The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Zeeshan Aziz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to be referenced by press releases. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• I dream of horses, Sources are not PRs, If you mention any, I will delete that. Their are many authentic sources about subject.~- Ameen Akbar ( talk) 21:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete While there are reliable sources mentioning the subject, they are mainly passing mentions (which isn't unusual for someone working in journalism). The exception to this are the Daily Pakistan and UrduPoint articles, which focus on the subject. However, those two articles by themselves aren't enough to build the case for notability. This is a person still at the start of their career so it's possible enough reliable sources proving notability will emerge in the coming years, but for now the article is too soon.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 18:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Daily Pakistan, UrduPoint, Mashable Pakistan and Siasat.pk News Blog are some reliable sources.- Ameen Akbar ( talk) 19:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per SouthernNights. The Daily Pakistan and UrduPoint articles are actually the same article and that, given the tone (ex: telling the reader to follow the subject on Twitter), points to it being a paid PR article. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  From what I see, this is the Daily Pakistan article, and this is the UrduPoint one. They look like different articles to me. However, according to both articles Aziz is associated with UrduPoint which means it is not an WP:Independent source. But the Daily Pakistan source looks fine to me. Finally, I understand what you're saying about the tone, but I think that the journalistic culture in that part of the world is different. VR _talk 02:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 ( talk) 05:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete One reliable source found, rest are mentions in passing. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Metre squared per second (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The bundled deletion discussion got out of hand, so let's try again with the individual units which are clearly not notable. Although it is a combination of SI base units, the quantity it measures (specific relative angular momentum) is obscure enough that whatever notability that quantity has, there's not enough to trickle out to the unit that measures it. PianoDan ( talk) 07:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as this unit is pretty specific and an unnamed, derived unit. I don't think there is a particularly suitable merge topic because while the unit is more difficult to understand in its form here, in context – such as at Specific angular momentum – makes the unit more clear. As an alternative we could DABify, but I don't really love that as Viscosity seems to be listed as a suitable DAB entry in the article, but looking at the article for viscosity, I could not find a reference to this unit (or a similar unit). snood1205^{( Say Hi! (talk))} 14:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment it is also a unit for rate of change of area with time. 172.195.96.244 ( talk) 05:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment (AfD nominator) Since this deletion discussion brought it to my attention, I went through and rewrote the Specific angular momentum article. In doing the research for that, I realized that while it's a USEFUL concept, it's not terribly commonly used. It doesn't turn up in most classical mechanics textbooks, since they primarily just use the full form of the angular momentum. Given that, I'd say there's definitely not enough notability in this concept to pass on to the unit. PianoDan ( talk) 16:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 18:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Viscosity#Kinematic_viscosity where it is mentioned as a unit. But I think deletion is fine, too. As a plausible search term, I cannot imagine there would be many searches for metre squared per second. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 00:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT and WP:DIRECTORY. Sure, we could find a bunch of independent sources covering this very specific SI unit, but this content is not useful for an encyclopedia. I disagree with redirecting to Viscosity#Kinematic_viscosity because that is like having President of the United States redirect to Joe Biden; there are other quantities that have these units and it is not super helpful or clear to redirect to one of them in particular. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 05:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Juma Al Majid Group (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Holding company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP- notability is not inherited from its subsidiary companies. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Sure the company exists and appears in lists but we require references that meet certain criteria and none appear to do so. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I also struggled to find really good sourcing that didn't read like a press release or "journalism" pulled from a press release. However, the company founder, Juma Al Majid, is notable. If an article gets started for him, this company article should redirect. Missvain ( talk) 21:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN ( talk) 02:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Bisaat (TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Bisaat (TV series)

This article as written does not satisfy television notability or general notability. The article says nothing about Reception of the show, and appears to be left over from before it first aired, so that it cannot be verified that the series has indeed started.

The only references all predate the scheduled start date of the show and are announcements that it is planned, so that there is no significant coverage of an actual series.

It was already moved back to draft space once, and has then been moved back to article space, so that another draftification would be move-warring. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• @ Robert McClenon: why do you say those sources are neither independent nor secondary? I agree they don't give significant coverage. VR _talk 02:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • User:Vice regent - They are neither independent nor secondary because they are simply announcements from the producer, just like press releases. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Robert McClenon: why do you say these are announcements from the producer? The dawn article seems to be authored by "IRFAN UL HAQ", Dawn's "celebrity correspondent". The bol news article seems to be authored by that organization's "web desk". The author of Daily Times article is not stated. VR _talk 02:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • User:Vice regent - Why? Because they are. Because that is the way celebrity journalism works. The signatures are those of the reporters who received the announcements and published them. When the producers and actors are providing information to news media, which they are, why should the journalists do any actual independent digging? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete As per nomination, which is well considered and very detailed, as usual for Robert. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Priya Ravichandran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable bureaucrat. She is among the first female fire officers in the state of Tamil Nadu in India. She has since risen to the position of joint director which is equivalent to the regional head in one of the divisions of the fire services in the state. The president's annual medals for gallantry are also not a metric of notability as they are awarded to quite a few people every year. There are some references wherein she has put out statements pertaining to some fire incidents but nothing to indicate she passes WP:GNG. Also it appears to have been made and largely edited by somebody closely associated with the subject who initially created this article with a wonderfully misleading title First fire women in India without any reference to back this up while mentioning that she was only one among the first fire women within the article. To know more about how common the award is please refer Pg. 849 here - https://dgfscdhg.gov.in/sites/default/files/Notifications.pdf and take a look at the long list of awardees. Jupitus Smart 16:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete A brilliant women of course. But non-notable as per Wiki guidelines. Was very much alerted by what nom said about being 'one of few'. That is a bit of game changer. Has she been only, things 'might' be different. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 00:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment May be???? she has separate RS for her injuries, and for promotions, so its not all about one event. Also, the article lists the various awards she has recived, and she is notable for being the first woman in the role. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 07:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

One event is not implied by me, as I believe there is a clear case of failing WP:GNG. All the events in the article are part of her routine work. Also the awards are not notable enough to merit her an article as discussed above. And to understand, she is among (not the) first women in the state of Tamil Nadu in India. That is not very inspiring for me. Jupitus Smart 07:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Kudos to the progress being made in India, but, even with my own due diligence, the majority of coverage is routine crime-related coverage and there is only one feature about her groundbreaking role. At this time, WP:TOOSOON. Missvain ( talk) 19:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per Missvain. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

M P T High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The page's source is a Facebook page, which points back to our article as its official website. I found this which is unclear, reliability wise, and says it has zero classrooms, which is another reason for concern about source quality. Without a fuller school name, sourcing can't be found and there's literally nothing to verify its existence, let alone organizational notability. Star Mississippi 03:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 03:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 03:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 03:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment at AfD previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilak Public School, but I would not say the school was actually considered given volume in bundle, so I would treat this as its first AfD. Courtesy @ Peter Ormond: as nom then. Star Mississippi 03:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• delete schools need to qualify either WP:NORG, or WP:GNG. Existence is not notability. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does not meet WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN ( talk) 02:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Millburne, Wyoming (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of a notable community here; article is sourced only to maps. BEFORE search returned passing mentions regarding road construction, a cemetery and other miscellany but nothing that would establish notability. – dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The State of Wyoming finds the community sufficiently notable to maintain a nearly 4-mile (6.4 km) state highway with the primary purpose of serving the community. (Also, sources other than maps have been added.) An Errant Knight ( talk)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Highway 411 is just a very ordinary two-lane blacktop road and anyway just having a road does not indicate notability. A map does not show notability. The new sources added are:

• GNIS - unreliable feature descriptions, doesn't show notability.
• findagrave.com - unreliable, user-generated content, anyway doesn't give any significant coverage.
• blacksforkriverlodge.com - a hotel website and not a reliable, independent source. Notably it does not appear to mention Millburne at all.
  

Fails WP:GEOLAND#1 and WP:GNG. FOARP ( talk) 09:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Finding a decent amount in the archive, for instance [1] [2] [3]. Born in Millburne. Clearly an actual town and not just a rail siding. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 02:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Eddy - Every one of those is a pure bare mention, not significant coverage that could be used to show a GNG pass. Simply being an "actual town" (i.e., a location on the map) is not a keep argument, because Wikipedia is not a gazetteer and does not host bare gazetteer listings. In more detail:

• This story just mentions Milburne as a location where 4 farmers got a loan, and says nothing about Milburne beyond that. Even if you take this as SIGCOV, multiple instances of SIGCOV are needed for a GNG pass.
• This story mentions Milburne saying that a bridge would be built near to, i.e., just describing the nearest location to where the bridge would be built. It says nothing about Milburne.
• This describes a future party that was going to be held in Milburne, according to people there. It says nothing about Milburne and isn't even confirmation that the party actually happened. It's basically an advert for the party and not reliable, independent, coverage.
• An obituary that simply mentions Milburne as a place of birth. It says nothing about Milburne. Let's also recall that obituaries of non-famous people like this one are sourced to the family of the deceased and so are not reliable, independent coverage. Milburne may well simply have been the nearest named location to where this person was born.

• One of the several purposes of Wikipedia is as a gazetteer, it simply is not MERELY a gazetteer. So we have a low bar for notability for towns/settlements, because they generally are presumed to have some coverage, even if before the internet era. This bar does not include rail sidings and GNIS-defined "locales" however. As you can see here, Millburn had a population of 149 in 1930 and 161 in 1940, so a small town but reporting census figures. Seems to be some coverage here but I cannot access. Same here. So nit seems there is enough to work with for an article. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 01:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Where was it ever decided that Wikipedia suddenly becomes something other than an encyclopaedia when we are writing about geographical locations? There is a very strong consensus that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. There is no consensus on Wikipedia at present that it is something else. As you say, the reason for GEOLAND#1 is that we presume that, for populated places with legal recognition (e.g., incorporated towns/cities, not for a place like Milburne) the sources will exist to write an encyclopaedic article, not that we are just OK with Wikipedia being a database of bare gazetteer listings - because Wikipedia is not a database.

The census source above is for the census-tract of which Milburne was part ( Uinta county's "district 8" on p. 1187) . Census-tracts are excluded from proving notability under WP:GEOLAND, the wisdom of which is shown in the description of p.1187 in its description of how the districts of Uinta were simply chopped and changed all the time. The book is another bare mention ( "Mr. and Mrs. Henry both homesteaded in the Robertson and Milburne, Wyoming areas") - we cannot write an encyclopaedia article that basically states the names of completely non-notable people who were born/lived/died in a place and nothing else. FOARP ( talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Gazetteer notes WP:NGEO guidelines before 2012 were less strict. – The Grid ( talk) 05:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep absolutely a community, with some newspaper coverage as far away as Casper, a cemetery, clear census records showing it passes GEOLAND, multiple streets at its location on the map, and a state highway that leads directly there. SportingFlyer T· C 00:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not seeing any coverage that would indicate notability. Yilloslime ( talk) 04:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the expansion work done after the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep established community per refs. Djflem ( talk) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - A lot of "but of course there's sources" without any actual sources giving significant coverage or showing legal recognition having been added to the article. Simply being a "community" or an "established community" does not make it notable. A man named Fisher lived there - not significant coverage of Milburne. A mormon station was at the same site - not significant coverage of Milburne. There was a census-tract that covered the same area - not significant coverage of Milburne or proof of legal recognition. Some sources about the water-quality of Blackfork river - not significant coverage of Milburne. Some maps - not significant coverage of Milburne. FOARP ( talk) 14:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Coverage in sources is not detailed, however it is sufficient to establish that a community existed. Therefore I believe the location just scrapes by to meet WP:GEOLAND. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Uassist.ME (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Forbes is a contributor version so not helpful, rest are announcements. Editor's article was rejected but moved themselves. Sheddy007 ( talk) 23:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 18. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, The sources covering the company are legitimate news articles, and these prove its notability. It got achievements and ranked in the Inc. 5000. Article was rejected because I was new and didn't know how to cover everything and then I updated it to meet Wikipedia criteria. But now I wonder how this user:Sheddy007 come to Wikipedia and first thing he did made his first edit on this article, nominating it for deletion. I am new on Wikipedia and I didn't know about deletion process until now. -- Ammie Sharon ( talk) 13:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Article was rejected at Articles for Creation due to lack of sourcing showing WP:NCORP. It was then moved to the main space by the creator. I checked the sources used and all are either press releases, passing mentions, a piece by a Forbes contributor (which does not count towards notability on Wikipedia) or a primary source. None of the awards help with notability. I also did some searching online and I found no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It is WP:TOOSOON for this company to have an article. Missvain ( talk) 22:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the author for this. MER-C 14:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Joe Normal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears limited to softball interviews, PR pieces and trivial mentions. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. As he has played with two bands that have articles, The Zeros (American glam punk band) and Cold Blue Rebels, but neither contains much information about him and thus deletion seems preferable to redirection. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - He has been in some notable bands, but has almost no reliable coverage in his own right. His activities can be covered at each of those band articles where relevant to their histories. His additional works, including a few solo albums, have been largely unnoticed by the music media. (Slightly off-topic: The article reads like an attempted biography by self or a fan; note that the article's creator has done little at Wikipedia outside of this article and those for his bands.) --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per DOOMSDAYER520. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Leven Kali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable singer. Most of the sources I can find via Google are either interviews or brief notes about him touring alongside Drake, and what few aren't are the usual "here's his new stuff" vehicle articles. Article at present is very poorly sourced to the point of being a BLP vio, and none of the sources cited in the article are acceptable. — A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 03:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lacks coverage in independent WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Maktoob Media (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Maktoob Media

News service that does not satisfy corporate notability or general notability as written, and has conflict of interest reporting. This page was created in article space, then moved to draft space by User:Celestina007, then moved back into article space without discussion by the sleeper account Aslah K, who is probably Aslah Kayyalakkath, a founder of Maktoob. The use of draft space is optional, but compliance with conflict of interest policy is not optional.

The article has been reference-bombed, but an analysis of the sources shows that many of them are passing mentions, or are references to the re-reporting of their reporting (which means that they are a news service, but isn't independent secondary coverage), or otherwise not evidence of notability.

Reference 15, reporting an award to a Maktoob journalist for an article on caste issues in Kerala, is the only reference that may be evidence of notability. The subject, Maktoob Media, probably is a notable news service. The article was improperly moved into article space by a connected contributor, and should be moved back to draft space for review by neutral editors. Moving the article back to draft space a second time unilaterally would be move-warring, so requesting AFD either to delete, or to draftify and to protect with extended-confirmed protection so that a neutral editor can work on it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete — As stated by Robert McClenon this media organization fails to meet WP:NORG as they do not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Mostly useless sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. No substantial RS here. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 02:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn. Geschichte ( talk) 09:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Lathan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only two legitimate entries in the whole disambiguation page: Lathan (name) (the primary topic) and Eas Lathan, so WP:TWODABS applies. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Standard disambiguation page. The standard automated note at the bottom reads "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Lathan." Softlavender ( talk) 02:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Valid dab page. "Eas" is Gaelic for "waterfall" (according to Eas Fors), so Eas Lathan is a valid entry for this dab page; some other entries may be a bit iffy but do no harm. Pam D 10:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Or possibly move to Lathan (disambiguation), and move Lathan (name) to Lathan as primary topic, adding hatnote to point to dab page. Pam D 10:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• I already pointed out that the waterfall is the second legit entry. Hatte Lathan, Channay-sur-Lathan and Savigné-sur-Lathan are not, and Lathan is not mentioned in Loire. Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep as there at least 3 eligible entries (I've just added a link for the river), and I don't think I see a primary topic. The name list can be merged into the dab, as it's not big enough to warrant a separate page. – Uanfala (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw nomination. Three is enough. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Sandipan Mondal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of notability. Hasn't had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. References do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 21:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Sources don't establish notability. Also noting here that the article creator is going on something of a spree adding photos of this person to various other articles. - MrOllie ( talk) 19:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per nom — MdsShakil ( talk) 08:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 09:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Ledford, Kentucky (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not in Rennick's directory of Fulton County place names, searching is just bringing up surnames, and topos suggest a small rail feature. No indication that this meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. HF (public) talk ( Hog Farm's alternate account) 19:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. HF (public) talk ( Hog Farm's alternate account) 19:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. HF (public) talk ( Hog Farm's alternate account) 19:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No evidence of a notable community; location was most likely a rail stop of some sort. – dlthewave ☎ 20:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid ( talk) 21:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

@ The Grid: - Wouldn't WP:SOFTDELETE be applicable here? I'm not sure that the relist is necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 02:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I guess it would be - sorry about that. I figured getting a consensus would be better than a soft deletion. – The Grid ( talk) 05:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete The locale has zero notability, being on a mark on the map, if anything. TH1980 ( talk) 03:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete GNIS spam. FOARP ( talk) 15:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Quarantine (2000 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable television film; Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. Found no reliable sources/reviews in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator ( talk) 19:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I found nothing that shows notability. SL93 ( talk) 02:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Deleting a Hamlin movie? You will be sued by HHM. Joke aside, I found this and this which don't seem to cut it. Geschichte ( talk) 10:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid ( talk) 21:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The film was notable back then but over time the popularity died out. No reliable sources and failes WP:NFO. HelpingWorld ( talk) 02:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Old Roman Catholic Church in Europe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This denomination does not meet the WP:NCHURCH notability criteria, so I believe the article should be deleted.
The only secondary reliable source which describes this church is one from almost a century ago and which I have not been able to check. The other sources seem to be primary source. All I could find on this denomination is that it seems to have existed between 2011 and 2015 according to official UK data.
As a sidenote, one of the sources is a website titled Old Roman Catholic Church Latin Rite. Is this another denomination? Is it another name for the supposed "Old Roman Catholic Church in Europe" denomination? Veverve ( talk) 20:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 20:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 20:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- As I read the article, it is about a local church in Brighton, claiming to be a Europe-wide denomination. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid ( talk) 21:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Peterkingiron. If this really is a larger denomination rather than an individual local church, some sources would need to be provided to establish that, and if so I could reconsider this recommendation. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2022 United States Senate election in Iowa per the typical practice for candidates who are not otherwise notable. RL0919 ( talk) 21:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Glenn Hurst (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable political candidate running for U.S. Senate. He's currently on the city council for town with 600 people and operates a medical clinic. Meatsgains^{( talk)} 20:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect>>> 2022 United States Senate election in Iowa Djflem ( talk) 21:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy redirect: As an article that would otherwise be CSD'd. Curbon7 ( talk) 03:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment:The article creator, LouisNMcDonald, and another new editor Aaafram have been adding placing opinions on the article Talk page rather than this discussion page. AllyD ( talk) 17:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I hope this is the right place. Apologies if it’s not. In Iowa, Glenn Hurst is notable for his role in the Iowa Democratic Party, pushing to re-elect Iowa's only Democratic congressperson Rep. Cindy Axne. The other two candidates in this race are Mike Franken's and Abby Finkenauer. Franken's page is predominantly about his two Senate races and Finkenauer is no longer an elected official, only having served one term before losing her reelection. /info/en/?search=Michael_T._Franken /info/en/?search=Abby_Finkenauer LouisNMcDonald ( talk) 18:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• • LouisNMcDonald, Finkenauer is default notable per our notability criteria for politicians. On the other hand, Franken's article was created at the time when we had a notability criteria for soldiers that made it so that generals and other flag officers had inherent notability. That criteria has since been depreciated, so it will be worth taking a look at Franken's article as well. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete unnominated candidates are virtually never notable for such. Even if he wins the Democratic nomination he will probably not be notable unless he wins the general election. He has no other workable claim to notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• • beyond this, I just removed a lot of uses of Dr. The article reads a lot like a campaign brochure posted to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be a free platform for non-notable people to advance their political campaigns. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Dr. Hurst is a notable candidate in this race because he is an institutional member of the Iowa Democratic Party. Dr. Hurst was elected and has served as the chair of the Rural Caucus for many years now. https://iowademocrats.org/scc-3/ He has been a staunch advocate for rural communities in Iowa and progressive values. He also serves as a City Council member in Minden, Iowa. Comparatively to the most densely populated states in America, being a city-county council member to a city of 600 may not seem notable, but according to the Iowa Department for Public Health, approximately 43% of Iowa's population lives in rural communities like these. https://idph.iowa.gov/Portals/1/Files/IowaHealthWorkforce/Safety%20Resource%20Plan%201.pdf As an elected official of the Iowa Democratic Party as the Rural Caucus chair and an elected official in a rural community in a state that is 43% rural, I would argue that Dr. Glenn Hurst is a notable political figure in Iowa. Deleting his Wikipedia page would be silencing the existence of prominent figures in rural Iowa. Sanity0050 ( talk) 18:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Iowa. Hyper-local political figure fails WP:NPOL at this time. KidAd • SPEAK 00:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: According to Wikipedia:Notability (people), Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage have a place here. In Iowa, Glenn Hurst is a major figure:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisNMcDonald ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep:Last cycle, Theresa Greenfield's Wikipedia page /info/en/?search=Theresa_Greenfield was approved even though she was at the time an unnominated candidate running as a democrat. It is essential to make sure all pages are considered with the same precedence level while they reside in related space. Theresa Greenfield was not notable in Democratic politics and was approved while unnominated. Dr. Glenn Hurst is an elected official in a city in Iowa and an elected official in the Iowa Democratic party as the rural caucus chair. https://iowademocrats.org/scc-3/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanity0050 ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Iowa as a usual and proper outcome. Any biographical details can be added to the page about the election. And as an aside, the Greenfield article was closed as a redirect at AFD prior winning the primary. It was subject to three deletion reviews and then the moved from draft to the mainspace after a discussion at ANI. -- Enos733 ( talk) 06:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 20:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:GNGand WP:NORG.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 03:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Synod of Saint Timothy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found nothing on this group. The 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions has nothing on this group. Both websites given in the article are dead. The other website given in the last working archive of the website of this group (2009) has one archive from 2013. None of the two website give us any clue to try to find any shred of notability for this group. The article has been created in 2006, and since then no one has added any single source which could be used to argue the notability of this group.
All I have been able to find on this group is this page of a non-notable denomination, which states: "Father Robert Lyons [...] has also served as the Chair of the Worship Commission for the Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy (and it's predecessor, the Society of Saint Timothy)."
Therefore, as per WP:NCHURCH, I think this article should be deleted. Veverve ( talk) 19:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
EDIT: this article seems to have alreay been deleted by an AfD once in 2005, was privately kept here, and was recreated in 2006. Veverve ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 19:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 19:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. At best, this appears to have been an extremely small denomination, with insufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. This article has no references, and of the two external links, one is broken and the other goes to a web-hosting service for churches with no mention of this denomination. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- We do normally allow articles on denominations, even very small ones, but the article gives me no confidence that it has more than half a dozen congregations. The alleged synodical website is a dead link and the one about inter-communion with another splinter denomination leads to a page about building church websites, though possibly this site is relevant, being a book review of their liturgy. My initial view is that this is too small to be notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Korelovo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Also nominating:

Voskresenovka, Kursky District, Kursk Oblast (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nikolayevka, Kursk Oblast, OKTMO 38620412161 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toporok, Kursk Oblast (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Melnikov, Kursk Oblast (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mass-created cookie-cutter articles on Russian villages with population <10. These fail WP:GEOLAND due to A) lack of legal recognition and B) no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The sources provided appear to be either government documents (census tables etc) or autogenerated sites that scrape databases to calculate weather, post office locations, railroad stations, etc with no fact checking. Melnikov in particular has a population of 3 and satellite views show a single farm, which makes me suspect that these are census units that have been mistranslated in a similar way to the Iranian ābādī stubs. – dlthewave ☎ 20:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Don't mislead the community. All my articles concern legally recognized localities, which is confirmed by the sources I cite. The only argument against the existence of some of them is the low population, which varies over time. ThWiki1910 00:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 19:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 19:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-notable location, no sources found. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - As with previous discussions about Russian selos, these locations completely lack any sources on which an actual article can be written and instead rely on a bare listing in a census table (that seem to indicates these are basically census tracts, and so a WP:GEOLAND#1 fail) with no other sourcing to show notability and nothing that can be found anywhere because essentially we're talking about an area of farmland. The creator has padded this out with stuff about weather and transport links that is not actually about the locality per se. FOARP ( talk) 20:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Reginald Oko-Flex Inya (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't believe anything cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG; article possibly created by the person themselves. Searching for them online brings up nothing except one or two minor articles authored by them and a few corporate sites that mention them in passing, but nothing newsworthy. Non-notable businessperson. Lewcario ( talk) 19:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lewcario ( talk) 19:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lewcario ( talk) 19:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lewcario ( talk) 19:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Lewcario ( talk) 19:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lewcario ( talk) 19:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lewcario ( talk) 19:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No notability under WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Entry more suitable for LinkedIn. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC). reply
• Delete, Notability isn't inherited. No significant coverage about this person. MerliSter ( talk) 23:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-important local activist at best. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly doesn't meet any notability guideline. Brayan ocaner ( talk) 02:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach ( talk) 12:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 02:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete No RS here to establish notability. Ginbopewz ( talk) 23:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Not seeing anything here that shows WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN outside of run of the mill hyperlocal coverage.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 03:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Nate Nehring (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Apparently, a previous version of this article was deleted by PROD so the new version is ineligible to be deleted by proposed deletion. I don't believe Nehring meets WP:NPOL for notability which primary rests on the fact that he was very young when he was elected to a country council seat in Washington state. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete county council members and not default notable, and the sourcing is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete until a list of past and present members of the Snohomish County Council is created and a suitable redirect target is provided. -- Enos733 ( talk) 06:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Nehring was one of the very few county council chairs from the minority party. There are also articles for all four other council members so I don't see why to delete this one, especially since he was previously council chair. -- Thomascampbell123 ( talk) 18:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Khaled El-Ahmad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I PROD'd this article because I don't believe this "digital marketer, social media influencer and reputation management expert" has SIGCOV but the tag was removed so I'm initiating this deletion discussion. Usually folks in this field have published a few books that might have some coverage but that is not true in this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete "collaborated with a global team to launch an impactful cross-platform social media and web campaigns to align with online and print advertising/added-value programmes". It's a CV. Vexations ( talk) 20:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable promotional article, fails WP:NOTCV. Jumpytoo Talk 21:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Puff piece. Delete. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The Barnsley F.C. CEO with the same name might be notable, but this guy is not.-- Mvqr ( talk) 11:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete promotional content, No evidence of notability. Brayan ocaner ( talk) 13:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete The language used is promotiona, looks like a blog article rather than an encyclopedia one. Juggyevil ( talk) 04:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete I do not see that the character achieves notability or sufficient fame, especially since I am from the Middle East and am very familiar with events and personalities. This article is an apparent attempt to promote, and contains a conflict of interest. Osps7 ( talk) 14:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Porthos Range. ✗ plicit 00:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Mount Kerr (Antarctica) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mass-produced import from GNIS; if only the name is known it doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND4, and I cannot find further details. Search results are mirrors or WP and GNIS. Mere existence is not notability. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. More than the name is known, and the info is present in the article. Most Antarctican geography articles are about the same length, e.g. Mount Johnston, Mount Kjerka, Mount Lacey, etc. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merely knowing that it EXISTS at certain coordinates because a plane once flew over it and took a photo is NOT sufficient to pass GEOLAND4. That's a worthless WP:OSE. There is a small number of users who have mass-produced articles on places in Antarctica by simply duplicating the GNIS, and their existence is no basis to keep this when they should never have been created either. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• GEOLAND #4 states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." How it was spotted and who it's named after are not statistics or coordinates, so you can't use that to justify deletion. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • This is laughable. "Was named" is by no means notable information beyond existence, nor is "was seen from an airplane"; these are rote identification data, even if not numbers. Height would be more useful but we don't even have that! Your bar is on the ground, and a single simple database entry is utterly inadequate. Reywas92 ^Talk 04:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete or alternatively redirect/merge to Porthos Range - This article was literally COPIED directly from GNIS. Not a COPYVIO per se as GNIS is public domain but honestly we need to do better than a single-source article that consists only of data copied directly from a database, with NO indication of notability, and that's it. This is a classic example of why Wikipedia is not a gazetteer because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we have encyclopaedic articles with actual content in them, and not simply entries from a database of every named feature in an unpopulated continent. FOARP ( talk) 20:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Porthos Range. For these Antarctic locations where very little can be said, I suspect a table listing the various peaks/etc. at the range article would be the most useful way to present this information. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge as per Hog Farm. There is always somewhere to merge to for geostubs - WP:ATD. Ingratis ( talk) 04:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect or delete. Fails GNG and NOTDATABASE. Avilich ( talk) 22:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Porthos Range. Here and there I see work has started in folding some of these Antarctica stubs into more substantial articles. Allowing that work to continue is preferable to zapping out individual stubs. Mccapra ( talk) 09:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Minimal participation and no agreement after two relists. RL0919 ( talk) 22:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Bernhard Henrich (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Set designers don't get much press, and a shared Oscar nomination isn't enough. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Meets 4C of WP:CREATIVE, "Won significant critical attention" as a Oscar nominee. I have added two more refs if it helps pass WP:GNG. MoviesandTelevisionFan ( talk) 18:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. In my experience, shared Oscar nominations, particularly single ones and in obscure fields, do not stave off deletion. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Animorphs books. This result is for the specifically nominated article only. It could be cited for WP:BOLD redirects of similar articles, but separate discussions may be needed if other editors disagree. RL0919 ( talk) 22:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The Absolute (novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

not notable by itself, only as part of a series. no significant coverage for this one, and for all other books in Category:Animorphs books. So I propose to redirect them all to List of Animorphs books Artem.G ( talk) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Artem.G ( talk) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to List of Animorphs books (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I searched for reviews and news coverage about the book and was unable to find significant coverage about it. The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard ( talk) 05:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect: to List of Animorphs books as non-notable. I'm only voting for this book and not the others. SL93 ( talk) 01:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable aviation accident. Cargo plane crashes are common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
•  Comment: While this is a pretty run-of-the-mill plane crash, a result of it being the FAA issuing regulations for cargo door warning alarms possibly meets WP:LASTING, but it's not a particularly huge change. Having said that, I don't really know if that was a significant enough avionics improvement to be that notable, and also for a lot of plane crashes the FAA will issue some sort of new regulations to prevent that from happening again, so it's a bit of a toss-up. I don't really have a leaning either way here. I feel like keeping or deleting both are valid arguments. snood1205^{( Say Hi! (talk))} 14:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not particularly significant as a cargo aircraft a mention in the accidents and incidents section of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 would be better. MilborneOne ( talk) 08:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep This was a total hull loss and was a fatal accident too. Also, cargo door regulation changes for Evergreen and for McDonnell Douglas were significantly revised. Appears to pass WP:AIRCRASH. We also already do have American Airlines Flight 96, which was even less of an incident but just because it is a cargo aircraft, doesn't mean it is non-notable every time. Seems like this one checks out. Username006 ( talk) 11:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Accident was a hull loss with fatalities, and the tragedy led to cargo door regulation changes. TH1980 ( talk) 03:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Hull loss with fatalities, meets WP:AIRCRASH. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 17:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep After reading other votes and WP:AIRCRASH, I have been sway from my initial comment that this does pass WP:LASTING due to the regulations. snood1205^{( Say Hi! (talk))} 18:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

ANTI FADE records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popboomerang (2nd nomination) Geschichte ( talk) 08:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Consider: the article is a recent creation by an inexperienced (effectively newbie) user. Your nomination reason smacks of Other stuff doesn't exist. I'd suggest greater clarity is required, here, for your reason. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 20:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - It's an important record label within Melbourne and Geelong. They've had 80+ releases, have been around 10 years, and their bands get regular press. If anything I'd like to see more Wiki pages about their artists. Jimmyjrg ( talk) 12:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Their bands getting regular press is irrelevant per WP:NCORP, which entails that the label must have gotten press. Because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Geschichte ( talk) 10:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Significance of label, quality of page, and level of media about artists. Tenniscourtisland ( talk) 00:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Not very impressed/convinced by the boilerplate "as for Popboomerang" rationale, particularly as that nomination reason was that Popboomerang had "very few notable artists", then when it is suggested that this label's roster has significant coverage, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I've added a few references and pruned out any connected citations, coverage (of the label as well as its artists) is decent in significant independent publications such as Beat Magazine and NME, and also Forte which has covered the music and entertainment scene in regional Victoria since the mid-1990s. -- Canley ( talk) 01:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article is a reasonable start class article about a notable (although 'alternative') record label with a lengthy publishing track record. Pakoire ( talk) 03:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Seems to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources for notability. — Giantflightlessbirds ( talk) 09:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Vanessa Deleon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Edwardx ( talk) 18:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can find some coverage quotes in magazines like architecturaldigest where she gets to "rave" about a $18,000 refrigerator that can "maintain a cool, consistent temperature". What I can't find is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources written by people with domain knowledge who critically engage with her work.
• Delete Pretty lady gets interviews with reporters, nothing of substance though. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lots of dead links, lacks indepth coverage. Juggyevil ( talk) 04:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agree 100% with nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG Surprised it's lasted this long MaskedSinger ( talk) 18:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not pass WP:GNG. Ginbopewz ( talk) 23:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was draftify. With the possibility of the subject becoming notable in the near future, this is the best alternative. ✗ plicit 00:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hermione Cull (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senior appearances for either club or national team. BlameRuiner ( talk) 18:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

She does meet notability. She was chosen to play for Arsenal. She is one of the four goalkeepers to play for Arsenal. She has participated in several matches; it doesn’t matter that she has always been on the bench, she was still part of the team those times. She’s also the goalkeeper for the England U19 team. She was meant to be playing for Arsenal a few days ago, but she was unable to because of COVID-19 restrictions.-- PageThoodward ( talk) 19:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Draftify - I've checked the sources and most of them are trivial mentions (i.e. mentioning her once in a list of players in a squad list). The couple of sources that mention her more than once are from a club that she used to play for (Southampton) so are not independent or reliable in any case (see WP:IS and WP:RS). The database websites like Soccerway confirm clearly that she has never played a game for Arsenal and her only England game was 70 mins at U15 so falls way, way short of WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Most likely she will be notable in the future but as of now, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk) 09:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Draftify: wait until debut. Seany91 ( talk) 09:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "delete" arguments are substantially stronger in the light of the applicable guidelines. These guidelines are, to summarize: (a) notability requires substantial coverage in sources ( WP:GNG), and (b) notability is presumed for sportspeople who have participated in matches at a certain level ( WP:NGRIDIRON).

The "keep" side's arguments are limited to invoking the NGRIDIRON guideline, but they do not address that NGRIDIRON only establishes a presumption of notability, which can therefore be rebutted. That's the argument the "delete" side makes: they argue that since no substantial coverage in reliable sources can be found about this man, the presumption of notability established by NGRIDIRON has successfully been rebutted.

And it is this argument by the "delete" side that is not addressed adequately by the "keep" side. To do so, they'd need to cite specific notability-establishing sources to rebut the rebuttal of the presumption of notability. Because they fail to do so, I must give their views less weight and find a rough consensus in favor of deletion, taking into consideration the weight of the arguments presented. Sandstein 09:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Pete Vainowski (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Played in just a single game. I could not find a single source on newspapers.com or google beyond stats databases, so I don't believe the "presumption" of notability in WP:NGRIDIRON is upheld. None of them even say which game he played in, just that it was one in the 1926 season. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Oh so now you're targeting my creations? Keep per pass of NGRIDIRON. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Where there's smoke there's fire. NGRIDIRON is not an iron law that any player is exempt from significant coverage, it's a "presumption" of notability ("conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept"). The top of the page says "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." However, this is not the case here: sufficient sources do not exist. Applicable policies and guidelines section: "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." Reywas92 ^Talk 16:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I'd like to note that in cases where a professional career is known, we've never deleted an article on a National Football League player. Similarly, I believe no MLB player, no NBA player, and no NHL players have ever been denied of an article (except in cases where the given names were not known). BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ Reywas92: By the way I found which game he played in, a week two loss versus the Detroit Panthers, see here. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • "professional career" one game is not a career. Merge/redirect to 1926 Louisville Colonels season would be a good ATD, that needs a roster. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Where a professional game has been found, no player in either of the "Big Four" Leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) has had an article deleted, merged, or redirected. (excluding players without known given names) BeanieFan11 ( talk) 18:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
          • I also found that a person known as "Vainowski" or "Vanowski" played professional football in several other seasons between 1923 and 1931. See him on the Pullman-Roseland Panthers in 1924: [4]; the Panthers again in 1929: [5]; a Harvey, Illinois professional team in 1925: [6]; and the Rockford Gophers in 1923: [7]. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
            • This is original research and I have removed it. You do not know these are the same person. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
              • Did I say it was the same person? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 23:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
                • So it's not relevant to include, especially those with different spellings! Reywas92 ^Talk 23:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
                  • Typos were much more common back in the 1920s, which could explain the differences in spelling. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 23:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Passes WP:NGRIDIRON. This is not a sub-stub that has existed for five or ten years without any development.The article has existed for barely a year and should be given time to develop further -- the article has grown eight fold (from 200 characters of narrative text to more than 1,650) in the day since the nomination. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Meeting WP:NGRIDIRON means nothing if the player fails GNG, per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES and that football is not very different from football, so to speak. Geschichte ( talk) 09:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I find NGRIDIRON much different than NFOOTY. In American football, you only are notable when you've played in either the NFL (which Vainowski has), CFL, AFL, AAFC, or USFL (or meet GNG). For NFOOTY players, you can play one minute in probably 50+ different leagues (including some tier 3 or tier 4 minor leagues) and still be considered notable. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I'd also like to note again that no NFL player ever, has been denied of an article when his professional career is known. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment we keep MLB players appearing in one game, I would assume it's the same for NFL players. Although most baseball articles I've seen mention the game in which the player played. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Oaktree b: the article does mention which game he played in, a loss against the Detroit Panthers. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 00:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article meets WP:NGRIDIRON by playing in at least one game (though probably several games). It is now a decent stub with some biographical info, so merging to a list would not make sense. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 01:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment. @ BeanieFan11, Oaktree b, Cbl62, and Editorofthewiki: Per NSPORT, meeting any sport-specific guideline does not exempt an article from the requirement of ultimately meeting GNG. This is in the first sentence of NSPORT, in the FAQs at the top of the page, and the first paragraph of the Applicable policies and guidelines section. It is completely irrelevant whether or not we've ever deleted Big 4 athletes; all that matters is the subject having SIGCOV in IRS. JoelleJay ( talk) 04:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Not disputing that "ultimately" it needs to pass GNG, but this is a relatively new article that is a clear pass of NGRIDIRON that has been developing nicely. This is not like so many cricket substubs that have existed for more than 10 years and remained in bare-bones condition. The presumption of notability should be credited in this case. Cbl62 ( talk) 14:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

It's had a full year for editors to expand. Are we supposed to wait 2 or 5 or 10 years for a stub to get attention? Why not userify/draftify and list it at the gridiron project as an article to find sources for, like many subjects are at Women in Red? No other biographies outside sports enjoy such a grace period for editors to add material after a topic has been brought to AfD. JoelleJay ( talk) 04:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Draftify??? I see no reason for that, the article appears to be in great shape IMO. Also, unlike Women In Red, it seems few editors in WP:NFL work on historical articles of this era (besides me and Cbl62), so I doubt it would get much attention in draft. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

So the hope is that a hypothetical editor in the future who happens to have access to local/offline refs will stumble across this article, realize it lacks SIGCOV sourcing, and expand it accordingly? What if they can't find sources? Would it be acceptable to delete it then?

Most of the current sources, and the bulk of the article, are in this section:

A player identified by the name "Vainowski" or "Vanowski" also played line positions for other professional football teams in Illinois from 1923 through the early 1930s, including the following appearances:
"Vanowski" played for the Rockford Gophers during the 1923 season, recording a safety against the Moline Indians.
"Vainowski" (sometimes referred to "Vanowski") played at the right guard and left guard positions for Joey Sternaman's Pullman Panthers of the Midwest Football League in 1924. He was described as one of the "shining lights of the Pullman squad."
"Vanowski" played for the Harvey Athletic Association (Harvey, Illinois) professional football team during the 1925 season.
"Vainowski" returned to the Pullman professional football team in 1929.
"Vainowski", identified as a 238-pound tackle out of Loyola, again played for Chicago's Pullman Panthers in 1931.

, which is just trivial mentions and smacks of WP:OR, and the only coverage of "him" is from two bare-bones obits that don't even mention his NFL career. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply

@ JoelleJay: @ Reywas92: Vainowski is admittedly an edge case, and so I understand your skepticism. If it were to be deleted, it would not be a significant blow to Wikipedia's coverage of American football. That being said, this discussion raises two important points.

First, not every biographical article needs to be capable of expansion into a Feature Article. If this article is never expanded beyond where it is today, it still represents legitimate and valuable encyclopedic content IMO. The NFL is the tippy top of the pyramid in the sport of professional American football, and Vainowski was one of the pioneer players in the early days of the sport. The current article hits the essential points. Vainowski played professional football for nine years from 1923 to 1931. Unlike the modern game, players did not become rich from playing professional football in the 1920s. Accordingly, and as reflected in the article, Vainowski returned to a normal life, working for the telephone company for 34 years, marrying and having four children. There is not a lot more that can be said, or that needs to be said, about Vainowski.

Second, it is important to keep in mind that NGRIDIRON is very tightly focused. The only players from the years prior to World War II who qualify for a presumption of notability are those from the NFL from 1921 to 1939. This in stark contrast to rugby and soccer, where we have SNGs that purport to establish notability for tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands?) of players who appeared in as little as one game in dozens of leagues at varying levels (top of the pyramid and on down to the middle of the pyramid) and for more than two centuries of competition. The rugby and soccer SNGs have resulted in a plethora of sub-stubs and have drawn the ire of many editors. While some sports have failed to properly tailor their SNGs, American football is not one of those sports. NGRIDIRON was tightly focused alreaady, and in the past year we have narrowed it even further by eliminating the Arena Football League and squashing efforts to add the World Football League. Earlier this year, I also proposed raising the bar to two games (which BTW would have excluded Vainowski), but that proposal did not find consensus.

My overall point: The NFL notability guideline is not a problem area for Wikipedia. Vainowski presents an edge case where reasonable minds can and will differ, but IMO the article already presents sufficient encyclopedic content and should be kept. Cbl62 ( talk) 14:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

If the NFL was so different in this period that playing in it wasn't even worth mentioning in a 1950s obituary, and as a consequence all we can gather on him is insignificant scraps from non-NFL game reports, then I think the only value to the encyclopedia of having a standalone article is to satisfy a sense of completion rather than provide encyclopedic coverage. If he hadn't played this one game, he would 100% not have an article; and since this one game did not garner SIGCOV of him--to the extent that someone asking for info on his team's composition just 9 years later received almost nothing from someone in contact with its manager--then what does this article achieve that can't be mentioned in a redirect to the team/season/etc.? JoelleJay ( talk) 20:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC) reply

You raise valid points User:JoelleJay which is why I advocated a two-game minimum for NGRIDIRON. I wish my proposal had been accepted. There is however a legit POV that the NFL is different and special. Press coverage of the NFL in the 1920s was not as it became later but there is a reasonable view that the early pioneers of the NFL should be Wikipedia notable for their early contributions in getting the NFL started. On balance, though, no tears will be shed if this particular one game NFLer is deleted. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON. SNGs are particularly useful for cases like this, where the subject is almost 100 years old and most contemporary sources are unavailable. Rlendog ( talk) 18:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - this is apparently going to need some closer thought, because the NSPORTS SNG is particularly clear that GNG has to also be met (and it currently isn't). The idea that even after a year there's still a Keep !vote going "we should keep it since we might get more in the future", but if we can't find the sources now, why should we expect to in the future? With regard to BeanieFan's repeated argument that other articles under gridiron haven't been deleted, firstly I'm not confident that's the case, but secondly, almost all gridiron applicable individuals meet GNG, if you wanted to cite valid precedent you'd need to prove lots of "Yes to gridiron, no to GNG, but still kept" in the recent past. Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I have been closely following American football AfDs for the past decade and can verify that we have not (to my recollection) ever deleted an NFL player. As noted above, the NFL is the tippy top of the American football pyramid. I did propose this summer raising the bar to two NFL games, but that proposal was soundly rejected by the community. Cbl62 ( talk) 15:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Nosebagbear: While I've only been on wikipedia for a year, I've searched extensively through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football/archive to check the consensus of American football AFDs—and—as I've repeatedly stressed, found that no NFL player has ever been denied of an article (I'll note that in c. 2009 several were deleted, but later restored when their professional career was found). If you're not sure that's the case, then you can look at every American football AFD with "delete" as the result in the past decade to be sure. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Cbl62 and BeanieFan11: my delete !vote included several aspects on this. I do indeed imagine that very few NFL players fail AfD, but I also imagine that very few of those fail GNG (more strictly, NBASIC). Here, we would seem to have a person who does fail GNG, whilst passing GRIDIRON. You've not contested that the NSPORTS criteria necessitate passing GNG as well. If you believe that it's sufficiently falling out of being descriptive, then the logical act would be for one of you two to formally request a policy change to exempt the GRIDIRON scope from GNG (in the same way as NPROF is). Nosebagbear ( talk) 17:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 18:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep, but remove all the content about other players with similar names who may or may not be the same person, per WP:FRANKIE. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Hi @ Metropolitan90:, while no doubt you're right about what to remove if kept, could I ask what your specific grounds are for keep? Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • He's presumed notable per WP:NGRIDIRON for having played one NFL game. And he's not just a name in one boxscore with zero other data; at least we know when he was born and when he died. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ Metropolitan90: but NSPORTS/Gridiron is abundantly clear that they also need to pass GNG - how does it do that? Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Riddle me this: what is the point of an SNG if they also have to pass GNG? This type of article is exactly why SNGs exist. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

          Per NSPORT: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. In other words, the purpose of the SNG is so mass article creators can pad their stats quicker an article may be in mainspace sourced only to refs that verify the subject meets the SNG, such as databases, without the threat of immediate A7 deletion or AfD challenge. Other biographies with such sourcing should very quickly attract scrutiny from NPP/AfC reviewers/general patrolling editors, but if the SportsRef Stamp of Approval is there editors are much less likely to put in the effort to investigate whether the subject actually meets GNG. It also gives editors a bit more leeway with how long they can take to find offline/untranslated/etc. SIGCOV. But once notability is challenged, those who want to retain the article are expected to produce GNG sourcing or provide a very credible claim that SIGCOV exists (like pointing to a specific book that isn't accessible online but would be expected to contain adequate coverage). It seems editors trust GRIDIRON's predictive accuracy enough that NFL players are extremely rare AfD targets, but that doesn't mean they all actually meet GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The NSPORTS exception is generally only applied to soccer wherein hundreds of thousands of players could pass the SNG with a few minutes of appearance in a signal game, as well as a few other limited examples. WP:NGRIDIRON, and SNGs in general, are made for the purposes of this exact articles, otherwise there would be no purpose for an SNG if they also need to apply on GNG. SNGs are basically custom-made for historical bios such as this, whereupon we presume that sources exist in some offline form if the criteria is passed. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • No, that's incorrect. If you want the NSPORTS carveout to be just on football (I suppose I should say association football, here, to be clear) then the gridiron (and every other sport SNG) supporters should be encouraging a policy change, not just flat-out ignoring extremely clear text. To give examples of other sports where this has been applying, we've had an avalanche of NCRIC cases in the last 6 months on this exact point. I've also participated in AfDs on table tennis and athletics specifically with regard to NSPORTS/GNG. While a tad sarcastic, JoelleJay's reasoning on why SNGs like this exist is correct. So it's not "no purpose" in general, but once we actually get to an AfD, then other than NPROF/NCORP etc, then there's no purpose. I imagine the closer's going to have fun on this one. Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to not passing GNG. Appreciate that he played in the NFL, but as others have pointed out he still needs significant coverage, which he apparently lacks at the moment. JonnyDKeen ( talk) 12:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep passes the SNG. It may be an edge case on GNG, but there's no point to even having an SNG if we're going to delete the edge cases. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 16:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Please read the above discussions on the purpose of NSPORT and its relationship to GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Please don't assume that I didn't. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 02:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Apparently I hadn't !voted on this yet. He can be listed at his team's page and season and expanded from there if anyone actually finds SIGCOV, but so far nothing has been found to support his meeting GNG--which is the guideline governing all sports bios once notability is challenged--and no one has invoked a PAG-based reason to keep. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment, I'd like to note that for some reason Newspapers.com is having trouble identifying some results from the 1920s-30s, which makes it even more difficult to find sources on this topic. Considering that he played nine seasons at the professional level (and possibly some more in college at Loyola) and the issue with Newspapers.com that I just mentioned, I believe that sources should be presumed to exist and the "presumption" of notability should stand. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 02:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • That's the first I've seen for just directly stating that sources can't be found and should just be assumed to exist. Wikipedia doesn't really have an effort threshold in retention-terms (so BEFORE has a reasonable expectation, but that's on nominators wanting to delete), so even if it would be a huge amount of effort to actually find sources, that doesn't mean they can be assumed. Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I have already found sources, though none of you delete voters are happy with that, so I said additional ones are likely to exist due to playing nine seasons (few people can say they played one) at the professional level. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ BeanieFan11: I thought I'd read all the sources you'd linked in - do any of them have significant coverage, in case I've missed any? Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - while online sources are not there, I think this is a perfect example of an SNG working, since he does meet WP:GRIDIRON. I haven't kept up my membership on Newspapers.com, but there appears to be some coverage of him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Polygon#Naming. If anyone needs anything from the page, let me know and I'll drop it on the talk page of the redirect.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain ( talk) 03:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Enneadecagon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable polygon. The mathworld page is telling: [8]. The only content here that's not completely formulaic is three unsourced constructions: one formulaic quadratrix of Hippias (replace the 19 with n in the construction to get an n-gon), and two original research approximations. The existence of arbitrarily accurate approximations to any n-gon follows from constructible numbers being dense in the reals. Suggest redirect to Polygon#Naming. Danstronger ( talk) 17:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete and redirect. The only footnote, to The Symmetries of Things, gives a range of pages that does not mention this shape at all (nor is it mentioned elsewhere in the book). The unfootnoted reference to Finkel A Mathematical Solution Book has literally one word on this topic and the MathWorld extlink has one short sentence. That's not the in-depth coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Polygon#Naming, per David Eppstein and the precedent of where higher names following this system redirect to (e.g. icosidigon). Double sharp ( talk) 06:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • P.S. There is an extra source on the talk page. However, it's not used in the article and therefore cannot be used to support notability as the article stands. And since its sole mention of the regular 19-gon is in an exercise – "The next new prime, 19, requires two trisections. The details are left to the reader!" – it obviously would not support notability even if it were used. :) Double sharp ( talk) 06:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Per standard practice, sources don't have to be in the article to support notability, just relevant and available. The apparent lack of depth is the more serious problem. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete and redirect per lack of sources as discussed. I really like this article and want it to exist, but it just doesn't seem to meet notability. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 05:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete as a WP:POVFORK. Appropriately-sourced content about the relevant viewpoints should be incorporated (in due proportion) into existing articles. RL0919 ( talk) 21:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

African Americans (ethnicity) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Blatant WP:POVFORK of African Americans. Contested redirect. – bradv ^🍁 16:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

This is absolutely not a POV fork. There are plenty of articles and journals which discuss the African American ethnicity at length as a specific lineage to those who are descendants of slavery. There is no disputing that African Americans are a specific ethnic group that should have their own page dedicated to them, which currently does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taharka155 ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I would aso appreciate if this Bradv individual would explain what makes this page a POV fork and dispute the fact that African Americans are a specific ethnic group beyond being a racial category.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taharka155 ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Taharka155 started this article in reaction to this discussion at African Americans. Their idea is that Barack Obama and Kamala Harris cannot be called "African Americans", which is clearly against mainstream. The definition of the new article is that African Americans are an ethnic group consisting of descendants of people who were brought to the United States as chattel slaves during the Atlantic slave trade, based on a misrepresentation of this source. ^[1] If the word "largely" from the source were accepted into the definition, the result would be nearly identical with what African Americans already says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsk6400 ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

ComentThis is simply not true. The article African Americans makes the claim that anyone of the black racial group is classified as African American. The article that I created is specifically for those who are descendants of chattel slaves in the United States, which are a genetically, culturally, and historically distinct ethnic group from Caribbean, African, and Afro-Latino immigrants in the United States. The Britannica article which I used as a source also notes this distinction clearly. I have stated previously that Nigerian Americans, Jamaican Americans, Kenyan Americans, Ghanaian Americans, Haitian Americans, and every other Black immigrant ethnic group has a specific Wikipedia page for their people, and yet there is not one for African American descendants of slaves. 95% of Black immigrants do not identify with the term African American, as is cited in the page. I do not see the issue here, as the author of the African Americans page has clearly stated that content contained within that page is pertaining simply to race and not ethnicity. -- Taharka155 ( talk) 12:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Ethnicity can not be determined by descent. This a POV attempt to claim that "pureblooded" African Americans have to have slaves as ancestors. As with any claim about "purity of blood", this is only a racist's pipe dream. Dimadick ( talk) 23:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Coment@ Dimadick:At no point in my article is anything about blood purity mentioned. Literally in the genetics page it shows the genetic diversity of African Americans with European and Native American heritage. I don't know why this statement about being a pipe dream is not considered an insult. Also I will expect you all to also be marking Nigerian American and all other immigrant ethnic pages for deletion as well. If not I will nominate it for deletion -- Taharka155 ( talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Coment@ Dimadick: Also addressing your claim that ethnicity cannot be determined by ancestry, this is from the Oxford's definition and the official wikipedia page on ethnic groups: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area". The claim that ethnicity is not determined by descent is purely opinionated and not based on reality. -- Taharka155 ( talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge to the main African Americans article, it's basically once and the same. Could be a brief mention in a genetics section in the other article. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge, I agree with Oaktree b and support merging with the African American article Safyrr 22:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article is relevant and is properly documented with citations. Louie ( talk) 15:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep The Article is not a fork of African Americans. That article clearly states in the introductory statements that it is a category based upon race, and includes a multitude of ethnic groups. African Americans (ethnicity) is properly cited, and gives ample information of what distinguishes it from the that article. There is a clear distinction between ethnic African Americans and for example Kenyan Americans, or Jamaican Americans, both of whom have pages dedicated to them that exclude African Americans who descend from enslaved people. I have a number of cited genetic, historical, cultural, and socioeconomic differences that clearly distinguish these groups from those African Americans who descend from slaves brought to the United States, which clearly identify them as a separate ethnic group, something that the article African Americans simply does not do. Information pertaining to African American slave descendants such as their history and culture is vast and it deserves its own separate article. -- Taharka155 ( talk) 20:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Comment The article is about an ethnicity called "African Americans" which excludes each and every person not descended from enslaved Americans. None of the given sources supports the existence of such a group. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Comment @ Rsk6400: The sources you provided when you described African Americans as an ethnic group, do not make any mention of ethnicity, only race. "The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black, African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries, such as Haitian and Jamaican." This clearly denotes several ethnicities, with African American being specifically listed apart from Haitian Americans, Jamaican Americans, etc. -- Taharka155 ( talk) 12:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Comment @ Rsk6400: - The ethnicity which I've provided many citations for as being distinct genetically, culturally, historically and in socioeconomics from other Black immigrant ethnicities doesn't exist..... This is ethnocidal language that erases an ethnicity and contrary to everything cited within the article and the works of many notable historians and anthropologists.

• Delete/Merge Obvious POVFORK, the African Americans article begins African Americans are an ethnic group consisting of Americans with partial or total ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa. Emphasis mine. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 06:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Comment @ Hemiauchenia:No ethnicity is based entirely upon race. The page for African Americans is mislabeled and the source provided does not mention it as an ethnicity but a racial category. "The Black racial category includes people who marked the "Black, African Am., or Negro" checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries, such as Haitian and Jamaican." https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf" I have since edited the page to reflect that myself -- Taharka155 ( talk) 12:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC) contribs) 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

In the US, a distinction between "race" and "ethnicity" with regards to African Americans is not clearly drawn. There is no justification for two separate articles. As for your claims regarding Americans who are recent African migrants, the African American article notes: The term African American generally denotes descendants of enslaved Africans who are from the United States,while some Black immigrants or their children may also come to identify as African-American and According to U.S. Census Bureau data, African immigrants generally do not self-identify as African American. The overwhelming majority of African immigrants identify instead with their own respective ethnicities (~95%). Immigrants from some Caribbean, Central American, and South American nations and their descendants may or may not also self-identify with the term. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Hemiauchenia: Regardless of what the African Americans article makes note of, the opening statement and its citations clearly do make a distinction, as do a large number of citations within the article for African Americans (ethnicity). The African Americans article make absolutely no clear separation between the various ethnic groups that the US Census defines as racially African Americans. I have provided citations which demonstrate that African Americans (descendants of slaves) are genetically, culturally, and historically distinct from Africans and Caribbeans, as well as having vastly different socioeconomic issues. If this does not warrant a separate article, then there are a large number of articles that also need to be deleted including Kenyan American, Nigerian American, Jamaican American, Haitian American, etc. There's no reason for any of those groups to have ethnic articles when the largest and oldest black ethnicity in the United States, descendants of Americans slaves who have a unique history, culture, genetic profile, and socioeconomic circumstances do not have an article. Even when so many anthropologists and historians have distinguished them as an ethnic group. Even the quotation from the Census provided above distinguishes African Americans as a separate ethnic group.-- Taharka155 ( talk) 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is an essentialist WP:POVFORK of African Americans under wrong premises that The article African Americans makes the claim that anyone of the black racial group is classified as African American. Whereas the lede of African Americans actually says that ...some Black immigrants or their children may also come to identify as African-American (emphasis added). Ethnic groups, like all social groups, are fluid to varying extent. A page that is created with the sole to intent to present a monolithic, essentialist POV of a social group identity has no place in WP. – Austronesier ( talk) 21:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • comment@ Austronesier: This is very opening statement of the African Americans article "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans and formerly, Afro-Americans) is an ethnic group consisting of Americans with partial or total ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa". I'm not paraphrasing. People who are Kenyan Americans and Jamaican Americans are included in the article, and it includes the history of voluntary immigration from Africa in recent decades. As I've previously stated, there are dozens of wikipedia articles that distinguish other Black American ethnic groups such as Ethiopian Americans that exclude African American descendants of slaves, and yet there is not a single wikipedia page dedicated to that group. The citation provided from the Census bureau even makes the distinction between these groups. There's no reason why wikipedia should not have an article dedicated to this ethnicity, other than a very blatant and systematic attempt to erase their unique culture and history in America. Claims that is has no place on Wikipedia is proven wrong by the great many articles for Black ethnicities that exclude this ethnicity.-- Taharka155 ( talk) 22:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • You're not paraphrasing, but you're omitting the following sentences, and by doing so you misrepresent what the article actually is about. It's a straw argument. And the complete denial of the possibility that people with different ancestry can assimilate into and be accepted by the mainstream of the African American community as one of theirs is an insular view. Spell out that "People who are Kenyan Americans" refers to Barack Obama, who you don't consider to African American only because of his "bloodline". – Austronesier ( talk) 09:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ Austronesier: The same way that African American slave descendants are excluded from being labeled Kenyan American and are featured no where in the Kenyan Americans article, yet they can be in the article for African Americans… No one can “assimilate” into the Kenyan American community, but the African American community is just some open door for anyone with Black skin according to people who aren’t even African American. There is some very clear bias going on here against people who are slave descendants, along with false ideas being spread by people who are not African American and learn about Black people in some book. Taharka155 ( talk) 13:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete .... complete misunderstanding of the concept. READ. Moxy- 00:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as POV fork. -- Euryalus ( talk) 02:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Note that American Descendants of Slavery is an existing article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Gråbergs Gråa Sång: that article is of a political organization, not an ethnicity. Taharka155 ( talk) 13:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

    Per that article, not only: "is a term referring to descendants of enslaved Africans in the area that would become the United States (from its colonial period onward), and to the political movement". Expanding that article on the "No American slavery ancestry, not AA" POV is a possibility. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

    • @ Gråbergs Gråa Sång: A term used by a small group online and an actual legally recognized ethnicity are two completely different things.-- Taharka155 ( talk) 14:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • But the POV of that very group is vital to understand what is going on here in this discussion, isn't it? – Austronesier ( talk) 15:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

        There is also the African_Americans#Terminology_dispute section to work with. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

        Some media for context: The Wikipedia War That Shows How Ugly This Election Will Be Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Austronesier and others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

DJ Revolution (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed as a part of New Page Patrol. Zero sources, zero indication of wp:notability. Redirect has been removed twice. North8000 ( talk) 16:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

As onel5969 noted below, this probably needs more than just another simple conversion to a redirect.North8000 ( talk) 16:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - and then restore redirect. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete and redirect. Mccapra ( talk) 09:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete and then redirect; the person edit-warring the creation probably needs to be pblocked from the redirect, as they have yet to edit their own or any other talk except apparently by mistake. —valereee ( talk) 15:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply