this. Andrew🐉( talk) 20:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    So write context about its seminality and influence on the fantasy world article. It has no place or basis here. Fantasy Worlds: New Ways to Explore, Adventure, and Play with Fantasy is a self-published book ( iUniverse) that discusses how people use their imaginations to fantasize their lives, but has no basis for an indiscriminate context-free list of any fictional place in media with a fantasy element. What an embarrassment. Reywas92 Talk 21:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • No, iUniverse is commonly used to republish regular works which are out of print and that book was first published by the Carol Publishing Group in 1994. And its author has published many other works -- see her own article. So, that source is fine for our purpose and it's just one of a dozen that I listed. The essential point is that there's a huge amount of material about the topic out there and to claim otherwise is absurd. Compiling a list of notable fantasy worlds is quite straightforward and, as it will naturally be lengthy, it's reasonable to have a separate page as an index of our many pages about them. WP:LISTPURPS explains that this is a reasonable thing to do and the page has been meeting this need for over sixteen years now. There's no valid reason to delete it so what we have here is just drive-by, disruptive deletionism for its own sake. Andrew🐉( talk) 23:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - First of all, none of the points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE actually applies here. Or does it? If this is the only policy-based argument, I don't really see why we have this discussion.
- Next, the topic of the list is obviously notable according to WP:LISTN, since we have an indisputed article Fantasy world. (And in addition we have the sources provided by Andrew Davidson.) The fact that the article is not perfect, and may contain entries that don't belong here, is not reason for deletion as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.
- Seeing that the list contains many blue links, this list serves the purpose of navigation, one of the recognized purposes for the existence of lists.
- Since when has article size ever been a reason for deletion of a topic on Wikipedia!? If the length of the list is seen as a problem, the policy-based solution is not deletion but splitting according to WP:SPLITLIST.
- We have Category:Fantasy worlds, which I hope is uncontroversial. Having a list that parallels a category is in general viewed as beneficial according to WP:NOTDUPE.
- But is it advantageous in this case to have a list when we already have a category that an interested person could use for navigation? - Yes, definitely, because the list can do in compact form what the category cannot: Providing the novel/game/etc. and author(s) together with the bare name, wich is what the category gives us. Additionally, the list can contain worlds not notable enough to have their own article but notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia at all according to WP:LISTCRIT.
- But "What about the world created by my kid brother? Or the pretty awesome one our game master made few years ago": Easily solved, just apply the core content policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research.
- If this is still viewed as too open, that's again easily solved: Limit the entries to those notable by themselves (i.e. generally blue-linked ones) and those that can be supported by a secondary source as suggested by WP:CSC - a guideline specifically written to solve the problem of lists which would otherwise be perceived as indiscriminate!

So I can only summarize that I see all kinds of policies and guidelines suggesting keep and possibly improve ( WP:PRESERVE has already been mentioned in addition to all the ones I've listed), and none that suggest deletion. Daranios ( talk) 19:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The closest comparison I can make is making an article called List of corgis because we have an article on Corgis. It's going to be overbroad and serve no encyclopedic purpose. Just because an article exists doesn't mean an according list should be created for it.
Category:Fantasy worlds is equally problematic. It should really just be merged into Category:Fictional universes. There is frankly no difference. The articles on Lists of fictional universes are equally as problematic as this one but at least it's not totally superfluous. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 19:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Zxcvbnm: Are there notable Corgis? Enough (let's say more than five) to make a list sensible for navigational purposes? If the answer to both is yes, then that it's fine to have a List of Corgis is exactly what WP:LISTN says. If you think that's generally a bad idea, in my opinion you should ask if we should change WP:LISTN. As for Fantasy worlds and fictional universes being basically the same, please see my opinion at your answer to the first vote. Daranios ( talk) 20:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Zxcvbnm: Ah, yeah, and which of the four points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE would actually apply here? Until that has been clarified, I still think the deletion nomination is fundamentally flawed. Daranios ( talk) 09:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. I do not believe the argument for WP:INDISCRIMINATE has made successfully made. On the other hand WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRIT and WP:NOTDUPE are extremely valid points for this list, and their arguments have swayed me. And for the people arguing that a PLANET is the same as a UNIVERSE, well it's obvious the don't understand those words actual meaning and need to read the first sentence of both those articles before they weigh in again. Finally the argument that actually makes some sense is WP:CSC; remove all references to universes that don't have articles on their own. THAT I agree with. Timmccloud ( talk) 21:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Can we exactly define planet in terms of fantasy? Planet is a scientific term while "world" is a fantasy one. A fantasy "world" can range from a planet to a plane to a universe. However, even when the story is set on a world, its fundamental laws generally conform to that of its fictional universe. The author essentially must create a universe to create that world, so one is a total subset of the other. And when cruft is removed, the list is such a duplication that there is no need to retain it. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 23:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - It should be pointed out that the number of blue links is a bit misleading here. Many of them do not actually link to the articles on the worlds themselves, but to a broader topic such as the series or movie they appeared in. In addition, as mentioned, many of them don't fit the actual topic, either being not a fantasy world, or not a "world" at all (for example, can anyone remotely try to claim that the city of Riverdale (Archie Comics) could be honestly referred to as a "Fantasy World" as defined by our article on the topic?). If we can agree that this list should be culled to only contain entries that A) have actual independent Wikipedia articles on the world itself and B) actually fit the definition of a Fantasy world, then yes, I agree that this would be a perfectly valid navigational list. However, that would mean removing almost the entirety of the current list - the category linked to above is a fairly accurate representation of the number of entries that would remain here, which is a fraction of what is currently here. If people can agree that removing most of the current list is an uncontroversial cleanup (and maybe have the lead be expanded to more clearly state the criteria for inclusion, so it just does not become another huge mess over time), then I think this could actually be salvaged per Daranios' argument. Rorshacma ( talk) 21:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    A substantial number of those in Category:Fantasy worlds are already in List of fictional universes in literature, and many more, while not listed in that or its sibling pages, are also described in their articles as "universes" rather than strictly "worlds". Most of those not listed are also from gaming which isn't part of the universe lists but I suppose could be. If a salvaged shorter list is heavily duplicative I don't see the point of it. Reywas92 Talk 22:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Reywas92: I've written why I see the merit of the distinction by genre below. If you think otherwise, why are you voting deletion rather than a merge of the lists (and the List of science fiction universes, another list by genre, if we're at it), in the spirit of WP:AtD? Daranios ( talk) 13:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Probably because there is nothing from this list that can be merged. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Zxcvbnm: How do you come to this conclusion, given that there are at least some blue-linked entries remaining in this list which are not covered in List of science fiction universes? Daranios ( talk) 20:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Pretty much an unmanageable, indiscriminate list. Outside of the criteria for fantasy world not being concrete enough for proper inclusion criteria to be established, it's just always going basically just end up as a list of fantasy books anyway. TTN ( talk) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I find it weird that the topic is described as too extensive, and the broader topic, List of fictional universes in literature, is described as the better alternative, and both are used as arguments against the existence of this list. That seems... contradictory. So maybe the truth is in the middle, that neither argument applies?
I think there are good reasons why we have articles for both fantasy world and fictional universe, and both corresponding list have their merit for navigational purposes. As a reader, I may be interested in the broader topic of fictional creations. But I think we can be sure that some readers will be interested in worlds specifically of the fantasy genre, and would not like to personally sort out entries from sci-fi, etc. Note also that the List of fictional universes in literature has not way to distinguish by genre except, for part of the cases, by reading through all text. Daranios ( talk) 09:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- Redundant to numerous other lists of fictional universes, and this one is probably the worst of the lot. No clear inclusion criteria, little to no sourcing, and with no navigational value. The concept of a fictional universe is of course notable, but that doesn't justify an endless procession of functionally identical lists. Even fansites like TVTropes and Wikia have the discretion to say "one page per topic". Reyk YO! 10:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Interesting template. Looking there, I see it links to Planets in science fiction and List of science fiction universes. Those in my view are equivalent to our list here, giving the setting in the context of the genre. So they make as much or little sense as this one, and we should either advocate to delete all three or keep all three. My vote is on keep. Daranios ( talk) 12:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
No, it's definitely not something we need. Actually, we need to merge all the lists back into List of fictional universes because there are enough to fit them in a single list article if we pare it down to only bluelinked articles. The only reason it was split into genres was due to all the fancruft. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Another thing, seeing that "no clear inclusion criteria" has now been claimed as a reason for deletion multiple times. We have an article fantasy world. So including what conforms to that article (and of course following the policies of Wikipedia to avoid an indiscriminate amount of entries) gives us an inclusion criterion. But if this is still not clear enough for some reason, defining clearer criteria for inclusion is something that can easily be done. WP:AtD tells us "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." So as "no clear inclusion criteria" can be solved, this is no argument for deletion according to Wikipedia's deletion policy. Daranios ( talk) 12:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I eliminated any entry that didn't have a link to an article. Not everything here is listed elsewhere. Valid list for navigation. Inclusion criteria is clearly listed now at the top of the article. Dream Focus 16:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but cleanup. Andrew Davidson has shown it obviously satisfies LISTN. Merger with the various lists of fictional universes is ruled out, because the latter incorporate science fiction as well and are broader(?). Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Since it looks like the massive cleanup has been agreed to, and it currently underway, I agree with Keeping as a navigational list. There's still some work to do (while the obvious non-notable entries have been removed, there's still the work of going through and removing the ones that really don't fit the bill of a Fantasy world), but great progress has already been taken. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly satisfies guidelines as a navigational list. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT wears many hats: small list = "it's useless, trivial", large list = "it's too expansive, unmanageable". Fantasy worlds is clearly a notable topic so List of Fantasy Worlds is an appropriate list, all it needs is a little TLC and it should make a perfectly decent featured list. Oh, and WP:CLN is met. Jclemens ( talk) 04:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, clearly a useful list, just needs cleanup. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 11:32, 14 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 08:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Rukmini Devi Institute of Advanced Studies (RDIAS)

Rukmini Devi Institute of Advanced Studies (RDIAS) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. All the references fail to show significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is pretty much WP:ADMASQ, declined at AFC and moved here by the creating editor. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 04:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as none of the reference establish notability. HighKing ++ 19:32, 13 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. ✗ plicit 08:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Minah Bird

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

Actress who only played minor supporting roles. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable independent references. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  – Since she lived in the 20th century, an online BEFORE is not likely to bring up much. She is however notable for her work in the 70s. An African immigrant lady with named roles for that time is laudable. It also does not help that there's a bird named " Myna. Searching "Myna Bird" in Google books however brings up the following which suggest that more OFFLINE sources exist and the subject meets WP:BASIC;
Described as the 'only major black starlet in British sex films'
Described as a starlet
Described as socialite who fell from grace
Other mentions: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Princess of Ara(talk) 09:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I would agree that the first source is significant, but all of the others are entirely trivial. This snippet view source " Described as a starlet" is a tabloid type article and not encyclopedic or significant per WP:NOTTABLOID. This ":: Described as socialite who fell from grace" is a personal reminiscence lacking independence which uses her suicide as a moral fable but gives no analysis or discussion of her career to be considered significant. All of the other sources ( [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]) are trivial name drops or personal stories that are totally insignificant. For example, the first (and 4th as you gave it twice) of those sources describes using her for sex off camera; and is a rather disgusting tale of male conquest. With only one source rising to the level of coverage to meet notability, she still does not meet WP:BASIC.
With all do respect, I spend most of my time writing on entertainers/performers from the 19th and 20th centuries and have the research skills and access through my university library to historical newspapers and entertainment publications going back to even the 1800s. Miss Bird was not mentioned in detail in film reviews that I could find after going through several archive searches in PROQUEST, JSTOR, and other databases. Granted not everything has been digitized, but I did go through Variety, Billboard, The Stage, The Guardian, The Observer, The Times, etc. I also searched the Entertainment Publications archive in PROQUEST which has digitized most of Britain’s major film and television related magazines of the 1970s. In reviews, Miss Bird was either not mentioned at all or relegated to an un-named character list of "other actors" when they were because she was not in any leading or notable secondary /supporting roles. None of it was significant coverage. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 13:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Quite unfortunately, I don't have access to similar resources or databases but tried my best to optimise the ones within my reach. I decided to participate in this debate because of her Nigerian origin and found her story quite interesting. The other trivial mentions only point to the fact that she probably has more OFFLINE coverage and is most likely notable. Since we have one significant source, I've taken another deep dive.
  • Keep The Times says that "She starred in many films, such as Up Pompeii..." and so she passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Um... her role in that film was "Girl Bather" and was very brief and minor and not even a credited role in the movie. A lot of the problem with the sources being listed here is that they are full of puffery. An uncredited film role with less than a minute of screen time and little or no dialogue is not a starring part. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:19, 7 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Packing House Corner, Delaware

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

Another Sussex County notability nadir case, and for this one the only thing I can find out is that there is a family cemetery nearby. Older aerials and topos show a building in the center of the intersection, and you can still see the foundation, but we're talking a small building, 45 feet (14 m) on a side or so. There's a large turkey farm a short ways east, and that's pretty much it. There is a road sign, though it's rather odd, and I'm not convinced that it's official. In a few other cases I've let that tip the balance, but there is just nothing here to go by unless someone can find a lot of newspaper coverage that explains it. Mangoe ( talk) 03:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. This Google Book search looks promising, but I can't read the snippet. History of Sussex County may be helpful. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - can't access the snippet for the first book linked by Eastmain, but it appears to be a self-published genealogy book, which likely isn't going to be useful for these purposes as it probably isn't reliable. The History of Sussex County PDF linked above does not seem to mention this place so far as I can tell. Searching in newspapers.com finds results calling this a named crossroads/intersection. Name seems to come from the fact that a packing house was here until it burned down in 1973; the article referencing the fire has the name "Packing House Corner" in quotation marks, which seems to suggest this isn't an actual community. This seems to have just been a road junction with an old packing house. Hog Farm Talk 20:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree with Hog Farm about the descendants of Houston book, it is probably self-published. GBooks had very little of note. The 1966 USGS book calls it a locality whereas GNIS calls it a populated place. Past experience has shown that the GNIS is often not correct when it comes to populated place. JStor had nothing. Newspapers.com had little of note, I found the article about the 1973 fire. I'm not sure if anyone lived at Packing House Corner, though I found a mention of Packing House Corner in a list of communities. I found a mention of a chimney fire, though it might not have been a house. As this locale is not legally recognized, it does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. As all the coverage is at best trivial, this location is non-notable and does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx ( talk) 19:04, 8 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

King Biba

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

Only source is a website connected to the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NMUSIC. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Sources are non-existent besides the single website listed, which while it doesn't seem reliable, it certainly isn't connected to the subject as the nominator suggests. The subject seems to have been a local figure in Iraq, but as far as I can see no online sources exist. There may be offline sources, but none are listed in WorldCat. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails to meet GNG based on my searches of English language sources. Watchlisting this in case new sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 11:58, 13 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Jim Koehler

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

Fails general notability guideline. A search turns up no reliable independent sources regarding the subject, only his racing team website along with a host of Wikipedia mirrors. Sable232 ( talk) 23:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete : I agree with the rationale of Sable232, many references are found upon search but none meet significant coverage of Koehler except 1 TV news interview ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuu1emmaNLA), all others I found are just a mention as a competitor in what appears to be local races. This page has been around for 15+ years so subject matter experts should weigh in and add sources if needed. If notified of new WP:RS sources with significant coverage I would revise this vote. CosmicNotes ( talk) 08:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep: The statement that a search returns "no reliable independent sources" is not correct. A Google news search returned many including Detroit Free Press. An interested editor could improve this article. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 13:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I ran his professional name through a search and got only fan sites, blogs, and event listings. These generally don't meet WP:RS for reliable independent coverage as the content is self-generated with no fact checking or editorial oversite. Blue Riband► 11:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I have not found any evidence of the claimed coverage.
    5225C ( talk • contributions) 08:40, 12 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_7&oldid=1039021794"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 06 August 08 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Modern Pascal

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

Non-encyclopedical and promotional article about hardly notable proprietary software. Andrej Shadura ( talk) 20:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Andrej Shadura ( talk) 20:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was about to say that whoever wrote this article lacks basic programming knowledge when I saw the notes on the talk page. So, it's maintained by the owners of this software. In such case there is little point in trying to improve it. The article is saying that the subject doesn't need Apache or IIS. The same can be said about any programming language. The website mentions that the subject is a scripting engine for Apache... Later on the article is saying that the subject is no longer a simple scripting engine because it supports external libraries. Comparing the subject to Java was really bold. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 22:19, 31 July 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 23:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There are only two references in the article; one is to the developer's web site and the other is a blog post by the developer. By a Google search I have not been able to find a single reliable source discussing the language, only forum posts and passing mentions that don't contribute to notability. On the article talk page, the developer himself said (just a few months ago in February 2021) that the language "does not have much 'online reference'" and that "once finished and accepted", their customers "may publish product information, allowing us to reference full third-party opinion". So apparently even the language developer is unaware of any in-depth coverage of the language in reliable sources. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON. CodeTalker ( talk) 01:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article needs a rewrite by someone without a COI, but there aren't enough additional sources of information to do one. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 12:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails GNG. OCLC  22190678 notes existence of an academic report on it, but is unpublished. WIKINIGHTS  talk 02:06, 13 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) 05:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Christian Rosa

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

Previous nomination was "no consensus" with little participation. I'm not seeing any significant coverage in strong third party sources. The Vice articles is about his mentor, and the Variety article is a review of a film he was executive producer on. As far as WP:CREATIVE, I don't see anything about him having permanent works in a major collection, or obviously meeting any of the other criteria. ArtNet might qualify as an RS, though an editor to the article seems very adamant about not including recent articles about Rosa from Artnet. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I found another in-depth mention in the Observer. --- Possibly ☎ 20:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there are enough reviews in RS to easily pass WP:GNG even if many of the sources slight his work. Some of his pieces reportedly selling for over $200K adds credibility if not notability as well. Curiocurio ( talk) 01:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Curiocurio:, as far as I know, sale prices of artworks have zero impact on notability here. I have never seen it mentioned in any policy or guideline. The main reason something sells for a high price is a result of there being a buyer with lots of money who wants the work, as well as other market factors. A big ticket art sale is not based on what we find useful for judging notability: writers and critics providing critical opinions. Without the rich people, you have no story there; said another way, rich people do not have any input on who we consider notable. --- Possibly ☎ 02:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree that auction prices do not contribute to notability, but at the same time it's hard to command those sorts of prices without some sort of critical attention (although it does happen). I think reviews in the Observer, Guardian, L. A. Times, and N.Y. Times (from the first AFD) are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio ( talk) 13:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I should note that only one of his works have sold for over 200k back in the early 2010's when he was for a short time hot, more recently, his works have sold for less than 50k. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I made an effort and found 10 examples of very strong coverage recognizing his work and creativity for also WP:CREATIVE, from White Cube Gallery, Nowness, the Guardian, Zeit, Artforum, Coveteur, Harpers Bazaar to THE People from the Art’s field. See Simon de Pury photographing Mr. Rosas at his own studio ( see link). Happy to include these links for accuracy on the page.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/arts/international/galleries-try-to-find-their-niche.html?_r=0 2. http://www.welt.de/kultur/kunst-und-architektur/article136996297/Rosa-ist-gross-unerwachsen-und-transformierwillig.html 3. https://harpersbazaar.uol.com.br/cultura/christina-rosa-mais-que-nada/ 4. http://www.complex.com/style/2014/01/artists-to-watch-2014/christian-rosa 5. http://whitecube.com/artists/christian_rosa/ 6. https://www.nowness.com/story/christian-rosa 7. https://coveteur.com/2017/07/13/artist-christian-rosa-painter-leonardo-dicaprio-jay-z/ 8. https://www.welt.de/kultur/kunst-und-architektur/article136996297/Rosa-ist-gross-unerwachsen-und-transformierwillig.html 9. https://www.kunstverein-heilbronn.de/node/316 10. http://cargocollective.com/flatsurface/Christian-Rosa 11. https://whitecube.com/exhibitions/exhibition/christian_rosa_sao_paulo_2015 12. https://www.thedailybeast.com/simon-de-purys-studio-tours-of-los-angeles-artists-photos Further two publications of Christian Rosa were published so far over Snoeck Publishing : 15. https://www.apollo-magazine.com/provisional-painting-or-slacker-abstraction-christian-rosa-at-white-cube/ 16. https://www.kunstverein-heilbronn.de/node/316 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panghea ( talk • contribs) — Panghea ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: User Panghea has not responded to COI notices and a request for clarification on the COIN noticeboard. --- Possibly ☎ 20:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations ( talk) 19:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The 2015 article in Apollo which I added as a reference includes discussion of the critical reception elsewhere of the artist's work. That, along with the Anne Phillipi's 2015 Die Welt article and other reviews from critics such as Laura Cumming (also added as a reference), and possibly a David Geers article in frieze which no longer appears to be available online, is indicative of the attention needed for WP:NARTIST criterion 4(c). AllyD ( talk) 08:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per the sources provided here and the previous deletion discussion on Rosa's talk page, the reasons for keeping are stronger than 5 years ago. There is enough for a WP:GNG pass and Rosa's 2011 Walter Koschatzky Art Prize win passes WP:ANYBIO as well. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 13:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Coverage and prize easily enough. Sheijiashaojun ( talk) 01:31, 15 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. Arguments such as "is notable" (without explanation) and "per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES" are highly discounted (and the latter suggests the commenter may not have read that page recently), but enough RS coverage was brought forward to support a WP:GNG claim. RL0919 ( talk) 05:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Kadjebi-Asato Secondary School

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

Non-notable school; sources cited are all primary and/or don't provide sigcov, and a search finds nothing of substance. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 18:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 18:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 18:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 18:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Adequate coverage by ModernGhana.com and myshsrank.com Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This school article is notable and verifiable. Jwale2 ( talk) 12:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This school article is notable and verifiable. daSupremo [talk] 12:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment just saying 'notable and verifiable' is not a meaningful argument — 'notable' how? None of the sources cited are secondary and WP:RS, which is what notability requires. Sorry, but you need to present some actual evidence, not just your opinions. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 20:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. None of the sources provided are providing WP:SIGCOV. The source indeed prove that the schools existed, but none of them are providing significant coverage. Myshsrank.com looks just like a directory of schools, which in my opinion, does not satisfy notability. The source modernghana.com is quite reliable, but it does not provide WP:SIGCOV and only covers about the school's sport achievements, which in my opinion, does not satisfy notability. SunDawn talk 08:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I've added a couple of additional sources. The school has received local news coverage which I believe establishes notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate sourcing provided by NemesisAT a couple of days ago. Note that I significantly discounted Jwale2 and daSupremo's contributions when assessing whether consensus already existed or not. Further, I found SunDawn's contribution more persuasive than Eastmain.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Originally was going with delete until I found out we have an article on ModernGhana - Sources aren't great and shite like the school directories and Youtube videos should be removed but by a very bare minimum I'm seeing some notability here... not much mind but enough to push me into Keeping. – Davey2010 Talk 20:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - we invariably keep high schools as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - especially those that are 60-years old with thousands of students. I'm not sure what is different here, other than it being in Africa. Also meets GNG with references added to article, and other easily findable recent coverage such as One and two, and [ three]. I have no doubt there's be references older than the last year or so, if there was an archive of the last 60 years of Ghanian news. Nfitz ( talk) 18:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Bryan M. Ferguson

AfDs for this article:
Bryan M. Ferguson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. KnightMight ( talk) 14:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KnightMight ( talk) 14:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment So you just said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan M. Ferguson (2nd nomination), closed with no consensus less than a fornight ago. I'm no advocate of the article but if "Not notable" wasn't enough to convince anyone, the redundant addition of "...enough to be on Wikipedia" seems unlikely to swing it this time. You'll have to lay out the specifics as to why the numerous citations don't cut it in your view. Nobody's likely to check them all without a steer from you. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 18:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 21:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete more information is not better. Music video creators are very rarely notable, and there is nothing here that suggests an exception to this rule. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Already a lengthy article with plenty of sources. Yes, a lot of the sources are interviews, but this still demonstrates that people are talking about the subject. Bringing all this information together into one article is helpful for our readers, improves Wikipedia, and thus this article should be kept. NemesisAT ( talk) 21:05, 8 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) 05:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Amotz Plessner

AfDs for this article:
Amotz Plessner (  | 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, especially significant coverage. Since closing of the previous discussion, which resulted in delete, no significant coverage could be presented. Throast ( talk | contribs) 23:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Throast ( talk | contribs) 23:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 21:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 12:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Interestingly, the current nominator voted to keep the article during the first AfD in 2016. The problem back then was the "there must be sources" fallacy for a composer who has a lot of credits in notable movies and TV shows. Well, there are still no sources for someone who should maybe have some. Plessner has never received any significant media coverage in his own right. It looks like he may have once been interviewed by a magazine but that link is dead. Otherwise he is only visible in basic professional directories and lists of credits. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I don't think noting how I voted the first time around is of relevance at all. My keep argument back in 2016 (five years ago now) was obviously flawed. This is about as obvious a case of lack of significant coverage as they come. Throast ( talk | contribs) 21:45, 14 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 Procedural close. It's a little early, but I'm here now and the only plausible outcome for this is a procedural close. Evaluating so many articles in one AfD would be tough in any case, but with variations in article state, and with the subjects being from different countries (implying the need to consider possible sources in different languages), a big group nomination was definitely the wrong approach. No prejudice against speedy renomination or even using WP:PROD for eligible articles. RL0919 ( talk) 21:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Lexi Wilson

Lexi Wilson (  | 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 one of about 40 biographies related to pageant contestants at Miss Universe 2013. There's evidence that many of them were created by a paid-editing sockfarm; the SPI states that the pageant organizer was the editor. None of these appears to be notable under the WP:BLP1E policy, none has anything like references that would sustain WP:ANYBIO. Many articles are sourced to Facebook, Instagram, and blogs; and google searches return many sites we don’t recognize as RS. For !voters not familiar with the beauty pageant space please refer to WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources to identify bad sources. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following because of the reasons stated above -- creation by the sockfarm/UPE editor for many, and poor sourcing:

☆ Bri ( talk) 23:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Bundling about 40 more biographies from Miss Universe 2014 pageant. Every article bundled below was created by a beauty pageant sockfarm (mostly the sockfarm referenced above), appears to be BLP1E, and has minimal sourcing.

☆ Bri ( talk) 02:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following. Miss Universe 2015 biographies. All nominations below are created by sockfarms and suit BLP1E.

☆ Bri ( talk) 02:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There are way too many articles of various quality and notability to review for one AfD. BabbaQ ( talk) 16:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: Agree with BabbaQ. Some articles have been decently brushed off or changed completely since they were started years ago. The beauty pageants from your list that I checked were notable, and sources were OK. Some were not up-to-date. Feel free to nominate for deletion articles written as advertisements, and ask for better sources if needed, but nomination of all these articles is a step too far. Vysotsky ( talk) 19:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • But if needed I lean towards Keep and then re-nominate a smaller number of articles or the individual articles that are not notable. As I stated above these are too many articles of different notability. BabbaQ ( talk) 11:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep, without prejudice to re-nominating in smaller, more manageable groups. Per the above comments, such a large AfD is impossible to discuss, and many of the articles have received substantial input by editors other than the creator. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 19:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I think what is needed is an RfC on notability of national pageant winners and (as has been already said) individual nominations of the above as appropriate. Furius ( talk) 13:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The Set-Up (1995 film)

The Set-Up (1995 film) (  | 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:NFSOURCES; I found little to no coverage about this film. The Film Creator ( talk) 22:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No sources? Within seconds found a review at TV Guide [1] and Variety [2] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: 1995 is a bit of a tough year (among recent decades) for sourcing pop culture because the internet was new, but I've added a few more sources. It was a movie release on a major American pay television network, made by a major studio, I think it is notable.-- Milowent • has spoken 13:45, 11 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 00:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Gursimran Singh

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

This individual does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO as the sources do not demonstrate in-depth coverage. There are some routine mentions in school-level and regional-level hockey match reports and an announcement of him being appointed as vice president of a regional body. According to FIH there isn't any player with that name who has played at the international level, so the claim of him representing India in 3 matches is false. The article seems to have been extensively edited by the subject himself. Dee 03 21:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2018-09 ✍️ create
-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I don't see a consensus for a merge to the state article. That's not typical practice for non-notable places that fail GEOLAND, and it strikes me as UNDUE. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Piney Grove Manor, Delaware

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

A grandly named subdivision backing onto a sand pit and an asphalt plant, entered into GNIS from a county road map. This doesn't afford the kind of official recognition WP:GEOLAND expects, and there's no other claim to notability. Mangoe ( talk) 21:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Subdivision fails GEOLAND and GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 21:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - subdivision, coverage is not significant. Neither WP:GNG nor WP:GEOLAND is met. Hog Farm Talk 19:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non-notable subdivision. GBooks has only passing references in geographic lists. Newspapers.com has trivial non-notable coverage concerning the subdivision. JStor had nothing. As this location is not legally recognized, it does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. As there is no notable coverage WP:GNG and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. Cxbrx ( talk) 12:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Delaware. It can be listed as an unincorporated place in the Municipalities section. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 13:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I don't see a consensus for a merge to the state article. That's not typical practice for non-notable places that fail GEOLAND, and it strikes me as UNDUE. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Holiday Acres, Delaware

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

The name all but shouts "subdivision", and in fact it is a grander-than-usual mobile home park. Another entry courtesy the county road map, with no other claim for notability. Mangoe ( talk) 21:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable mobile home park, fails GEOLAND and GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 21:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - trailer park that fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm Talk 17:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Non-notable trailer park. Newspapers.com has a number of brief obits that mention this location. Newspapers.com has one passing mention that describes the park. GBooks says that in 1994, there were 36 homes. The coverage is trivial for this non-notable location, so WP:GNG and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. This location is not legally recognized so #1 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. Cxbrx ( talk) 19:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Delaware. It can be listed as an unincorporated place in the Municipalities section. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 13:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I see now reason why mention of this place would be WP:DUE in the overall state article. Hog Farm Talk 13:20, 13 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Abdillah El Oufir

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

PROD rationale was Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE from the sources presented and from a quick search. The prizes that he is said to have won are not sufficient enough to count as an WP:ANYBIO pass.

Contested with Improvement of WP:ANYBIO wish it was removed due to lack of valid information about the prizes that the article says.

Still not convinced that there is enough notability here. Source analysis to follow. Nothing decent found in a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://femmesdumaroc.com/actualite/les-grands-gagnants-du-concours-international-de-films-courts-ana-maghribia-devoiles-45658 Yes ? No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.networthspot.com/abdillah-el-oufir/net-worth/ No No Totally unreliable database scraper with no reputation for fact checking No Coverage is trivial ✘ No
https://lnt.ma/video-youtubeur-tourne-derision-service-militaire/ Yes Yes No Has one sentence about him ✘ No
https://www.medi1tv.com/ar/%D9%85%D8%B9-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%88%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%88-%D8%A3%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%AC-57440-225 Yes Yes No Appearing as a guest on a news program is not enough to justify a stand-alone article on its own. ✘ No
https://vcc.careercenter.ma/vcc/fiche-evenement/5/5541 No No No I can't see where he is mentioned ✘ No
https://iq-tik.ixspy.com/influencers/detail/6766279185335944198_abdillah.eloufir Yes No No Social media stats page ✘ No
https://www.picuki.com/media/2162027830576204357 No No Self-published No Social media post with very little coverage ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
  • Delete – I agree with Spiderone that none of the sources currently in the article are adequate, and my searches find nothing else that could constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails the GNG/ WP:BASIC. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Spiderone We made some changes to the previous post to improve the theme by replacing the more reliable and notable links. Jhonricke ( talk) 23:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
this and this were added but neither of them show significant coverage (see WP:SIGCOV so my opinion is still 'delete' Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Spiderone This is a new stub. This topic isn't reliable enough at the moment, but it will take longer to finish with serious research. It shouldn't be abandoned until further notice. Jhonricke ( talk) 11:14, 8 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of AFC Asian Cup penalty shoot-outs

List of AFC Asian Cup penalty shoot-outs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Lists of penalty shoot-outs, where I raised notability concerns about this topic, I still have some concerns. This is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these penalty shoot-outs have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS.

Due to the wide variety of languages spoken in Asia, it's impossible to do a completely comprehensive WP:BEFORE search. Yet again, I found significant coverage of individual instances, such as Reuters and BBC Arabic but struggled to find any analysis or coverage of them as a group. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 7 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Africa Cup of Nations penalty shoot-outs

List of Africa Cup of Nations penalty shoot-outs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Lists of penalty shoot-outs, where I raised notability concerns about this topic, I still have some concerns. This is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these penalty shoot-outs have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS.

Some of the finals have been decided on penalties, most famously 2015 Africa Cup of Nations Final and 1992 African Cup of Nations Final but these have their own articles. Whilst some of the individual matches do receive significant coverage, such as Goal.com on 1992 and Guardian on 2015, the shoot-outs, as a group, do not appear to have received much in the way of coverage or analysis. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 7 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, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Jesse Boone

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

Fails (1) WP:NGRIDIRON (never appeared in a regular season game in the NFL or other qualifying league -- NFL Europe and UFL are not qualifying leagues), (2) WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or Halls of Fame), (3) WP:NBUSINESSPERSON (his small, local real estate practice is not qualifying); and (4) WP:GNG (my searches in both Google and Newspapers.com fail to turn up WP:SIGCOV outside of this and this -- both from The Salt Lake Tribune and GNG requires multiple reliable sources). In addition, much of the content (including early years, college career, education, and personal) is unsourced, raising BLP concerns. Cbl62 ( talk) 09:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The newspaper clippings include a couple non-trivial mentions but do not provide sufficient independent SIGCOV to meet GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    What, to you, would constitute significant coverage? It sure looks significant enough to me, and there are sources from several different media markets, not just Utah. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 00:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the provided sources would be useful in determining consensus; as things stand it isn't clear whether they are substantive enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep To me, I think three pieces of SIGCOV from different sources is enough to meet GNG. The two sources found by Cbl62 are SIGCOV (same newspaper), while I would say the first found by Editorofthewiki also is; I'm unsure about the second he listed; pieces three and four don't seem to be significant. This, that I've found in Deseret News, seems SIGCOV to me, convincing me that Boone is a weak GNG pass. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:18, 7 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of CONCACAF Gold Cup penalty shoot-outs

List of CONCACAF Gold Cup penalty shoot-outs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Lists of penalty shoot-outs, where I raised notability concerns about this topic, I still have some concerns. This is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these penalty shoot-outs have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS.

I don't believe that we've had a discussion on the notability of these lists before, and there are quite a few of them. The only slightly similar discussion that has occurred before was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national football teams by penalty shootout record. I have decided to nominate the articles for deletion separately as to bundle them would be a WP:TRAINWRECK.

For this tournament, I can find reports on some of the individual shoot-outs (e.g. 2019 and 2015) but no coverage or analysis of them as a group. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:24, 7 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) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Kaszëbskô Jednota

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

The page does not cotain much neutral content. It has positive and unsourced content which is probably original research or direct translation from some promotional material. Most sources are not neutral while looking at their titles alone. The claims are not supported by any English sources, only by Polish ones, though it isn't so important. What is important, though, that it does not really abide by WP:ORGCRIT. Also, I'll ignore the first 3 references, as they are primary sources. The first reference is a passing mention of a quote by the former leader of the organisation. The second one is acceptable, though it calls the organisation "Kashubs". The third is similar. The fourth cotains a quote of an organisation member. The fifth mentions two organisations on the same level in a video interview. The sixth reference includes a quote and some other stuff from the organisation, which is considered mentions. The seventh reference basically says that the organisation is fighting for Kashubians' independence. So, I wouldn't say these were the best sources. Alongside that, it has many other issues listed on the top of the article. MatEditzWiki ( talk) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MatEditzWiki ( talk) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MatEditzWiki ( talk) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of FIFA Confederations Cup penalty shoot-outs

List of FIFA Confederations Cup penalty shoot-outs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following on from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Lists of penalty shoot-outs, where I raised notability concerns about this topic, I still have some concerns. This is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these penalty shoot-outs have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS.

I don't believe that we've had a discussion on the notability of these lists before, and there are quite a few of them. The only slightly similar discussion that has occurred before was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national football teams by penalty shootout record. I have decided to nominate the articles for deletion separately as to bundle them would be a WP:TRAINWRECK. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:23, 7 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

2021 Pentagon attack

2021 Pentagon attack (  | 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 event Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The outcome of this hinges largely on whether the position this individual holds counts towards WP:PROF#5. Most users address this in their !votes, and while there's clearly legitimate room for disagreement, I do not see anything to overcome the numerical tilt in those arguments. Vanamonde ( Talk) 01:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

D. N. Samarasekera

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

I originally created this bio as I thought that the Chair he holds was sufficient to pass WP:PROF ("The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon"), but looking at his academic output on Google Scholar I am no longer convinced that the unnamed Chair in this instance is enough to carry it over the line. Uhooep ( talk) 15:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • delete I agree that his GS profile is too weak of WP:NPROF#1 and that he does not have a named chair, so NPROF#5 doesnt apply. Also no indication of any awards and the memberships (Royal college of surgeons) are not selective enough. -- hroest 18:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The newspaper article about the legal squabble over whether he was qualified to be given his post over a seemingly-more-qualified competitor [7], the only independent source in the article, makes interesting reading, but I don't think it's enough for WP:GNG-type notability. And I agree with the previous comments that we don't have any real suggestion of WP:PROF-notability; it seems like his post is more or less a standard professorship, not one at the level of a distinguished professorship, and being department chair is also too low an administrative position for automatic notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, should have been a procedural delete in that the article's creator is proposing the article be deleted. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NSCHOLAR/ WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt ( talk) 04:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:PROF #5: The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. Prestigious chairs at American universities tend to be named; equivalent chairs at universities elsewhere in the world tend not to be. This is why the second clause exists; otherwise this whole section would be biased in favour of American academics. It's amazing how many editors (as all three above) conveniently ignore this clause and fixate only on the "named chair" one. He holds the Chair of Surgery (not just a personal chair) and is also a senior professor, which probably meets the "distinguished professor" criterion too (again, this latter tends to be an American thing). [8] -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree with Necrothesp: having held "the Chair in Surgery" (more than just a personal professorship) at a significant university outside the United States is indicative of meeting criterion 5 of WP:PROF. Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. The position doesn't look to be comparable to a named chair (in particular, there is another person in the small surgery department of the University of Colombo with a chair professor of surgery). Citations are weak for WP:NPROF C1, no other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 15:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • There are three professors in the department. Of these, two hold established chairs and one holds a personal chair. Established chairs (i.e. those which always exist and are held by a succession of people appointed to them, as opposed to personal chairs which are conferred on an individual for the term of their tenure) in universities of the Commonwealth tradition are equivalent to named chairs in the modern American tradition. Named chairs are not that common in Commonwealth universities. The concept that chairs that are named, usually after an individual or foundation that endowed them, are somehow automatically more prestigious than those that are not is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding of how these things work outside America. The holder of any chair that is established by a major university meets the requirements of WP:PROF #5. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • But very very few places in the US have 2/3 of their faculty having named chairs. Hobit ( talk) 18:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Actually, the department has twelve academic staff (I suspect there may be some confusion here about the term "professors" - only in America are all academics known as professors; elsewhere, "professor" only refers to those who hold chairs), of whom two hold established chairs. I'm no mathematical expert, but that is certainly not two thirds! I make it one sixth! Plenty of departments in American universities have one sixth (or more) of their faculty holding named chairs. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. His position does not seem to be equivalent to a named chair, and even among Sri Lankan surgeons his citation record is below the median. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:02, 10 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 00:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Eleanor Seigler

Eleanor Seigler (  | 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, non-active actress. Only source present is about her husband, not her. Searches bring up few results, just passing mentions to her role on The Office. Fails GNG – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, inclined to agree with nominator, as this is someone who has seemingly just had very minor roles in a handful of shows which doesn't indicate any particular notability. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 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 African Minifootball Cup#Results. Vanamonde ( Talk) 01:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

2021 African Minifootball Cup

2021 African Minifootball Cup (  | 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. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I m sorry but this is crazy this sport is kinda ne and i have link to result i dont kno i should do more you can find video of compt in youtube dear in such way e only should pub football artical only so ho e can kno other sport i m out e try to make it clear that e love this port but you pp just keep delting without even make any effore of searching — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amara94 ( talk • contribs)

Having videos on YouTube does not make a topic automatically notable Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to African Minifootball Cup#Results as a valid WP:ATD. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. There's also an article for the 2018 tournament, which is also questionable at best. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • So beach soocer is questionable and thousand of sport that i can find here because i never see an event of them before personally because you say video its not a source 1st it start since 2017 i don t think that the website of Wmf just a big lie of years the problem that the media don t cover it for a reason its not that popular sport so there's no revenue from cover it so lets just stop talking about news sport and lets name it wiki popular sport so pp don t waste their time trying to explain new sport event in the World and thank you and its not myprobleme that most of artical are in frensh or arabic main 2 language in africa.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amara94 ( talk • contribs)
If there is significant coverage in reliable French or Arabic sources then please link us to those. The sources do not need to be in English. If there are some articles on beach soccer events of questionable notability then please feel free to put them up for deletion in a separate discussion. The reason this is up for discussion is because nobody has found any evidence that this passes WP:GNG, a statement that still seems to be valid. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • so explain the problem its it ith the event it self or the result off matchs ? because i found some result not all of them in press and i m sorry
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Niklas Stråhlén

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

I couldn't find specific guidelines for windsurfers, but it doesn't seem to meet any sports or general notability guideline, but borderline. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years, hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 14:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. For disclosure, I don't know anything about windsurfing, but it's not a completely unknown activity – there are plenty of windsurfers out there. Apparently he was at least at one point ranked as the first (a shared first rank) professional freestyle surfer in Europe. This seems notable to me. I've fixed the reference to one article and added another. / Julle ( talk) 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Also added Swedish and Nordic Championships wins, and competing in the World Championship. / Julle ( talk) 15:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per Julles improvements. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 16:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw nomination per great comments above and improvements. Thanks to both of you :) Boleyn ( talk) 17:07, 7 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Slow Roosevelt

Slow Roosevelt (  | 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. Boleyn ( talk) 14:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article is full of promotional peacock words about how the band "started it all for hard rock" - a style that existed for decades previously, and were "Grandfathers of modern Dallas metal" - which is not a known sub-genre. Article was created in 2009 by either a fan or member who then disappeared from WP. The band did get a fairly decent write up in a local paper, which shows as a dead link in the article but can now be found here: [9]. I can find nothing else beyond brief and very local gig announcements and some songs in the usual streaming services, and even those are rare. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doomsdayer said it best, as usual. Also, the introduction is very PR/fansite-like: "Slow Roosevelt (1996-2004) was one of the premier hard rock acts in the famous Deep Ellum music during its peak from 1999-2004. Although other bands in that genre were on the scene (e.g., Drowning Pool and Jibe), Slow Roosevelt was the band that started it all for hard rock during that time.[citation needed] Considered the Grandfathers of modern Dallas metal, the band accomplished many successes such as a nationally released album..." with no sources to back it up. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 19:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Promotional in tone, and lacking the sources to satisfy WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. -- Kinu  t/ c 18:24, 12 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. ✗ plicit 13:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Union Bay Post Office

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

I couldn't establish that it has the coverage or significance to meet WP:N Boleyn ( talk) 13:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Being one of two surviving wooden post offices in Canada is impressive. The article says that it was given heritage building status after the restoration, but this may just be by the local municipality rather than a national recognition. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I added a newspaper article from the Comox Valley Record as a reference. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 16:36, 7 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. ✗ plicit 14:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Beğlan Birand Toğrol

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

Successful, but doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 13:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. She died a few years ago. I expected to see more articles and more citations at Google Scholar, but two awards stand out: being a Fulbright Scholar, and being a Honorary Fellow of Newnham College at Cambridge. One reference, presumably taken from her CV, says that she was Chair of Experimental Psychology (1969–1977), and was the Head of the Department of Psychology (1982–1994) at Istanbul University. I don't know what her h-index was. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • keep as far as I can tell, the Honorary Fellow thing is fairly rarely given over a long period of time. Overall body of work seems quite impressive. Maybe meets WP:PROF, but at the least I'm happy to invoke WP:IAR. Hobit ( talk) 02:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per Hobit. -- Artoria 2e5 🌉 15:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Appears to have held an established chair, not just a personal chair, so meets WP:PROF #5, as outside the USA named chairs are uncommon and were even more uncommon in her day. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets NPROF for holding the Chair of Psychology and the Head of Dept positions at Istanbul University. Furius ( talk) 13:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Leslie Dougher

Leslie Dougher (  | 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 politician. BEFORE returns only one usable source (string: "leslie dougher") which in turn makes sourcing a potentially fatal issue for the article; I'm willing to buy that there are offline sources but what I can find on Google isn't making weight. — A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I found plenty of media references to Leslie Dougher on Google, as well as what appeared to be public records of election results and so forth. I think being chair of a major political party at state level is notable. If she were some sort of precinct boss I'd be happy to lose this article, but Florida's got more than 20 million people, so this is a significant position. I do note that the article is a bit thinner than those of her predecessor and successor, but no doubt some politics junky will get round to filling this in over time. RomanSpa ( talk) 12:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Her predecessor and successor were elected to notable offices, unlike Dougher, so RomanSpa's argument does not hold water. Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. State level Chairperson of a major political party is a notable position. See also Harold Alexander (Florida politician). SWP13 ( talk) 11:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 18:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ezhar Cezairli

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

City councillors don't tend to meet WP:NPOL and dentists certainly meet no part of WP:N. I couldn't establish that she meets WP:N, but something might be lost in translation. Possible redirect to her political party? Boleyn ( talk) 13:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The German Wikipedia article is longer than the English one, with more references. She is also notable as a representative of secular and liberal Muslims, and many of the references seem to deal with her disagreements with mor traditional Muslims. The Frankfurt article says "Its 763,380 inhabitants as of 31 December 2019 make it the fifth-most populous city in Germany.", which suggests that Frankfurt may be big enough that its city councillors are notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - does not meet WP:NPOL, and not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 22:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - my German is awful, but if I try to look up German-language sources, there does seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG. Like, it seems like there's coverage of her in Die Tageszeitung, in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, in Frankfurter Rundschau, mention of her in Die Welt, etc... Could someone with better German take a look for German-language sources? NHCLS ( talk) 11:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A google search with the Books option on shows paragraphs discussing her in Dilemmas of Inclusion: Muslims in European Politics (2017) and Religion, Identity and Politics: Germany and Turkey in Interaction (2013). She's quoted in Legal Integration of Islam (2013) and mentioned among others in Governing Muslims and Islam in Contemporary Germany (2018). Then there's a whole string of German-language books. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 04:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As a town councillor she doesn't pass NPOL, but the German wiki article has a range of reliable sources for her political activism, which seems to take her past GNG. Furius ( talk) 13:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Dirty Sanchez (band)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Possible ATD is redirect to Jackie Beat, but not sure it is worth it. Boleyn ( talk) 13:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. There's coverage at Allmusic ( bio, album review), LA Weekly ( [10]), LA Times mentions them in connection with the electroclash wave ( [11]), The Advocate ( [12]), Billboard ( [13]). Chubbles ( talk) 14:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Their nasty name may cause you some discomfort while searching, but search in conjunction with member Jackie Beat and you will find the sources noted by Chubbles above and a few more, especially publications from the queer music scene. It's not a lot but enough for a basic stub article here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:08, 8 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 Nikos Karvelas#Discography. ✗ plicit 14:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ikto!: 20 Megales Epitihies Tou

Ikto!: 20 Megales Epitihies Tou (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish it meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG, but bringing to AfD as I am aware I may have lost something linguistically. Possible ATD is redirect to Nikos Karvelas - not sure if this is worth doing. Boleyn ( talk) 12:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:43, 7 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 14:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Left of Center (Sirius)

Left of Center (Sirius) (  | 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. Some of the associated radio stations are possible ATDs, but I wouldn't propose a merge (this has no sourced info) and not sure any are worth a redirect. Boleyn ( talk) 12:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Satellite radio channels must meet the GNG, and this one doesn't. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 00:54, 9 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. While this discussion is evenly divided numerically, the source analysis table makes a convincing case for deletion, and has not been answered effectively despite having been there for six days; as such I'm seeing clear consensus to delete. I'm sensitive to the concern about gender bias, but I would argue that if we have similarly-sourced articles about male journalists we should be giving them a hard look with respect to WP:N, rather than giving this one a free pass. Vanamonde ( Talk) 01:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Rachel Brookes

Rachel Brookes (  | 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 currently has three sources: a Wordpress blog ( WP:SPS, unreliable) and two articles which are by the subject, not about the subject. I've searched for better sourcing, and I did find one interview with the subject which contains a reasonable amount of stuff in the author's voice rather than the subject's (see WP:INTERVIEW for discussion of the primary/secondary nature of interviews), so some of that is usable. There is also this interview, but that is almost exclusively primary. While I can find lots of stuff that she has written, I can't find anything else about her, so I'm not convinced that WP:BASIC is met.

I'll add that I'm nominating this after it came up at ANI. Someone has been engaging in a year-long harassment campaign against the subject of the article on multiple on-line platforms, which has included numerous BLP-violating edits to our article (which I have revision deleted). I have protected it, but am bringing it here for discussion on whether or not we should actually keep it. If it is deleted, I would suggest salting the title to prevent abusive recreation; if it is kept, I'd like us to ensure that it is properly sourced, and stripped back so that the only assertions remaining are properly supported. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nearly AfD'd this myself when it appeared at ANI. There isn't notability demonstrated for her (yet). - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sourcing is inadequate and I don’t see the significant coverage in high-quality sources that's needed for a BLP. Plus, of course, Wikipedia should not enable the harassment of women. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
That all we can write about her life is a list of where she has worked and that she’s interviewed some people demonstrates that there is no significant coverage of her. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • On balance, keep. I've added a reference, and to me the level of referencing is at a level where it's acceptable, certainly compared to a number of other Sky Sports journalists in the same cat as her - who tend, of course, to be male. There are certainly two or three I found very quickly that are worse than this. Given the well established bias against articles about women on Wikipedia, in this case I'd suggest that I'd be much happier to keep this article, for now at least. Protection and watchers will help deal with the abuse, but that's very, very clearly not a reason for deleting the article. So, yeah, on balance I think right now that we should keep this. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 08:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'd agree with Blue Square Thing, I think there's just enough there for a GNG pass in this instance. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'd also agree with Blue Square Thing NHCLS ( talk) 10:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I just want to make it clear, in case it wasn't already, that I was not meaning to suggest that the harassment was a reason for deletion - I just wanted to explain the circumstances that led me to look at the article, and explain why its editing history looks the way it does, with a great many of the edits (including some of the edit summaries and even the usernames of the accounts that made them) missing. Girth Summit (blether) 13:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, that was clear - and thank you for the sterling work you've done with the edit summaries and so on on the the article. I was responding to the comment by someone else up there which gave the impression that it was. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 14:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I reviewed the sources in the article and created a source assessment table:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Women's Sport: How Rachel Brookes got into Formula One and what she loves about life in the paddock (GiveMeSport, 2020) Yes article is based on an interview, text mostly prefaces/rephrases quotes from subject ? "GiveMeSport (GMS) is a sport media outlet providing exclusive player and manager interviews, and providing fans with up-to-date features, match previews and match reviews." ( About Us) ~ "Now she is one of the most recognisable women in F1." ? Unknown
I am proof that if you work hard and are very determined you will eventually be in the right place at the right time (Fast and Fearles, 2018) Yes article is based on an interview, text mostly prefaces/rephrases quotes from subject No A blog: "My name is Georgia and I started my ‘Fast and Fearless’ website in 2018." ( About) No "Rachel Brookes is one of the country’s leading sports broadcasters, now regularly seen fronting Sky’s F1 coverage." ✘ No
Rachel Brookes on Life Covering F1 and Working For Sky Sports (SportsGrill, 2021) Yes article is based on an interview, with leading questions adding some content No A blog: "Sport Grill is the perfect blog for those wanting in depth articles and interviews across, Football, Motorsport and Tennis." ( About) No "Having initially started out without a career plan other than an ambition to work in radio, Rachel has slowly but surely risen up the media ladder to become a member of Sky Sports F1 on-screen team." ✘ No
In conversation with Rachel Brookes (Motorsport Broadcasting, 2021) Yes article is based on an interview, begins with a 3-sentence overview of her Sky Formula 1 career No A blog: "The F1 Broadcasting Blog was set up in April 2012... I have never worked in motor sport, this website is an outlet for me to give my opinions." ( About) No "Rachel Brookes has been an integral part of Sky’s Formula 1 coverage since 2013." ✘ No
Interviewing Bernie Ecclestone... (SkySports, 2017) No by Rachel Brookes Yes No by Rachel Brookes ✘ No
Rachel's Diary: Interviewing Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton after Baku mayhem (SkySports, 2017) No by Rachel Brookes Yes No by Rachel Brookes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Based on the assessment above and my own research, WP:BASIC/ WP:GNG does not appear to be supported by an interview conducted by a source that may be reliable, three blog interviews, and two sources written by the subject, so my !vote is to Delete at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 01:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Libscore

Libscore (  | 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 seem worth to keep it. The poor sourcing (e.g. [14]) and notability justifies removal I think. I believe that the only goal of this article is the promotion. I have requested speedy deletion in the past but it was reverted by JBW (see [15:56, July 21, 2021] [15:18, July 21, 2021]) so I propose to delete it hereby. Any objections? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

To be clear, when Alexander says that I reverted his speedy deletion nomination, that means I declined the nomination because the article doesn't satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria. It wasn't an indication that I thought the article shouldn't be deleted. JBW ( talk) 12:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your clarification. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. The references include promotional websites, blogs, an interview with a person involved in the subject, pages barely mentioning the subject, and a couple that don't even mention it at all. Not a single one of them is substantial coverage in a reliable independent source. JBW ( talk) 12:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Redirect to DigitalOcean or Stripe (company). Meets the minimum expectations of WP:GNG. The VentureBeat source has 164 words of uninterrupted and nonrepetitive prose dedicated specifically to the subject. The main topic of the source is Libscore and it includes “Libscore” in the title. As far as I can tell the author of the article is independent of the subject and WP:RSP lists VentureBeat as “Generally Reliable” (although the discussion appears to be stale). The TNW source has 179 words of uninterrupted and nonrepetitive prose dedicated specifically to the subject. The main topic of the source is Libscore and it includes “Libscore” in the title. As far as I can tell the author of the article is independent of the subject and WP:RSP lists the parent company, The Financial Times, as “Generally Reliable.” The InfoWorld source is mainly an WP:INTERVIEW so most of it would be considered a primary source, but there’s over 100 words in the introduction of non-interview content that is uninterrupted and nonrepetitive prose dedicated specifically to the subject. The main topic of the source is Libscore and it includes “Libscore” in the subtitle. As far as I can tell InfoWorld is reliable and the author is the editor at large of the site. I would argue that these sources have more than a trivial mention and that they meet the WP:GNG requirement that “multiple sources are generally expected.” Libscore also appears to be cited in Google Scholar articles as a reliable method of obtaining statistics. For instance, this UCOL paper. I think overall the sources are limited in number and quality, but I’m not sure if merging into DigitalOcean or Stripe (company) would make sense and Julian Shapiro doesn’t have an article. TipsyElephant ( talk) 16:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ TipsyElephant: The TNW source has 179 words of uninterrupted and nonrepetitive... Thanks for heads up. That source is basically enumerating a list of Libscore features in increasingly advertising manner. The linked domain of latter isn't leading to Libscore: [15]. I disagree that this is reliable in any way.
    For instance, this UCOL paper. Well, I think this isn't enough for a separate article. I think it would much better to save some of this information in DigitalOcean article. The Libscore may be redirected to a relevant subsection. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Alexander Davronov: I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the URL not working. From what I understand defunct websites can still be notable. Is there a way to confirm that the TNW is, in fact, a paid promotion as opposed to a positive review? TipsyElephant ( talk) 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ TipsyElephant: Is there a way to confirm that the TNW is .... a paid promotion Hardly I know any one of. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and clean up, possibly turning this into a stub. Initially I thought this was a promotional piece for non-notable defunct software, but when I looked deeper into the content, I found sufficient number of reliable sources hiding amid the poorly written content. The poorly written/unsupported content can be removed or replaced. I volunteer to do the cleanup. Anton.bersh ( talk) 08:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Would you like to cite them? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Response to discussion above about merger: TipsyElephant and Alexander_Davronov, I oppose merge into DigitalOcean and Stripe (company) because it is a separate unrelated project. These companies provide resources (financial and server time), but are not affiliated with the project directly. The mere fact that there is ambiguety which one of the two unrelated companies would be the better merger target suggests that neither one is a good merger target. Anton.bersh ( talk) 08:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Tend to agree with you unless sources proving otherwise are provided. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Eduard Anton Eugène van Meeuwen

Eduard Anton Eugène van Meeuwen (  | 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:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible ATDs are merge/redirect to father or family's page Boleyn ( talk) 12:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Judges are automatically notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a historic figure so there is no WP:BLP concern. Given the amount of coverage that Van Meeuwen's career and his cases received in various dailies in the Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies, he does meet the WP:GNG. gidonb ( talk) 23:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets WP:GNG per the sources found by User:Gidonb. VocalIndia ( talk) 04:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. All judges aren't notable, but supreme court judges certainly are per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:12, 11 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 12:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Norport Handling

Norport Handling (  | 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:CORP / WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 12:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete the article, despite 2 relists. The single !vote isn't strong enough to consider a keep consensus either. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Friedhelm Loh

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

Businessman does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is inherited from Friedhelm Loh Group. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The German language article demonstrates that expansion is feasible and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉( talk) 09:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Serpantinka

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

The proposed deletion is based on the fact that the original (Russian) version of this article has been removed due to a lack of credibility to the original (Russian) sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucidlook ( talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A perusal of Google Books would list numerous WP:RS sources in English confirming the existence of the camp. As an example, consider the Pulitzer Prize-winning Gulag: A History ("Dalstroi set up a punishment lagpunkt, which became, by the late 1930s, one of the most notorious in the Gulag: Serpantinnaya--or Serpantinka--located in the hills far to the north of Magadan....") pp. 246--247. The idea that this "notorious" (i.e. notable) camp did not exist would be WP:FRINGE unless reliable sources calling it a hoax were produced. Even then, it would be a notable hoax ( WP:NHOAX) and not suitable for deletion. 68.189.242.116 ( talk) 16:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are no creditable sources in any reference provided proven the claim that Serpantinnaya gold mine was indeed the "major place for the enforcement of their death sentences". The fact that such location existed does not mean that it was a place of mass execution as it states on the page: "estimates the number of victims at 30 thousands, shot or died of exhaustion" (by Alexander Mikaberidze) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucidlook ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
information Administrator note: The above comment is a double !vote by the nominator. ✗ plicit 00:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Most sources are referring to the same fake publication. The first source doesn't even mention the subject. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 22:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus – no prejudice against speedy renomination. Under longstanding practice, articles are not eligible for soft-deletion if they've previously been discussed at AfD. Per WP:NACD, please do not revert this closure: it "may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; or by consensus at deletion review." (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ali Faik Zaghloul

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

Essentially an unverified article as the only source is a dead link with no publication details identifying the source or author. I was unable to find sources in a WP:BEFORE search, but granted foreign language sources may exist outside of my expertise in locating. Arguments from the first AFD 13 years ago about future editing don't seem to have panned out in reality. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 12:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Please let an admin close this AFD, as soft deletion is still an option. While it's true that soft deletion is not an automatic outcome under policy in this case, WP:NOQUORUM explicitly states that in this kind of case soft deletion is one of four possible outcomes at the discretion of a closing administrator. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ 4meter4: "This kind of case" as you refer is not necessarily valid where soft deletion has already been excluded by a relisting administrator ( Explicit). You have reverted the NC closes of two editors (myself included). I don't quite get why, as that would not prejudice a renomination. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • User:Bungle, I think you are misinterpreting User:Explicit's comment. WP:NOQUORUM is essentially broken into two kinds of cases. One where there is no controversy and no prior AFD, where soft deletion is the expected outcome. The other, where there has been a prior AFD or there is some sort of controversy about the nomination. In these cases soft deletion is not prohibited/excluded but is one of four possible outcomes at the time of closing per admin discretion. As only admins can soft delete, this close should really only be made by an admin for procedural reasons. As a non-admin, you don't have access to the necessary tools to close with all the available options; hence why this should be an admin close. I am not beholden to any given ruling. I can easily except a no consensus, but I want procedure followed properly. Non-administrative closes shouldn't occur in WP:NOQUORUM circumstances at any point in time. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • @ 4meter4: In reality, if soft deletion was an option, I would have thought that either of the two relisting administrators above could and probably would have done so. That they each chose to relist and give a chance for consensus to be reached (which ultimately, hasn't happened), rather than soft deleting, is quite telling. You also don't need to tell me what I do and do not have access to, administratively. FWIW, I can sympathise with your rationale for deletion but Explicit would not have ruled out soft deleting for no reason. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
          • I don't disagree with that reasoning, my objection is procedural and nothing more (see WP:NACD). 4meter4 ( talk) 16:48, 14 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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 12:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

2021–22 FC Barcelona B season

2021–22 FC Barcelona B season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Team is not in a professional division this season, per Wikipedia:NSEASONS. Crowsus ( talk) 11:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Crowsus ( talk) 11:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability per GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 14:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Yes, the team does not currently play in a professional division, but I think there's enough coverage to say Wikipedia:GNG is met. Information in the article can be verified through Barcelona's website and news reports from Mundo Deportivo and Diario Sport that may contribute towards notability. The article also isn't just statistics, there is a well-sourced prose. Oblow14 17:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sources indeed exist and are reliable, but all of them are either from Barcelona's website (not independent of the subject) or describe coaching changes and player transfers, which says nothing of the notability of the season. Transfer market sources cover non-professional leagues (below the top professional tiers) quite often. As the article stands right now, I'd say it fails WP:NSEASONS, as the only prose in the article describes summer transfers and the remainder of the article is just statistics, which appear insufficient on their own to demonstrate notability. ComplexRational ( talk) 21:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I would agree with this assessment here. If this does get deleted, there should be no prejudice against recreating, though, as the season may well become notable as the season progresses. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
It undoubtedly fails NSEASONS because Primera RFEF is not a professional division. A reorganisation reduced the number of Level 3 groups from 4 to 2 and re-named the division, but it hasn't moved up and is still administered separately from the levels above which are professional. There has never been a season article on the Spanish third tier. The question is whether this article meets GNG. I don't believe so as the sources are mostly from the club itself or routine transfer info. Crowsus ( talk) 11:10, 12 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. ✗ plicit 12:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

2021 Konya massacre

2021 Konya massacre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a news event, a simple dispute (the kind that unfortunately happen with regularity around the globe), that turned violent, and then headlined by some as a "Massacre". Wikipedia is not the news. GenQuest "scribble" 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - article sources are good. Search gave plenty of hits. For now this is within WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 14:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • BabbaQ GNG is not the only bar an article must cross at AfD. There is no doubt this event happened, and that it has gotten a lot of recent local publicity. It's just too common an event for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not about EVERYTHING. See also RECENTISM. GenQuest "scribble" 15:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it is a septuple murder by a single person and it has an ethnic twist. Even if it does not have an ethnic motif, the case likely will have, as is a portrayed to have an ethnic motif by several pro-Kurdish parties (the largest being the HDP) and other media while the Turkish Government represented by the Interior Minister until now denies so. It has many sources already and will receive much more coverage in the future. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 15:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This obviously has WP:LASTING repercussions due to the alleged ethnic targeting. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:LASTING. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 23:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A septuple murder with a possible ethnic motive is clearly lasting, and notability is not in doubt. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 11:34, 14 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Christos Efstathiou

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

Poorly sourced BLP on a subject who does not appear to meet notability guidelines. A previous version shows that he was playing in the lower divisions of Cyprus except for one loan spell at Omonia, where it is alleged that he played in a cup game (not clear whether it was against a team in the same division or not so may or may not pass WP:NFOOTBALL). These appearances are reflected on Playmaker Stats but, again, they are lower division appearances mostly - there is no further info on the 1 appearance for Omonia so I am unable to verify NFOOTBALL.

Searches were made tricky because there is another younger player with the same name. However, a Greek language search did not yield any significant coverage to cover WP:GNG. Even if he somehow does scrape an NFOOTBALL pass, there is consensus within the community that GNG takes priority in such cases as this one. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:56, 7 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) 10:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Manoj Dey

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

The three cited sources in the article all have a disclaimer at the bottom of the page, which reads Disclaimer: This is a Brand Desk content. Sponsored content is unacceptable and does not count towards WP:GNG. Searching "Manoj Dey" yields many similar sources across a variety of Indian news sources but I was unable to find one that contained significant coverage as well as not being marked as a press release. For this reason, I believe that the article should be deleted for having a lack of independent and reliable coverage about him. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus exists that the subject passed WP:AUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 07:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

James Heartfield

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

The subject of the page does not meet the notability criteria for academics as described in these guidelines: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

The subject was an unsuccessful candidate for an election. The subject of the page does not meet the notability criteria for politicians as described here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maud.Clowd ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • He may, however, meet the requirements of an author. He's published quite a lot of books, which sit somewhere in between academic and popular, making it hard to know exactly what standards to use. However, I note that his book "The British and Foreign Anti Slavery Society" has been subject to a number of independent reviews [16] [17] Elemimele ( talk) 09:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Elemimele: I hadn't considered that his notability might come from him being an author. However, the reviews you reference are published in academic journals. I think academic books in history will usually have independent book reviews. So I'm not sure this makes the author notable. Perhaps a historian could confirm or deny this. Maud.Clowd ( talk) 12:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I haven't the foggiest idea! I know we're encouraged to use common sense about academic books that may have smaller print-runs and appeal to a narrower range of people (i.e. a truly academic book that got reviewed twice in academic journals would have been one that made an exceptional impact; most fade into literature without mention!), but my impression is that these are supposed to appeal more widely, in which case you're completely right. I have no strong feelings either way. Elemimele ( talk) 12:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Heartfield01 ( talk) 17:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC) I tend to agree that losing an election is not notable. But I think that my research and written work has made a valuable contribution in a number of areas. Both books The Aborigines' Protection Society and the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society are the acknowledged leaders on their particular subjects. According to Google Scholar, my book on the Aborigines' Protection Society has been cited in 99 collected books and articles. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5704919096256914697&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en reply

For the Royal Geographical Society Jonathan Wright named The Aborigines' Protection Society 'book of the month' when it was published in November 2011, saying it was 'a major, well-written and closely researched contribution to the study of 19th century imperialism' (Geographical, November 2011, p 65) It was, according the the journal Settler Colonial Studies 'A welcome and long overdue history of one of the most influential lobby groups in Britain and its emerging empire during the nineteenth century.'

Senior Lecturer in colonial and indigenous histories of Australia and the Pacific at La Trobe University Tracey Banivanua Mar, while critical, accepted that the Aborigines' Protection Society was 'formidably researched, and for any student of British imperialism the book will be instructive and fascinating'. (Arena) I think that the reason that the APS book (and this is also true of the BFASS book) was successful was that it was based on close research of the thousands of pages that the Society published on different parts of the world where Britain was active. The material covered simply had not been looked at in the detail before. I'll add more about the other works later.

Heartfield01 ( talk) 17:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC) My book The Death of the Subject Explained has been cited 190 times https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=list_works&hl=en&hl=en&user=nm5fgNEAAAAJ Munira Mirza, when she was culture secretary at the Greater London Authority wrote that it was 'one of the most useful guides to why we thing about culture and arts in the way we do'. (International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol 16, No 1, February 2010, 58-9) reply


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • keep with a number of reviews including [18] [19] [20] and the ones found by @ Elemimele: he passes WP:NAUTHOR. @ Maud.Clowd: Generally academic reviews are counted towards notability per WP:NAUTHOR. I would fail to see how reviews in academic journals are less important than other reviews, I would rather suggest that they are held to a higher standard and assess scholarly contribution. In general as long as the venue in which the review appears is reliable, we can use it -- there are many niche genres outside academia where authors become notable by being reviewed in a specialized journal (eg science fiction etc). Given that multiple books of his have multiple reviews, this also means WP:BLP1E doesnt apply here but this shows a consistent streak of recognized scholarship. -- hroest 16:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Hannes Röst: I'm not suggesting that academic reviews are in any way unreliable sources, just that if one publishes an academic book (in some disciplines) then it extremely likely to be reviewed (in an academic journal) - so it doesn't really indicate notability. In particular, it seems that the majority of academic historians employed by British universities (beyond the early career stage) will have published a book which will have been reviewed in academic journals (so it isn't particularly notable). Mathematics is an extreme case i.e. all papers published in maths journals of good standing are reviewed on mathscinet - so clearly don't contribute to notability. As mentioned in my reply to Elemimele, I didn't consider notability as an author. The WP:NAUTHOR guidelines are a lot more vague, so personally, I find it hard to determine whether he is notable or not under those guideline. If the page is kept, it would be good if someone reviewed it as it looks like it may have been mainly written by someone close to James Heartfield and in earlier times, James Heartfield himself. Maud.Clowd ( talk) 11:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- I see no evidence that he is an academic. He has certainly produced a number of books, whose titles suggest to me that he has some kind of political slant to his history. A few good reviews in specialist periodicals do not make an author notable without more. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Peterkingiron: the argument is not that he fulfills NPROF but that he passes WP:NAUTHOR#3. Whether he is politically biased or not does not matter here. -- hroest 02:07, 14 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 Maharana Pratap#Reconquest of Mewar. The arguments to not keep this article are substantially more convincing in the light of Wikipedia policy. On the keep side there are vague assertions of importance and the existence of sources, but the detailed analysis of the sources by FDW777, who argues that the battle is nowhere described in any detail, has not been rebutted. A redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion that takes into account the high number of "keep" opinions. Sandstein 07:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Battle of Dewair (1582)

Battle of Dewair (1582) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no WP:INDEPTH coverage of this event, references are either trivial mentions or about other subjects entirely and don't even mention this battle. The aftermath section is the most obvious example of this, with sentences like "Bhamashah's birth anniversary or Bhamashah Jayanti is celebrated on 29 June every year" and "Bhamashah Yojana bas been started on his name by government of Rajastha" which are pure padding and nothing whatsoever to do with the battle, the references cited don't mention the battle at all. See also Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582) for the long and inglorious history of this page, you'd think if there are actually any reliable references that deal with this article in any depth at all someone would have been capable of adding them at some point, the failure of anyone to do so suggests they don't exist. FDW777 ( talk) 07:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a very important battle in Indian history. This was has undone the gains of Akbar in previous battle of Haldighati. Article is well sourced. Seems the nominator wants to delete this artcle as this is one of the battle that shows defeat of Mughal Empire, after which the empire changed their capital from Delhi to Lahore. Crashed greek ( talk) 08:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Crashed greek, Please don't cast aspersions. The nominator provided valid reasons for nomination. Curbon7 ( talk) 10:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • The nominator tried to remove referenced content from the article, before nominating. I think he tried to vandalise the article before nomination. Crashed greek ( talk) 14:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per this source, this seems to be a consequential battle, as it directly resulted in the surrender of a Mughal army sized 36,000 and led to the ejection of the Mughals from Mewar. A couple of more websources I came across that aren't cited in the page: [21] [22]. Here are a number of books that discuss the battle to some degree, though some may be passingly as an example of Pratap's strategies or general Mughal history: [23] [24] [25]. There are several other books at this Google books search link that don't have previews so I'm unsure which mention the battle or not, but being an offline source isn't disqualifying. Also, I take issue with the last sentence in the nom, considering the page was created in mainspace 5 days ago. The page certainly needs work, clean-up, additions, verification, and better integration with other articles; however, I see it as a notable battle. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I refer you to the history of Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582), which I mentioned before the comment you take exception to. This isn't a five-day old problem, it's a months old problem. How much significant coverage is there really in the first link you provide? The battle itself gets less than two tiny paragraphs of coverage. That's the constant problem, there is no significant coverage of this battle which is why the article completely fails to actually say anything about the battle itself for the overwhelming majority of the time. FDW777 ( talk) 10:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • FDW777, Just the plain comparison to a draft that the person who created this page has never edited is a horribly flawed argument in and of itself, and I'll give you credit for having the guts to say that unironically. Almost no one checks draftspace for things to edit. All of that is disregarding the fact that the entire argument of "if it had sources, then it would be sourced by now" is bogus; even if sources exist but aren't presently cited, the sources still exist; that's the point of conducting a WP:BEFORE check, to check for sources that aren't cited in the article.
      Regarding notability, the first source I provided established the battle, the reasons for it, and the effects of the battle, which I should remind was the surrender of a large Mughal army and the expulsion of the Mughals from Mewar. Col. Tod's annals also account the battle (though I'm unsure if an online version exists). The battle occurred 550 years ago, so of course sources are scarce and not in-depth on the battle itself; not every article on a battle has to be as well detailed as the Battle of Gettysburg, especially considering information on pre-modern battles tends to be inherently lacking. As long as there is a significant effect of the battle and it has reliable sourcing, of which it has both, then it's good to go. Curbon7 ( talk) 10:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Sources are scarce for battles from 1582? Battle of Hastings (1066), Battle of Agincourt (1415), Battle of Bosworth Field (1485) and countless others beg to differ. FDW777 ( talk) 15:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Also Crashed geek has never edited the draft. But if they weren't aware of its existence, it's remarkable that Battle of Dewair (1582)#Memorial is pretty much word for word the same as Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582)#Memorial, and remarkably even manages to use the exact same non-refrerences that don't even mention this battle. FDW777 ( talk) 15:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • And further also, as explained below the draft was in article space until July, when I moved the appalling article to draft space. Since then there's been no improvement whatsoever, in fact the draft was semi-protected due to the constant addition of unreferenced claims (which might be a first for draftspace). FDW777 ( talk) 16:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Regarding Tod, his work can be seen at Project Gutenburg. He uses "Dawer", rather than "Dewair". The only three mentions in the entire text are
        • With this splendid proof of gratitude, and the sirvente of Prithiraj as incitements, he again “screwed his courage to the sticking-place,” collected his bands, and while his foes imagined that he was endeavouring to effect a retreat through the desert, surprised Shahbaz in his camp at Dawer, whose troops were cut in pieces.
        • There is not a pass in the alpine Aravalli 407that is not sanctified by some deed of Partap,—some brilliant victory or, oftener, more glorious defeat. Haldighat is the Thermopylae of Mewar; the field of Dawer her Marathon
        • Elevated with every sentiment of generosity and valour, they passed on to Dawer, where they encountered the royal army led by the brother of the Khankhanan, as it entered the pass, and which, after a long and sanguinary combat, they entirely defeated
      • Given there is also Battle of Dewair (1606), these may not even be about the same battle and it would involve some cross-checking with the documented history of people mentioned in connection with the quotes. Even if they are all about this battle, they are trivial coverage dealing with the battle in a handful of words. FDW777 ( talk) 17:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • The source clearly mentions that it was Pratap who led the force. Pratap was not alive by year 1606, it was his son Amar Singh I who was the leader in that 1606 battle. Crashed greek ( talk) 04:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC, I'm just not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources here. Most of the sources seem to be blogs or vague passing mentions. If the battle was as significant as the bloggers claim I'd expect more detail of the battle in reliable sources. As the nom has pointed out there's almost nothing about the battle here. The fact the battle was 550 years ago is irrelevant, we have many sources for notable battles from antiquity, if this "battle" doesn't have sourcing that means it isn't notable. Mztourist ( talk) 11:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete JSTOR, Google Scholar: no results; Google Books three very minor passing mentions. Fails WP:EVENT. Google search reveals a bunch of unsourced blogs and self-published materials which discuss the Battle which seem to emerge around 2017 ... given the state-sponsored historical revisionism of this period; extra vigilance is necessary. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 01:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: this was the major battle after Haldighati which has great importance in history. I was surprised there is no article about it. Bharat0078 ( talk)
  • Keep and combine/replace with Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582). The only problem is that this article is weak? It's not controversial or offensive? This seems like an important event to the sub-continent. The Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582) shows what this article could be, the only problem is sources? This one has GF attempts to find them. Frankly, I think the draft should be here with the combined sources and a flag that more are needed.
I find the nominator's last sentence just so backward that it supports "keep". If nothing else, nobody has seen the draft article to look for any sources. Thinking that a draft will get more than a few enthusiast editors is probably dreaming, I doubt that most editors use them and I'm comfortable thinking that virtually no readers do. Sammy D III ( talk) 15:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The only thing backward is your version of history. The draft was in article space until 11 July, when it was moved into draft space. FDW777 ( talk) 15:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Also if you think this article includes GF attempts to find references, I suggest you translate reference #10 (note, BitDefender blocks this on my PC due to potential security certificate issues). You will find absolutely no mention of Dewair, 1582, or any other connection with the historical Bhamashah. I note his article doesn't even mention Dewair at all, so exactly what is going on here? Is that text and reference really a good faith addition to this article? Or is it padding, a smokescreen to cover up how little has actually been written about this supposedly important battle? FDW777 ( talk) 15:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Wrong person to BS. I just re-read this and the draft and I see no mention of it being moved to a draft. You didn't mention that before? Could I see a diff to where you provided that history? And since you are the one who moved it there to start with, is there a diff for some consensus to do that. You didn't do that on your own, you have consensus? Maybe you do and I just don't see it? If you do have consensus then I apologize now and will agasin later. If you can show me a diff.
GF is subjective. Can you connect the editor of that source to the Draft? Sammy D III ( talk) 16:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
So you didn't click on the diff labelled 11 July in my post then? The one that clearly says in the edit summary/description FDW777 moved page Battle of Dewair (1582) to Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582)? A move which can also be seen in the page log for Battle of Dewair (1582), which also says 21:05, 11 July 2021 FDW777 talk contribs moved page Battle of Dewair (1582) to Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582). So would you like to strike your inaccuarate claims now? FDW777 ( talk) 16:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I also suggest you look at the entry for the draft at Wikipedia:Requests for page_protection/Archive/2021/07#17 July 2021, where I state I would like to see this draft back in article space. But every day constant unreferenced changes are made by a variety of different IPs. It would appear the only way forward is if they are prevented from disrupting the draft article any further. Moving to draft space was intended to be temporary, since the article appeared to be beyond fixing by normal editing at that point. I would have absolutely no objection to the creation of a proper, well referenced article about this battle. But the history to date says that doesn't appear to be possible, I see several assertions it's an important battle but no actual references to write an article from. If the battle is as important as claimed, why has nobody written anything significant about it? FDW777 ( talk) 16:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I was gone. The link didn't work for me, but I believe you. I am sorry, you did provide the diff I asked for. Thank you.
I was judging on this article, not the history of the subject. I think the Greek may (I don't know the back story) have just stumbled in, I saw some of the same hero-worship lines in the sources.
Your major problem is that you know that the completely un-sourced Draft stuff will be jammed in here, that this article can't evolve naturally? I'm going to strike-through "Keep" because I think that will probably happen.
I don't know anything about the sub-continent, what happened and who wrote about it in what language at what time, so I don't want to judge by a US POV. "No source" is "no source" everywhere, but notable is subjective. I think that's for the local's POV.
Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III ( talk) 21:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

There are enough references verify notability of the subject.

It pass WP:GNG, WP:N. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 06:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

That's the "best version"? Wow! Tod has been dealt with above, he mentions Dawer three times and is trival coverage. Bhawan Singh Rana's book is incorrectly cited, it doesn't even have 152 pages. Presumably the "79" is the actual page number? That page does mention some of the people apparently involved in the battle, only it doesn't mention the battle itself. Indeed, there is no mentioon of Dewair or Dawer in the entire book. A. N. Bhattachary is citing a single sentence in the "best version". Laxman Prasad Mathur isn't even cited in the "best version". The other quotes you provide demonstrate passing mentions of the subject, not in-depth coverage. If this in-depth coverage does in fact exist in the claimed references, then why did the "best version" of the article consist of so little information about the battle itself? Both the draft and live article and capable of being edited at present, please add the claimed in-depth coverage from the references to either, or both. FDW777 ( talk) 07:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Which? The blogs? The one sentence mentions that give us nothing to write an article from? FDW777 ( talk) 15:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Which books have any significant coverage of this battle? FDW777 ( talk) 16:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I agree there is no significant coverage in any book. Mztourist ( talk) 03:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
About a sentence in each about the battle. No depth. Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Precisely the point I was coming to make. There is no sigmificant coverage in any of those news articles from which we can write a standalone article. FDW777 ( talk) 06:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus appears keep. The minority dissenting !votes seem to bring up problems that are already identified on WP:CLN - and those apply to all lists, not just this one. (non-admin closure) Ifnord ( talk) 13:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of fantasy worlds

List of fantasy worlds (  | 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:INDISCRIMINATE. One would assume there are as many fantasy worlds as there are works of fantasy, so it would be ridiculously extensive to attempt to list them all. There is also no clear criteria for inclusion, either. What results is a list that is largely context-less nonsense. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A lengthy, indiscriminate list of items without clear inclusion criteria — I saw at least one sci-fi work mixed in ( Mass Effect), which listed, of all things, the Milky Way. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    I also have the sneaking suspicion that the fantasy world article itself is something of a duplication of fictional universe and should be merged into it. A fictional universe is a little more general in that it can also include science fiction and alternate history, but otherwise there seems to be little different about it. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 07:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Zxcvbnm: I'd disagree on that point, I think the fantasy world article starts with "Not to be confused with Fictional universe" for good reason. As you've said, fictional universe is more general. But as far as I've seen fantasy world does not simply talk about its fictious nature, but about what makes these worlds specifically fantasy. Saying there is little difference seems to me like saying that fantasy, science-fiction and alternate history are more or less the same genre, not three different ones, and that it might be a good idea to merge those three articles. Oh, wait, there's a parent article speculative fiction for that. So it's like saying we should probably delete the fantasy, science-fiction and alternate history articles because we already have the speculative fiction one. Daranios ( talk) 20:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ditto above. Sciencefish ( talk) 08:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Terrible mess. Too broad, pretty much unreferenced, unclear criteria. (Would the world of Watership Down qualify? How about Mickey Mouse? What about the world created by my kid brother? Or the pretty awesome one our game master made few years ago - it even has a fan wiki too!). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Disorganized list lacking criteria. ArvindPalaskar ( talk) 11:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:PRESERVE. Here's a selection of sources:
  1. Literary Wonderlands : A Journey Through the Greatest Fictional Worlds Ever Created
  2. Imaginary Worlds: The Art of Fantasy
  3. Exploring Fantasy Worlds: Essays on Fantastic Literature
  4. Fantasy Worlds: New Ways to Explore, Adventure, and Play
  5. War of the Fantasy Worlds: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien ...
  6. Revisiting Imaginary Worlds: A Subcreation Studies Anthology
  7. Alternative Worlds in Fantasy Fiction
  8. Exploring Imaginary Worlds: Essays on Media, Structure, and Subcreation
  9. 25 fantasy worlds from the past 25 years we'd want to visit
  10. Top Fantasy Worlds in Literature: A Definitive List
  11. The Top 10 Greatest Fictional Worlds Ever Created
  12. The Routledge Companion to Imaginary Worlds
Andrew🐉( talk) 11:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Contextal discussion of the best fantasy worlds are not justification for a context-free list of all non-notable fantasy worlds. The copy-pasted list of names of Google Books hits remains typically petulent and useless: How the hell does War of the Fantasy Worlds: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien on Art and Imagination, which is only about these two specific, highly notable worlds, maintain a list of all of these that are often just mere fictional places like Bikini Bottom and single-appearance settings than similar "worlds"? Some of these sources may be valuable for Fantasy world, but not this junk. Reywas92 Talk 14:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • WP:LISTN explains that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability.." Sources will naturally tend to focus on the most famous and significant examples. Tolkien's Middle Earth was especially seminal as it spawned a huge wave of lookalikes, which created fantasy as a publishing genre. See the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series which was a key component of this. Andrew🐉( talk) 20:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    So write context about its seminality and influence on the fantasy world article. It has no place or basis here. Fantasy Worlds: New Ways to Explore, Adventure, and Play with Fantasy is a self-published book ( iUniverse) that discusses how people use their imaginations to fantasize their lives, but has no basis for an indiscriminate context-free list of any fictional place in media with a fantasy element. What an embarrassment. Reywas92 Talk 21:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • No, iUniverse is commonly used to republish regular works which are out of print and that book was first published by the Carol Publishing Group in 1994. And its author has published many other works -- see her own article. So, that source is fine for our purpose and it's just one of a dozen that I listed. The essential point is that there's a huge amount of material about the topic out there and to claim otherwise is absurd. Compiling a list of notable fantasy worlds is quite straightforward and, as it will naturally be lengthy, it's reasonable to have a separate page as an index of our many pages about them. WP:LISTPURPS explains that this is a reasonable thing to do and the page has been meeting this need for over sixteen years now. There's no valid reason to delete it so what we have here is just drive-by, disruptive deletionism for its own sake. Andrew🐉( talk) 23:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - First of all, none of the points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE actually applies here. Or does it? If this is the only policy-based argument, I don't really see why we have this discussion.
- Next, the topic of the list is obviously notable according to WP:LISTN, since we have an indisputed article Fantasy world. (And in addition we have the sources provided by Andrew Davidson.) The fact that the article is not perfect, and may contain entries that don't belong here, is not reason for deletion as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.
- Seeing that the list contains many blue links, this list serves the purpose of navigation, one of the recognized purposes for the existence of lists.
- Since when has article size ever been a reason for deletion of a topic on Wikipedia!? If the length of the list is seen as a problem, the policy-based solution is not deletion but splitting according to WP:SPLITLIST.
- We have Category:Fantasy worlds, which I hope is uncontroversial. Having a list that parallels a category is in general viewed as beneficial according to WP:NOTDUPE.
- But is it advantageous in this case to have a list when we already have a category that an interested person could use for navigation? - Yes, definitely, because the list can do in compact form what the category cannot: Providing the novel/game/etc. and author(s) together with the bare name, wich is what the category gives us. Additionally, the list can contain worlds not notable enough to have their own article but notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia at all according to WP:LISTCRIT.
- But "What about the world created by my kid brother? Or the pretty awesome one our game master made few years ago": Easily solved, just apply the core content policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research.
- If this is still viewed as too open, that's again easily solved: Limit the entries to those notable by themselves (i.e. generally blue-linked ones) and those that can be supported by a secondary source as suggested by WP:CSC - a guideline specifically written to solve the problem of lists which would otherwise be perceived as indiscriminate!

So I can only summarize that I see all kinds of policies and guidelines suggesting keep and possibly improve ( WP:PRESERVE has already been mentioned in addition to all the ones I've listed), and none that suggest deletion. Daranios ( talk) 19:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The closest comparison I can make is making an article called List of corgis because we have an article on Corgis. It's going to be overbroad and serve no encyclopedic purpose. Just because an article exists doesn't mean an according list should be created for it.
Category:Fantasy worlds is equally problematic. It should really just be merged into Category:Fictional universes. There is frankly no difference. The articles on Lists of fictional universes are equally as problematic as this one but at least it's not totally superfluous. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 19:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Zxcvbnm: Are there notable Corgis? Enough (let's say more than five) to make a list sensible for navigational purposes? If the answer to both is yes, then that it's fine to have a List of Corgis is exactly what WP:LISTN says. If you think that's generally a bad idea, in my opinion you should ask if we should change WP:LISTN. As for Fantasy worlds and fictional universes being basically the same, please see my opinion at your answer to the first vote. Daranios ( talk) 20:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Zxcvbnm: Ah, yeah, and which of the four points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE would actually apply here? Until that has been clarified, I still think the deletion nomination is fundamentally flawed. Daranios ( talk) 09:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. I do not believe the argument for WP:INDISCRIMINATE has made successfully made. On the other hand WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRIT and WP:NOTDUPE are extremely valid points for this list, and their arguments have swayed me. And for the people arguing that a PLANET is the same as a UNIVERSE, well it's obvious the don't understand those words actual meaning and need to read the first sentence of both those articles before they weigh in again. Finally the argument that actually makes some sense is WP:CSC; remove all references to universes that don't have articles on their own. THAT I agree with. Timmccloud ( talk) 21:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Can we exactly define planet in terms of fantasy? Planet is a scientific term while "world" is a fantasy one. A fantasy "world" can range from a planet to a plane to a universe. However, even when the story is set on a world, its fundamental laws generally conform to that of its fictional universe. The author essentially must create a universe to create that world, so one is a total subset of the other. And when cruft is removed, the list is such a duplication that there is no need to retain it. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 23:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - It should be pointed out that the number of blue links is a bit misleading here. Many of them do not actually link to the articles on the worlds themselves, but to a broader topic such as the series or movie they appeared in. In addition, as mentioned, many of them don't fit the actual topic, either being not a fantasy world, or not a "world" at all (for example, can anyone remotely try to claim that the city of Riverdale (Archie Comics) could be honestly referred to as a "Fantasy World" as defined by our article on the topic?). If we can agree that this list should be culled to only contain entries that A) have actual independent Wikipedia articles on the world itself and B) actually fit the definition of a Fantasy world, then yes, I agree that this would be a perfectly valid navigational list. However, that would mean removing almost the entirety of the current list - the category linked to above is a fairly accurate representation of the number of entries that would remain here, which is a fraction of what is currently here. If people can agree that removing most of the current list is an uncontroversial cleanup (and maybe have the lead be expanded to more clearly state the criteria for inclusion, so it just does not become another huge mess over time), then I think this could actually be salvaged per Daranios' argument. Rorshacma ( talk) 21:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    A substantial number of those in Category:Fantasy worlds are already in List of fictional universes in literature, and many more, while not listed in that or its sibling pages, are also described in their articles as "universes" rather than strictly "worlds". Most of those not listed are also from gaming which isn't part of the universe lists but I suppose could be. If a salvaged shorter list is heavily duplicative I don't see the point of it. Reywas92 Talk 22:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Reywas92: I've written why I see the merit of the distinction by genre below. If you think otherwise, why are you voting deletion rather than a merge of the lists (and the List of science fiction universes, another list by genre, if we're at it), in the spirit of WP:AtD? Daranios ( talk) 13:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Probably because there is nothing from this list that can be merged. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Zxcvbnm: How do you come to this conclusion, given that there are at least some blue-linked entries remaining in this list which are not covered in List of science fiction universes? Daranios ( talk) 20:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Pretty much an unmanageable, indiscriminate list. Outside of the criteria for fantasy world not being concrete enough for proper inclusion criteria to be established, it's just always going basically just end up as a list of fantasy books anyway. TTN ( talk) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I find it weird that the topic is described as too extensive, and the broader topic, List of fictional universes in literature, is described as the better alternative, and both are used as arguments against the existence of this list. That seems... contradictory. So maybe the truth is in the middle, that neither argument applies?
I think there are good reasons why we have articles for both fantasy world and fictional universe, and both corresponding list have their merit for navigational purposes. As a reader, I may be interested in the broader topic of fictional creations. But I think we can be sure that some readers will be interested in worlds specifically of the fantasy genre, and would not like to personally sort out entries from sci-fi, etc. Note also that the List of fictional universes in literature has not way to distinguish by genre except, for part of the cases, by reading through all text. Daranios ( talk) 09:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- Redundant to numerous other lists of fictional universes, and this one is probably the worst of the lot. No clear inclusion criteria, little to no sourcing, and with no navigational value. The concept of a fictional universe is of course notable, but that doesn't justify an endless procession of functionally identical lists. Even fansites like TVTropes and Wikia have the discretion to say "one page per topic". Reyk YO! 10:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Interesting template. Looking there, I see it links to Planets in science fiction and List of science fiction universes. Those in my view are equivalent to our list here, giving the setting in the context of the genre. So they make as much or little sense as this one, and we should either advocate to delete all three or keep all three. My vote is on keep. Daranios ( talk) 12:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
No, it's definitely not something we need. Actually, we need to merge all the lists back into List of fictional universes because there are enough to fit them in a single list article if we pare it down to only bluelinked articles. The only reason it was split into genres was due to all the fancruft. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Another thing, seeing that "no clear inclusion criteria" has now been claimed as a reason for deletion multiple times. We have an article fantasy world. So including what conforms to that article (and of course following the policies of Wikipedia to avoid an indiscriminate amount of entries) gives us an inclusion criterion. But if this is still not clear enough for some reason, defining clearer criteria for inclusion is something that can easily be done. WP:AtD tells us "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." So as "no clear inclusion criteria" can be solved, this is no argument for deletion according to Wikipedia's deletion policy. Daranios ( talk) 12:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I eliminated any entry that didn't have a link to an article. Not everything here is listed elsewhere. Valid list for navigation. Inclusion criteria is clearly listed now at the top of the article. Dream Focus 16:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but cleanup. Andrew Davidson has shown it obviously satisfies LISTN. Merger with the various lists of fictional universes is ruled out, because the latter incorporate science fiction as well and are broader(?). Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Since it looks like the massive cleanup has been agreed to, and it currently underway, I agree with Keeping as a navigational list. There's still some work to do (while the obvious non-notable entries have been removed, there's still the work of going through and removing the ones that really don't fit the bill of a Fantasy world), but great progress has already been taken. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly satisfies guidelines as a navigational list. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT wears many hats: small list = "it's useless, trivial", large list = "it's too expansive, unmanageable". Fantasy worlds is clearly a notable topic so List of Fantasy Worlds is an appropriate list, all it needs is a little TLC and it should make a perfectly decent featured list. Oh, and WP:CLN is met. Jclemens ( talk) 04:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, clearly a useful list, just needs cleanup. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 11:32, 14 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 08:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Rukmini Devi Institute of Advanced Studies (RDIAS)

Rukmini Devi Institute of Advanced Studies (RDIAS) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. All the references fail to show significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is pretty much WP:ADMASQ, declined at AFC and moved here by the creating editor. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 04:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as none of the reference establish notability. HighKing ++ 19:32, 13 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. ✗ plicit 08:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Minah Bird

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

Actress who only played minor supporting roles. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable independent references. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  – Since she lived in the 20th century, an online BEFORE is not likely to bring up much. She is however notable for her work in the 70s. An African immigrant lady with named roles for that time is laudable. It also does not help that there's a bird named " Myna. Searching "Myna Bird" in Google books however brings up the following which suggest that more OFFLINE sources exist and the subject meets WP:BASIC;
Described as the 'only major black starlet in British sex films'
Described as a starlet
Described as socialite who fell from grace
Other mentions: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Princess of Ara(talk) 09:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I would agree that the first source is significant, but all of the others are entirely trivial. This snippet view source " Described as a starlet" is a tabloid type article and not encyclopedic or significant per WP:NOTTABLOID. This ":: Described as socialite who fell from grace" is a personal reminiscence lacking independence which uses her suicide as a moral fable but gives no analysis or discussion of her career to be considered significant. All of the other sources ( [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]) are trivial name drops or personal stories that are totally insignificant. For example, the first (and 4th as you gave it twice) of those sources describes using her for sex off camera; and is a rather disgusting tale of male conquest. With only one source rising to the level of coverage to meet notability, she still does not meet WP:BASIC.
With all do respect, I spend most of my time writing on entertainers/performers from the 19th and 20th centuries and have the research skills and access through my university library to historical newspapers and entertainment publications going back to even the 1800s. Miss Bird was not mentioned in detail in film reviews that I could find after going through several archive searches in PROQUEST, JSTOR, and other databases. Granted not everything has been digitized, but I did go through Variety, Billboard, The Stage, The Guardian, The Observer, The Times, etc. I also searched the Entertainment Publications archive in PROQUEST which has digitized most of Britain’s major film and television related magazines of the 1970s. In reviews, Miss Bird was either not mentioned at all or relegated to an un-named character list of "other actors" when they were because she was not in any leading or notable secondary /supporting roles. None of it was significant coverage. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 13:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Quite unfortunately, I don't have access to similar resources or databases but tried my best to optimise the ones within my reach. I decided to participate in this debate because of her Nigerian origin and found her story quite interesting. The other trivial mentions only point to the fact that she probably has more OFFLINE coverage and is most likely notable. Since we have one significant source, I've taken another deep dive.
  • Keep The Times says that "She starred in many films, such as Up Pompeii..." and so she passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Um... her role in that film was "Girl Bather" and was very brief and minor and not even a credited role in the movie. A lot of the problem with the sources being listed here is that they are full of puffery. An uncredited film role with less than a minute of screen time and little or no dialogue is not a starring part. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:19, 7 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Packing House Corner, Delaware

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

Another Sussex County notability nadir case, and for this one the only thing I can find out is that there is a family cemetery nearby. Older aerials and topos show a building in the center of the intersection, and you can still see the foundation, but we're talking a small building, 45 feet (14 m) on a side or so. There's a large turkey farm a short ways east, and that's pretty much it. There is a road sign, though it's rather odd, and I'm not convinced that it's official. In a few other cases I've let that tip the balance, but there is just nothing here to go by unless someone can find a lot of newspaper coverage that explains it. Mangoe ( talk) 03:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. This Google Book search looks promising, but I can't read the snippet. History of Sussex County may be helpful. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - can't access the snippet for the first book linked by Eastmain, but it appears to be a self-published genealogy book, which likely isn't going to be useful for these purposes as it probably isn't reliable. The History of Sussex County PDF linked above does not seem to mention this place so far as I can tell. Searching in newspapers.com finds results calling this a named crossroads/intersection. Name seems to come from the fact that a packing house was here until it burned down in 1973; the article referencing the fire has the name "Packing House Corner" in quotation marks, which seems to suggest this isn't an actual community. This seems to have just been a road junction with an old packing house. Hog Farm Talk 20:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree with Hog Farm about the descendants of Houston book, it is probably self-published. GBooks had very little of note. The 1966 USGS book calls it a locality whereas GNIS calls it a populated place. Past experience has shown that the GNIS is often not correct when it comes to populated place. JStor had nothing. Newspapers.com had little of note, I found the article about the 1973 fire. I'm not sure if anyone lived at Packing House Corner, though I found a mention of Packing House Corner in a list of communities. I found a mention of a chimney fire, though it might not have been a house. As this locale is not legally recognized, it does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. As all the coverage is at best trivial, this location is non-notable and does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx ( talk) 19:04, 8 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

King Biba

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

Only source is a website connected to the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NMUSIC. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Sources are non-existent besides the single website listed, which while it doesn't seem reliable, it certainly isn't connected to the subject as the nominator suggests. The subject seems to have been a local figure in Iraq, but as far as I can see no online sources exist. There may be offline sources, but none are listed in WorldCat. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails to meet GNG based on my searches of English language sources. Watchlisting this in case new sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 11:58, 13 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Jim Koehler

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

Fails general notability guideline. A search turns up no reliable independent sources regarding the subject, only his racing team website along with a host of Wikipedia mirrors. Sable232 ( talk) 23:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete : I agree with the rationale of Sable232, many references are found upon search but none meet significant coverage of Koehler except 1 TV news interview ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuu1emmaNLA), all others I found are just a mention as a competitor in what appears to be local races. This page has been around for 15+ years so subject matter experts should weigh in and add sources if needed. If notified of new WP:RS sources with significant coverage I would revise this vote. CosmicNotes ( talk) 08:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep: The statement that a search returns "no reliable independent sources" is not correct. A Google news search returned many including Detroit Free Press. An interested editor could improve this article. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 13:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I ran his professional name through a search and got only fan sites, blogs, and event listings. These generally don't meet WP:RS for reliable independent coverage as the content is self-generated with no fact checking or editorial oversite. Blue Riband► 11:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I have not found any evidence of the claimed coverage.
    5225C ( talk • contributions) 08:40, 12 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_7&oldid=1039021794"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE