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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Sean C. Ewing

Sean C. Ewing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Local politician who does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Mebane NC is not a global city for the purposes of securing the "inherent" notability of its municipal councillors, but this article neither suggests that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons (e.g. having previously held a more notable political office) nor demonstrates the depth of reliable source coverage about him that it would take to deem him a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for smalltown municipal councillors. Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 04:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Plenty of examples of small town politicians exist in Wikipedia, /info/en/?search=List_of_the_youngest_mayors_in_the_United_States. Brnrubbr ( talk) 15:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. No claim of importance or significance other than being a small-town city council member; also no substantial coverage. Reads like a campaign flyer. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

James Dodson (producer)

James Dodson (producer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BASIC; I found little to no coverage about Dodson. The Film Creator ( talk) 22:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The only sources I can find are IMDB and various pages replicating his wikipedia page. Non-notable Dexxtrall ( talk) 11:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 04:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Soft Deletion. As power~enwiki doesn't specifically register opposition to this article's deletion but is hardly a ringing endorser of it, I think the best option in these circumstances is to treat it as if it were a regular non-participating AfD nom.

As with any soft deletion, this can be recreated on request either to me or WP:REFUND. Nosebagbear ( talk) 00:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hamad bin Khalifa Al Nahyan

Hamad bin Khalifa Al Nahyan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I am submitting this for discussion again, since the time has passed, the sale did not happen and the whole story now looks like one big scam. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 19:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 19:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply

What, exactly, is a scam here? Are you saying that his claiming to be a member of the Abu Dhabi Royal Family is fraudulent? Or is some business deal he was involved in engaging in fraud? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Exactly. Read the news sources, mentioned in the article. There is no ANY mention of him as part of Abu Dhabi Royal Family beside the articles about Beitar deal, which was canceled due to his "wealth" not being a real wealth. He is not mentioned in any source in Arabic or English, which is a very suspicious, taking account that members of a Royal Family are always in spotlight. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 19:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• There is certainly something strange going on here. I think the incident with Beitar Jerusalem is notable enough to be discussed somewhere beyond Beitar Jerusalem F.C., but the article as-written has so many problems there's an argument for deletion based on WP:TNT or WP:BLP violations. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JBW ( talk) 19:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The Dear Abbeys

The Dear Abbeys (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I am unable to find evidence in reliable, independent sources that covers this group. I might have merged this to Boston_University#Student_life, but this type of content doesn't really appear there, and I'm not sure it would be DUE. Star Mississippi 20:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep as has lengthy reviews cited in the article as well as coverage in sources such as Boston Magazine here, passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the vast majority of those are not independent as they're connected to BU, which the group is as well. Star Mississippi 00:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• The article I cited is not from the university and the BARB review is independent and significant coverage, in my view Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, for the reasons of the editor who wants this article kept. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Most sources either primary or linked to their university, not demonstrating reliable, independent coverage Dexxtrall ( talk) 11:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I don't see any compelling claim of notability. Sources are all primary/linked or run of the mill. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 18:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete I wasn't going to add an additional !vote, but Daniel's relist appears to be indicating that David's (!)vote is discounted, whereas to me it seems a clunky "per X" !vote, which is generally permitted. Atlantic's source definitely is suitable, but it is also the only one I could find - were there another, I'd flip my !vote to Keep. As it is, I don't believe notability is shown. Nosebagbear ( talk) 00:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 21:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Gatlin Green

Gatlin Green (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; she's only had one significant role as Emily Duval in Heroes Reborn (miniseries). The Film Creator ( talk) 22:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to America's Got Talent (season 9). Treat this as a 'soft'-redirect (similar to WP:SOFTDELETE), in that the redirect can be contested (and therefore renominated at AfD), if desired. Daniel ( talk) 21:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Quintavious Johnson

Quintavious Johnson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article fails WP:BIO in regards to notability per WP:ENT GUtt01 ( talk) 14:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep as he received plenty of reliable sources coverage in 2014 as cited in the article and has recently receieved some more as he takes part in an America's Got Talent stage show, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 02:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - I think past practice has been to keep on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places in major competitions, and redirect all the others, unless they have kept up notability beyond their 15 minutes of fame. If there's been a change, please cite it by linking. Bearian ( talk) 14:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus verging on keep, sources below are noted but were never scruitinised, so closing as NCS to allow for a future renomination if the sourcing doesn't check out as WP:RS. Daniel ( talk) 21:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Jblessing

Jblessing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:NOTE, clearly self-promotional and has deleted tags added by other users. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 19:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep, has significant coverage: J Blessing FINALLY breaks his silence after being dumped by partner [1] J Blessing's firm owes me Sh400,000, says Brendah Jons Avril celebrates J Blessing on his birthday I Lost Ksh400K Through J Blessing’s Agency, Says ‘Mama Plezdent Kingston’ [2] J Blessing introduces beautiful girlfriend. So who's Avril's baby daddy?.-- Chuka Chief _talk 15:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep [3], [4], and [5], seem to establish that the subject is notable. The noted problems in the article are very there; the article is in need of a rewrite. — CVValue ( talk) 22:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 21:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Yeison Asencio

Yeison Asencio (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable minor-league baseball player; fails WP:GNG

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Muboshgu, I guess playing in that "all-star" exhibition game doesn't cut it, right? I thought maybe the date of birth would have generated something that might make him pass the GNG but I can't find any important coverage. Drmies ( talk) 20:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Drmies, there isn't. I was not going to contest it as a PROD. Will probably have to vote delete here. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. There is considerable coverage on him under both his real name and the alias Yoan Alcantara, including in the The San Diego Union-Tribune [6] [7] [8], Chicago Tribune [9] [10], FanSided [11] [12] and Bleacher Report [13]. Alvaldi ( talk) 12:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete.. Sources identified by Alvaldi are either generic prospect reports that pretty much every minor leaguer gets or reports on his falsifying his identity.. none of them discuss him in enough detail to make him notable under GNG. Spanneraol ( talk) 19:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

List of highest I.Q. scores ever recorded

List of highest I.Q. scores ever recorded (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This list can't work. The consensus of RS has no agreed-upon way to exactly "measure" the IQ of anyone. This becomes even harder when including children and historical geniuses. Many reported high scores are from unscientific IQ tests, as opposed to ones in common use by trained psychologists. The single source used here is unreliable and unscientific, and does not even cite where its IQ scores come from. It is yet another sensationalist or clickbait article on the Internet. If we continue to expand this list with similar sources, it will become a list of mere rumors, which would violate both WP:SOAPBOX and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Because of the variety of outlandish IQ claims, I am doubtful that even a list of claimed IQ scores can work. It is difficult to reliably verify an IQ test score, unlike height (which is objectively measurable and can be reliably reported, c.f. List of tallest people). I therefore propose deleting this article entirely. Wikinights ( talk) 21:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Rewritten for clarity, grammar. Wikinights ( talk) 22:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not a viable list topic per nom, plus plenty of redlinks and WP:BLP violations. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Yikes, I don't even want to click on the link to see the article. Not a suitable list topic for Wikipedia. Excellent nomination, Wikinights. Gildir ( talk) 21:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no chance of it ever containing reliable data, let alone comprehensive data. Might as well have a list of claimed sizes of fish caught by amateur anglers. Elemimele ( talk) 22:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: This has to be the most odd list I have seen, and relying on a single source, I don't see how it gets any notability whatsoever. As per above, list of claimed sizes of fish caught by amateur anglers might be a more interesting list. Delete. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 23:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:DELREASON#6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes. It's not possible to attribute an IQ score of 200 to reliable sources, because any source reporting an IQ score of 200 is simply not reliable for that assertion. It's impossible to calibrate a test that can accurately produce that result, because of the way the mathematics of IQ scores work—your score is determined by how large a proportion of the population you perform better than, and outperforming every single person on Earth would still only give you an IQ of (roughly) 195 (or equivalently, a Z-score of roughly +6⅓). An IQ of 200 means a Z-score of +6⅔, or 1 in roughly 76 billion ( thanks, WolframAlpha) – roughly an order of magnitude more than the current world population. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  You have just demonstrated there why I think that a foundation in statistics is a life skill that everyone should learn. Many claims by politicians or the press can easily be dismissed with such knowledge. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete The fraught history of intelligence testing altogether makes this a 'no-go' type of article which cannot be reliably sourced in any manner. Nate • ( chatter) 02:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as not a viable list topic. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 21:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete the IQ claims are a mix of unsourced, untrustworthy, and after-death estimates; I don't consider the Reader's Digest listicle credible at all. Testing IQ is hard, and testing >150IQ is even harder; there's simply not the extant data to make a useful list of this form. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Kalash Ambers

Kalash Ambers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Subject fails WP:NMUSIC, sources are just are primary and don’t meet WP: GNG. A search doesn’t provide anything either. Xclusivzik ( talk) 21:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Deleteper nom, this was declined at WP:AFC back in April fails WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - complete failure of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG; no useful coverage in searches. Please could someone revert the disruptive attempt to move this article while the AfD is in place? Thanks Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Wow, this one is a real stretch. He does not get credit for popularizing a genre that was popular 10 years before he showed up, and despite being born in America he cannot be described as an American performer (as if that would make him more notable). He is only visible in his agent's reprinted press releases at the typical African gossip sites, and even those are rare. None of this makes him "A prominent figure in popular music" nor is he notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 21:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, does not have SIGCOV.-- Chuka Chief _talk 14:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Might be a case of WP:UPE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 04:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Paolo Genovese , with no prejudice to recreation if/when GNG is met. Daniel ( talk) 21:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The First Day of My Life

The First Day of My Life (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

it is WP:TOOSOON for this topic to have a mainspace article, the topic only has one article that constitutes significant coverage, the others are a database listing and a passing mention, this should be in draft space until it meets WP:GNG BOVINEBOY 2008 18:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Draftify, Agreed... WP:TOOSOON DonaldD23 talk to me 18:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Paolo Genovese for now. Film is directed and written by notable individuals, but all we have for this subject so far is your typical Deadline Hollywood and Variety announcement articles [14]. Did get discussion in this Variety article in the context of Italy's film industry post-COVID-19, but only for one paragraph. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 21:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus verging on keep. Daniel ( talk) 21:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Dominique Palmer

Dominique Palmer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Not every 21-year-old “climate justice activist” belongs in an encyclopedia. Until there’s in-depth coverage, until there’s more than press releases from Greenpeace and screenshots from the subject’s Instagram profile, the case for inclusion isn’t convincing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - was deprodded with the rationale that it had already been prodded once, which is incorrect. It had been speedied, not prodded. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep, ample sourcing and created as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red initiative to try and improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. NemesisAT ( talk) 20:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Can you indicate how, specifically, the article satisfies WP:BASIC? — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment WP:BASIC states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and in the article, there appears to be "more than press releases from Greenpeace and screenshots from the subject’s Instagram profile", e.g. New York Times 2020, 3 grafs, with her background as a Fridays for Future organizer in Britain and context, The Guardian 2021, 2 grafs, with background and context, The Guardian 2020, 3 grafs, with background and context, 7 UK Climate Activists Fighting For Marginalised Communities (Bustle, 2021, she is one of the featured activists), BBC3, 2021, 5-graf focus on her statements, with background and context, so WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BASIC notability appears to have support from the sources currently in the article. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:BASIC and expand the article, because in addition to the sources above and others in the article, there is The Big Issue 2021, The Irish Times 2021, Refinery29 2020, and she is one of 12 Fridays For Future organizers who signed open letters, one published by Reuters 2021, and another published by Vice 2021. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Vague claim to notoriety, entirely dependent on that of another activist. 21:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BASIC -- plenty of sources, and appears to be high visibility in the climate movement in the UK, Sadads ( talk) 20:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep, as WP:BASIC is satisfied here, as there are in fact many sources other than Greenpeace.. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 10:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 21:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Guerreros Atlixco

Guerreros Atlixco (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Seems like it should be notable, but I can't find anything like WP:SIGCOV or even much in the way of WP:V. PepperBeast (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Yukti Thareja

Yukti Thareja (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable Indian film actress, Only known for one song. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR DMySon ( talk) 17:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 17:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 17:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 17:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 17:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete appeared in one MTV song does not make someone notable, with very rare exceptions. VocalIndia ( talk) 17:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: The song is non-notable. Does not meet NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 ( talk) 12:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Having appeared in one song is a really weak claim of significance. enjoyer -- talk 08:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete - as well as the one song to her credit, she was also on MTV Supermodel of the Year. That said, I don't think appearing in a reality show + one song is enough to guarantee a keep. Whilst this article does contain a small splash of coverage regarding her modelling career, still looks like it's falling short on GNG. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Draftify: This article published too soon. In current scenario she is falling short to pass notability. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 04:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete as per Spiderone Bapinghosh (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Vadim Zubavlenko

Vadim Zubavlenko (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article about former footballer (hasn't been with a club since last September) who made a single appearance for a club in the Russian FNL. Although that single appearance creates a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL, it is invalid because the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG based on a search of online English- and Russian-language sources. The article was previously sent to AfD where it was kept on the (erroneous) view that his career had not ended and he might make further appearances in a fully-pro league. It's obvious now that his professional footballing career is over. Jogurney ( talk) 17:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - according to Crimean Sport, as of May 2021, he is playing for FC TSK Simferopol in the Crimean Premier League, which might explain why most football database websites show him as not having an active career. With that being said, other than the one interview that I have just linked to, I can't find any other worthwhile coverage so this doesn't look to be a GNG pass. If significant coverage other than that one interview is found, please ping me as I may change my vote. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep passes GNG and has an active career.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 12:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 21:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

H.Mujeeb Rahman

H.Mujeeb Rahman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Looks like an advertisement. Lack of in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of them. fails WP:GNG DMySon ( talk) 17:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 17:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 17:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 17:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. A quick Google search fails to find anything worthwhile. ToThAc ( talk) 05:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete all. Daniel ( talk) 21:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

TamilNadu State Transport Corporation - Kumbakonam

TamilNadu State Transport Corporation - Kumbakonam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

We have an article at Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation which isn’t currently amazingly well sourced but the topic is notable. What isn’t clearly notable are all the local units of the agency. There is a brace of articles lacking any sourcing in RIS and I haven’t been able to find anything in English to suggest notability. There may be sources in Tamil I can’t identify or assess. I’m nominating them all as a bundle and believe that in each case a redirect to the main corporation is probably the best outcome. Mccapra ( talk) 17:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages

TamilNadu State Transport Corporation - Salem (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TamilNadu State Transport Corporation - Coimbatore (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TamilNadu State Transport Corporation - Madurai (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TamilNadu State Transport Corporation - Tirunelveli (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete all. Not notable on their own, and TamilNadu is not the correct wording of the state. Ajf773 ( talk) 01:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. No indication of meeting WP:BRANCH. With the mispelling and the hyphen, I don't think redirect is going to be very helpful here. -- Ab207 ( talk) 12:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect all to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation per commonsense; no discernible justification for separate articles on sub-units. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 15:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete all as not notable outside the scope of the parent corporation. I don't see the value in redirecting these, as they don't seem like plausible search terms given the odd spelling of "TamilNadu" [ sic] and the spacing/hyphenation, aside from potentially discouraging recreation in the future. -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 15:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Kinu, from my experience it's not that uncommon to see it written that way because in Tamil it's rendered as a single word. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom -- DaxServer ( talk) 11:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• I Oppose for deletion request for these articles. These articles are information page for respective zone transport corporation . As nominee mentioned Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation dose not provide all the information as these articles contains . Every transport zones are divided with number of Districts and it is running as separate corporation. A single Article can't provide information for all the transport corporation. Dhaneesh 🙃 Ram 15:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Please note that the above user is the creator of atleast three of the nominated articles, ie, Salem, Coimbatore and Tirunelveli (they they previously edited as as தனீஷ்). -- Ab207 ( talk) 15:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete all, clearly not notable and I'm also concerned about the author creating multiple non-notable articles like List of neighbourhoods in Salem, Tamil Nadu, Tiruchirappalli Local Planning Authority. SUN EYE 1 15:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 21:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The Pike & Shot Society

The Pike & Shot Society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

PROD contested; searches indicate no notability. As in I can hardly find any coverage Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Complete lack of sources to demonstrate notability, can't find anything in a search that would suggest otherwise Dexxtrall ( talk) 11:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The Society is fifty years old and has a high reputation with its journal and contents frequently cited in academic journals and published works. The Society's publications afre considered unique in presenting otherwise unavailable information that we can publish because we do not need to consider whether a publication is profitable. Not sure how we can demonstrate "notability" except, if required, a list of works where the Society's publications and journal have been quoted.

Your use of the term 'we' suggests you have a conflict of interest here. Wikipedia strongly discourages editing pages where a conflict of interest exists. You must WP:DISCLOSE any conflict of interest Dexxtrall ( talk) 10:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- Looking through the Society's website, I see little to give me confidence that this is a serious academic society. It is typical of articles on societies that the main source is their own website. That is not an independent source but is likely in fact to be reliable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Santiago Chávez

Santiago Chávez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable minor-league baseball player; fails WP:Notability. User created this article prematurely after Chávez was named to Mexico's preliminary Olympic roster, but he was not selected to the final 24-man team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pozzi.c ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable baseball player. He was not included in the olympic team. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Out of curiosity, was a WP:BEFORE done in Mexican sources before the nomination? I only ask because he seems to have some sustianed coverage there, including this article (which by itself is not enough). Alvaldi ( talk) 12:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm not seeing enough in terms of coverage, regardless of language, to establish a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 11:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Fly (clothing)

Fly (clothing) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Essentially unsourced, and tagged as such for 3 years. Much of this is WP:OR, and some is sourced to The Free Dictionary which is WP:UGC. This is one of those articles that was probably acceptable when it was created back in 2007 with the edit comment "might make a good article one day if history gets added", but totally fails our modern concept of WP:N.

I made some attempt to find good sources, but to be honest, "fly" doesn't make a very good search term. Somebody who's more familiar with the garment industry literature might be able to find something, but until then, this isn't an encyclopedic article. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• I'm in favour of keep because the concept is quite a notable one, very nearly in the same league as Pocket (and people have written whole PhD theses on them). The main problem with the article is lack of referencing, but it's not obviously factually wrong. And as the nominator correctly said: "Fly" is a horrible search-term. But we can't go round deleting articles because the name of a thing happens to be ambiguous. A google search for "history of the fly in trousers" produces a lot of hits, but predictably a lot are blogs, so they're probably not reliable secondary source. But the fact they exist suggests that a lot of people consider the topic worth writing about, and somewhere in humanity, someone knows something about it. As the nominator said, this article really needs attention from someone familiar with the clothing industry. Elemimele ( talk) 22:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Let's remember that there are other languages than English. We can look for sources in German, French, Spanish, Russian and so on. A quick look at the corresponding Wikipedia articles in other languages reveals that sources (such as this one) do indeed exist. I don't think the notability is seriously in question here. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a well-known everyday item, I definitely think this is notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep , with no consensus to rename. Further renames should be considered using the WP:RM process. Daniel ( talk) 21:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Shalu Nigam

Shalu Nigam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

not notable and fails GNG Iamfarzan ( talk) 14:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan ( talk) 14:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I fail to see how a high court decision that has impact for single parents all over India is not notable, particularly wherein in provides a path for a child to obtain a passport without the name of a father. The high court notes single parents were on increase due to various reasons “like unwed mothers, sex workers, surrogate mothers, rape survivors, children abandoned by father and also children born through IVF. This sort of decision is going to occur in many other sovereign jurisdictions. This decision *does* have consequences for women and mothers in India, and hence, notability. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 14:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• This judgment made a vital impact on the issue of the name and identity of single mothers and their kids in India. The Ministry changed its policy within a few months subsequent to this decision. The judge very clearly established that the passport authorities cannot force single mothers to obtain the consent of their father before applying for the passport of their kids. Other legal Scholars have been writing about this decision by the Delhi High court and how it has made a significant impact on the situation of single mothers ^{[1] [2]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.43.74 ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep the content regarding the case, it meets WP:GNG. But maybe the article name should be changed to reference the case rather than the person, as she is not notable independently of the case? LizardJr8 ( talk) 15:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - evidently a landmark case with heaps of coverage in multiple reliable sources. A rename as above might need to be considered but I can't think of a valid reason to delete the content. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• As I have created this page so I am giving reasons to KEEP this page AS IT IS and why I created this

1. The judgment made an important impact considering the situation in India about single mothers. It has been referred to in other cases too later and as also discussed above, scholars are writing about this case.

2. The person who filed this petition as a lawyer and as a single mother fought her own case herself therefore the person becomes notable.

3. The person as a lawyer, researcher, and activist is working on gender and human rights issues and has other significant publications in her name. Some of her recent work is quoted in the article itself in the references list

4. Some of her work is important in terms of feminist research and has added a new dimension to feminist thinking in India. For instance, her work on domestic violence law in India from 2005 to a recent one in 2020 - a continuous series of books, articles, and papers on the issue of domestic violence law in India brings in a different dimension.

5. Most of the other work of the author not listed here such as her co-authored book published in 2016 on The Founding Mother: 15 women architects of the Indian Constitution is much applauded locally in India

6. The author has been awarded a senior fellowship by the Indian council of social science research and has been actively contributing to the field of women's studies at the global level. ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Changetheworld ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep and do not rename - this article needs work, but it seems clear that neither WP:BIO1E or WP:BLP1E apply due to the substantial documentation of her role in the major events currently featured in the article, and WP:BASIC notability is supported, including because her activism and advocacy extends beyond this case, e.g. News Minute 2017, The Wire 2020, Livelaw 2021, The Wire 2021. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  Let me point out that this was an article declined two times at AFC.I cant understand how the subject is independently notable. If this is keep, I recommend name should be changed to reference the case rather than the person. Iamfarzan ( talk) 05:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I have added this para if this meets the notability requirements. Any other suggestions or comments are welcomed.

Her Other Notable Achievements

Over the years, she has been working consistently in the field of domestic violence laws in India and made some specific contributions in the field from the feminist perspective since 2005[26] [27] till present [28] [29]

More specifically, her contribution in the field of domestic violence law has been acknowledged with the emergence of coronavirus in 2020 and its impact on women [30] [31] [32] [33]

Her activism extends beyond the field of human rights too. <refhttps://www.firstpost.com/india/kathua-rape-and-murder-case-live-updates-pdp-to-meet-today-to-decide-future-course-of-action-after-two-bjp-ministers-quit-4431283.html></ref> [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

She has served as a visiting faculty at the Center for Women's Development Studies as she recieved senior fellowship by the Indian Council of Social Science Research, 2013-15 [41] Also, based on her contribution in the field of dowry and domestic violence, she was invited for a conference on dowry in 2019 at Sydney, Australia organized by UNSW and ACHRH [42]

• Keep as it definitely seems notable enough and has a lot of sources, and possibly change the article name to the case, as LizardJr8 suggested NHCLS ( talk) 09:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks a Lot for editing this page. It's a huge learning experience for me. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Changetheworld ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Cheers, Dr Changetheworld, and it will take some time to review, sort, and incorporate the links, but my hope is that revisions to the article will also be helpful for this discussion. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep agree per all above. VocalIndia ( talk) 16:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment per WP:HEY, the article has been substantially revised, and I think it is now more clear why a standalone article for Nigam, with her case incorporated into it, is warranted. As an initial matter, it is a very fact-driven case, so her biographical details are a core part of the case and covered by multiple independent and reliable sources. She is also both the petitioner and the lawyer who made the arguments that were covered by multiple independent and reliable sources. The case also did not happen in a vacuum, because it is part of a developing body of caselaw (e.g. Mandel, 2019, Socio-Legal Rev. 15 (131): 147–149), and while I have not been able to access the specific pages that discuss her in Mutinies for Equality: Contemporary Developments in Law and Gender in India (2021), the publisher blurb indicates the book is focused on "protagonists who shape the debate around law and gender and locate their efforts into a socio-political context", which seems like further support for her notability as a contributor to the development of women's legal rights in India. WP:BLP1E appears to be a relevant consideration for whether a standalone article for her is warranted, and it appears to not apply due to #3, her substantial role in this event, and #2, not remaining a low-profile individual after the event. For example, she was one of the experts cited by The News Minute in 2017 for her writing on Battered Woman Syndrome, and she has engaged in high-profile activist activity, as noted in links in my comment above. In addition, on GScholar, I had to go 10 pages in to get past her scholarly output, but she also appears to gain regular notice from her peers for her academic work, and the article currently does not fully reflect this nor additional information about her career that could be researched and confirmed based on her Routledge author profile. A redirect could be created for the name of the case to her article, for if and when the case is discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia, which would offer the additional context about her that is available from a wide variety of sources that have been and could still be incorporated into the article. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC) Also, the Find link tool indicates an article in her name will not be an orphan due to the WP:MANYLINKS that can already be created. Beccaynr ( talk) 23:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was draftify. Daniel ( talk) 21:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

M3GAN

M3GAN (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable future film, no evidence has been provided that filming has begun, all sources are dated before the scheduled shooting dates, per WP:NFF this should not be in mainspace yet, there is already a working draft BOVINEBOY 2008 14:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Draftify: Examination of references show participants, not the script or the story, plot, like this. No notability for the film itself. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 14:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Draftify WP:TOOSOON DonaldD23 talk to me 15:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are now two sources in the article that state the film is in production, and multiple articles in industry trades establishing general notability. - Forty.4 ( talk) 05:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Which two sources say the film is in production? All five sources in the article predate the scheduled start date. BOVINEBOY 2008 14:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was A7 Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 20:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Benowa High: The Podcast

Benowa High: The Podcast (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Lack of notability. I'd simply redirect it to the (poor) article on the place, but there's no mention of this podcast TheLongTone ( talk) 14:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I was unable to find any coverage in sources independent of the subject. Facebook, Spotify, Apple, Instagram et al do not count. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per above, no notability exists outside podcast sources. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 15:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: not notable, no independent sources. Melcous ( talk) 10:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: just too localised. Your students have great technical skills and you should direct them into cleaning up other articles. Just at random- Category:Public high schools in Perth, Western Australia gives them 71 articles to discuss-
• Speedy Delete. No credible claim of notability. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Miklos Wright

Miklos Wright (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a film editor, not properly sourced as meeting our inclusion standards. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- the notability test hinges on evidence of distinction, such as notable film or television editing awards or the reception of enough reliable source coverage about him and his work in the media to clear WP:GNG. But the only notability claim being made here is that he has had editing credits, and the only "source" present is his IMDb page, neither of which are sufficient in and of themselves. Bearcat ( talk) 13:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 13:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: As per nom, this film editor has not obtained any distinction, Award, Golden Globe, Emmy, attribution from his peers. So, no General Notability. Article lacks references. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 15:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Doesn't appear to meet any of the notability guidelines. Jmertel23 ( talk) 21:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Dear Megha

Dear Megha (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non notable future film, appears to fail WP:NFF as production doesn't appear to be notable. Delete or move to draft until release.

Previously deleted for failing WP:NFF in May 2021, nothing has changed. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: as per WP:NFF -- Whiteguru ( talk) 15:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 ( talk) 18:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Sebastian Serediuc

Sebastian Serediuc (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I can only really find passing mentions and brief transfer announcements relating to him, so I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass yet. His appearances to date are in the 3rd tier of Spain and 3rd tier of Romania (also no sources support any Romanian appearances) so WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't seem to be met. Currently on the books of a 2nd tier Romanian team so it's not even one of those cases where he's near enough guaranteed to be notable any time soon. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - lacks the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. I was also unsuccessful in finding any sources. Alvaldi ( talk) 17:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 04:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 12:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments presenting sources that meet GNG have not been refuted. Online sources can certainly be independent, in-depth, and reliable. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 15:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Maro (singer)

Maro (singer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG GermanKity ( talk) 10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I accepted this at AfC because I felt it met the bare minimum for WP:GNG, having around three independent sources that provided non-trivial mentions. These would be from The Face (magazine) (a full interview), Flaunt (another shorter interview) and from Affinity Magazine ( analysis of his single + interview). I don't see any reason to doubt the reliability or independence of these sources, except maybe the Flaunt one, where his single debuted. There are nonetheless two other less substantial sources, one from Paper (magazine), that support his notability. Yeeno ( talk) 🍁 18:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment [ Interview] again [ Interview], [ YouTube], [ Online source], [ Online source]. With these sources, the subject is clearly not notable for Wikipedia. Mehmood.Husain ( talk) 19:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I'm confused by the comment above listing sources then saying clearly not notable... Is there any further explanation? Is there a suggestion that an online source is unacceptable? Anyway, those are the same sources that Yeeno discussed (minus the YouTube link) where a brief explanation on each was given. The first source from The Face may be an interview, but it is still independent as the author provides a good introduction to the subject before even getting to the interview. That plus Affinity is enough to satisfy multiple sources to meet GNG. - 2pou ( talk) 17:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Sayyid Munavvar Ali Shihab Thangal

Sayyid Munavvar Ali Shihab Thangal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

BLP of an activist who does not seem to me to have a clear claim of notability - none of his activities look distinctive enough to get him over the bar. He might be a GNG pass but the sources here mostly look local, or of uncertain reliability, and quite a bit just looks like PR. He seems very able to generate publicity but what that amounts to for our purposes is less clear. Mccapra ( talk) 12:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 12:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 12:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 12:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete As per the nominator. Fails GNG. Iamfarzan ( talk) 05:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete From what I can tell, RS confirms who the subject is, who his family is, where he's been, and that he's active on social media. Being a leader in student groups and attending conferences doesn't even pass the basic GNG. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 01:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

G. Freeman Allen

G. Freeman Allen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Unreferenced article since its creation in 2010. For reviewers, the publications listed in the article are works written by the subject, and not sources. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing. I couldn't find any reviews on his works, an obituary, or any sources with significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR. 4meter4 ( talk) 13:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep – Here's an obituary from The Guardian, opining that he "opened up a forum for transport policy in the sixties and seventies by creating a new style of railway journalism". That would seem to correspond fairly well with WP:NJOURNALIST, which requires that a journalist be "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Searching is difficult here, mainly because he is referred to by a large number of names. But the NJOURNALIST pass is, in my view, sufficient to sustain an inference of notability. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for finding that. I am inclined to agree with you, and I am going to withdraw this nomination momentarily. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Anydos

Anydos (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The relevant guideline here is WP:NCORP. In my searches, I was unable to locate any coverage from reliable, independent sources that meet the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH and there are no valid references presented in the article itself. The best that I could find was Kev's Best but this is an article on the founder and doesn't have any focus on the company.

As a record label, this doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC as it's not one of the more important indie record labels. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• delete per nom. -- hroest 14:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• delete per nom. Looks like spam to me. Niftysquirrel ( talk) 02:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is bordering on an A7 speedy. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 17:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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. Noting that the previously PROD'd article under this title was a different subject. ✗ plicit 14:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Michael Adam

Michael Adam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only for holding local political offices, not adequately referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The offices he has held are mayor of a small town and district administrator of a landkreis (the German equivalent of a county), neither of which are "inherently" notable offices that automatically guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia per se -- at this level of significance, the notability test is not the ability to minimally verify that the person exists, but the ability to write and source a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the town or the county, and on and so forth. But there are just three sources here, two of which just verify the start and end of his county-level role with no evidence of any ongoing coverage while he was in office, and the third is just a very short blurb announcing his domestic partner registration. And, in fact, the article is so poorly maintained that it still describes him as the incumbent landrat of Regen even though he stepped down in 2017 and has not reassumed the office since. This just isn't enough coverage to make a person permanently and internationally notable for holding local office. Bearcat ( talk) 12:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 12:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 12:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as there's already an open AFD discussion on him, which I missed because the creator had removed the AFD template from the article before I found it. Bearcat ( talk) 12:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Axdas

Axdas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their own music metaverifies its own existence on a streaming platform -- the notability test requires certain specific quantifiable achievements, independently verified by a certain specific calibre of reliable source coverage in real media. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- Spotify streams, IMDb, the self-published websites of people or organizations that he's been directly affiliated with, the subject's own social media feed -- and claims nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt the referencing from having to be much, much better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. G5 by GeneralNotability. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Zeshan Khan (Actor)

Zeshan Khan (Actor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The preferred locations Zeshan Khan and Zeshan Khan (actor) are both salted hence why this has been posted under an incorrect title. I can't evidence of any notable roles so WP:NACTOR appears to be failed. I also can't find any evidence towards WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG.

We may wish to consider WP:SALT here as well if consensus determines him to be non-notable. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete and salt per nom – ah yes, the iconic IMDb-only reference section, gotta love the classics. Noting that another variant of this exists at simple:Zeshan Khan (actors). AngryHarpy‍ ^talk 11:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt per nom. This is likely WP:G11 like the other pages as well. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NACTOR. -- C1K98V ^{( 💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:Notability. - Zeshan is an actor, artist, singer and also working in Bollywood. He is an notable person. Ahmad

( talk) 24 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:N states that the subject must meet either WP:GNG or a subject-specific guideline, in this case WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSICIAN. Please can you show sources proving that he meets at least one of these guidelines? Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete per G5, no point salting. -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 00:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notanle actor, Musician Bapinghosh (talk)
• Speedy Delete — per G5, please See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeshankhan2400. Just wasted my time to search him on Internet, there's nothing about him. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 13:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1, which applies when the nominator "fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging". If the proposed merger is uncontroversial, the nominator may carry it out himself; if it's controversial, it can be listed at WP:PAM. But AfD is for discussing deletion, not for other matters. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Youth Organisation Freedom and Democracy

Youth Organisation Freedom and Democracy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Merge proposal. The information in this stub is better put to use in the parent article, where it is missing. Please do not make notability arguments below. There is no problem with the notability of JOVD. Just with our organization of the information. gidonb ( talk) 09:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Christa Gelpke

Christa Gelpke (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Lacking Notability, also see 1. at WP:NOT. Please note that I have a COI as I was asked whether a deletion would be possible by Christa Gelpke's descendants. I strongly believe, though, that she is not notable as there is no broad media coverage about her and the other notability criteria for persons are also not met. Best, Conandcon ( talk) 09:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete - there are sources, that much is clear, but they aren't great. Mostly passing mentions in articles about properties owned by her family, the mention in Forbes (which is accurate but routine and not particularly deep (and is mostly about her living relatives)), and some German-language sources which seem to also be passing mentions. Ultimately, notability is not inherited, even if her wealth was. Appreciate Conandcon's COI declaration but I feel this nomination would be just as valid from anyone else. I made some minor edits to the article for BLP compliance purposes but couldn't find anything of substance to add. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 12:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Gelpke's probably not notable and any slight notability that may exist probably doesn't outweigh her descendants' wish for deletion. Furius ( talk) 02:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:CSK point 1 and WP:EARLY; nominator believes best process forward is to WP:CLEANUP with WP:REF as the article now appears to pass WP:GNG in light of new references. ( non-admin closure) Mxtt.prior ( talk) 08:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

JDK Flight Recorder

JDK Flight Recorder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Likely fails WP:GNG. Specifically fails WP:ORGCRIT as there does not appear to be 'significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.' Beyond manuals or how-to guides for the product (which currently make up the only references on the page), brief research suggests there does not appear to be notable independent source coverage of the product. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 08:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 08:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 08:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep – there are multiple articles that I think make the flight recorder notable: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] – K4rolB ( talk) 08:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Also, it is supported by plenty of companies, including Oracle, SAP, Red Hat, Datadog and others. Also, the sibling project OpenJDK JMC, which is used to visualize the recordings, is released by multiple vendors for example:

• Eclipse Mission Control | Adoptium
• Azul Mission Control - Azul | Better Java Performance, Superior Java Support
• Oracle JDK Mission Control (JMC) (java.net)
• Liberica Mission Control | BellSoft Java (bell-sw.com)

What can I do to conclude this? Mhirt ( talk) 20:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

It's an open source project, under OpenJDK ( https://github.com/openjdk). Mhirt ( talk) 10:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Is there anything else I need to do to conclude this discussion? Mhirt ( talk) 20:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Manoj Kumar Goswami

Manoj Kumar Goswami (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 07:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 07:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 07:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 08:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Poorly sources and article doesn't meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. - Iamrajdeepdas ( talk) 08:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

D Sanjana Reddy

D Sanjana Reddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Does not appear to meet any notability guideline. Nowhere near WP:GNG. Hitro talk 06:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: As per nom. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 07:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not meet GNG but they directed a notable film Raju Gadu, credited as Sanjana Reddy which can be redirected to the film. -- Ab207 ( talk) 08:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: as per nom, insufficient notability. Does not meet GNG. Written like a CV, might as well be all dot points. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 09:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete the page is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo poorly written like what the hell dude? Esaïe Prickett ( talk) 20:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete subject ie not meeting WP:GNG Bapinghosh

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

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Excel Christian School

Excel Christian School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I did my due diligence regarding research and this school, but, I cannot figure out how it passes WP:GNG (let alone WP:ORG). Yes, there were some brief mentions about one event with a lawsuit, but, that doesn't even qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (events).

All the other sourcing I found were passing mentions about alumni (usually football players).

I'll gladly withdraw if we can prove notability here, but, at this time I believe Excel Christian School fails to meet our notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Missvain ( talk) 05:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Missvain ( talk) 05:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Missvain you are right, it looks like this article underwent massive deletions and WP:REVDEL for copyvio, leaving a skeleton that doesn't qualify for GNG. I did find 5 articles on newspapers.com and listed them at the bottom of the article's talk page. Those should help qualify the subject under WP:EXIST WP:NEXIST to meet GNG, as long as the school is not-for-profit, which I think most religious schools are. because I just noticed the claim that it is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, so not required to qualify for NORG under WP:NSCHOOL. There is also statistical info on the NCES site that won't help the GNG argument, but which is useful to fill out somme infobox data. There were probably 5 more articles about the lawsuit involving international student athletes, already well-covered in the existing remains. There was also one on a special class offered at the school on forensic science which was probably a one-off, not a feature of the school's curricular approach. I apologize I haven't time this week to read and summarize and try for WP:HEY, but IRL I have grandkids arriving and need to batten down some hatches. I'll check back later this week if I have time. Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 11:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: I added 7 sources that meet GNG requirements, and added other sources that are not in depth but do verify othr data mentioned in the article. Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 22:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep article meets WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N and has sufficient WP:RS. –– FORMALDUDE^{( talk)} 06:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are sufficient WP:RS in the article at this point to satisfy, gng, but in addition, being a secondary school existing for 18 years there are doubtless going to be many, many offline sources (see WP:NEXIST). There was a reason we used to consider mere verification sufficient for secondary schools: if you dig, they are almost always going to prove to be notable and so wasting a lot of time discussing their notability is a waste of time. There occasionally is a school that fails, but not often, and this is not one of them. Jacona ( talk) 11:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep meets GNG-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 03:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as the article now clearly meets GNG. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 10:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that there's a dearth of any reliable secondary sources that can be located. Nosebagbear ( talk) 01:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Ferroelectric Research Laboratory Patna

Ferroelectric Research Laboratory Patna (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

After a search for sources, the only ones that come up seem to be the lab's own website and passing mentions in the "authors' institutions" sections of publications. Lack of external coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources means that the group does not meet WP:GNG. DanCherek ( talk) 16:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DanCherek ( talk) 16:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DanCherek ( talk) 16:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Maybe Merge to Anugrah Narayan College, Patna. It might overwhelm that article, but the topic of "research labs at Anugrah Narayan College" could be discussed there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I was unable to locate any secondary sources that could be cited in Anugrah Narayan College, Patna to justify inclusion. I don't think a merge is an ideal option if the best citation we could provide in the broader article is a link to the lab's own website or to one of their publications. DanCherek ( talk) 02:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Most of our coverage of Indian schools is bad. I certainly don't have sources; I'm not even sure what language they might be in. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article does not have sufficient significant reliable sources, and I can also not find any. –– FORMALDUDE^{( talk)} 06:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was transwiki to Wikisource. Those arguing to keep have failed to demonstrate that this topic meets WP:NLIST. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

List of UK Admiralty Charts, 1967

List of UK Admiralty Charts, 1967 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This is a tough one. A list of admiralty charts may well be a good subject for an article, and a lot of work has gone into this one. However, there is nothing special about the 1967 situation, catalogues were produced each year it seems and the choice for the 1967 one is completely random. Simply moving this to List of UK Admiralty Charts would be wrong though, as it is a very outdated snapshot only. While this is at AfD, perhaps draftifying would be the best solution, and there let people turn it into a general list instead of this specific one? No idea if someone would be interested in this work, but simply keeping it in the mainspace as is, isn't a good idea either. Fram ( talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

(This comment added later): to be clear, the reason for deletion is a total lack of notability for the 1967 list of charts specifically. The remainder of my comments above were thoughts on how the work that went into this one could somehow be reused to create an article that is acceptable, but I should have explicitly stated my initial deletion argument. Fram ( talk) 10:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. This is obviously a spinoff or appendix to Admiralty chart. It seems to be the only year detailed but this makes it a good example of what would be produced in such a year in the pre-Internet era. Examples are appropriate and helpful in understanding the topic and so quite valid. Deletion would be disruptive and the nomination doesn't even seem to be suggesting this – just musing about various approaches to development. Andrew🐉( talk) 09:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • No, I suggest deletion, but some of it may be reused in another article if someone is up to the task, so userfication/draftification may be a good solution as well. We don't do "example" articles, and this list doesn't even show what was produced that year, just what they still had in stock. No idea what the relevance is of "such a year in the pre-internet era", or why this 300K "example" would help anyone understand the topic any better than perhaps stating how many different charts were produced and how many are still available, with some examples (or else with a full list of all produced charts, not what was available in a random year). Fram ( talk) 09:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, we use examples all the time as these are helpful in explaining unfamiliar topics such as this. They may take the form of separate pages, especially if they are images, and that's just a technical detail of implementation, not some fundamental issue or problem. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Some examples of what you mean? I'm not really familiar with what you claim here. Separate pages of random examples with no notability on their own, but which are kept because they are examples? No, doesn't seem that common at all. Fram ( talk) 10:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Well I am familiar with this, having worked on topics such as Arthur Beale and Stanfords where they sold such charts. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
          • I guess any competent admin who closes this discussion will then dismiss your !vote as utterly unsupported. Your choice. Fram ( talk) 10:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
            • Fram's incessant badgering demonstrates that this is best closed speedily per WP:BLUDGEON. And now it seems that they are moving the goalposts. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
              • Incessant badgering? You claimed that we have plenty of examples of such articles, but when asked to provide some, you started about your personal experience of shops selling these charts. If you don't want your arguments to be scrutinized and criticised, then make sure that they are correct and well-supported (and visibly so for others), and improve them were needed. E.g. when Thincat rightly argues that my opening statement didn't contain any claims about notability, I acknowledged this and corrected that oversight. That's hardly "moving the goalposts" but what these discussions are actually for. If you want to make ivory towers declarations which are infallible and may not be questioned, then make them on your talk page but don't try this in deletion discussions. But feel free to raise this AfD at WP:ANI and request this to be speedy deleted per WP:BLUDGEON, we'll see how it goes. Fram ( talk) 11:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep and for me the decision doesn't seem tough at all. We need to start somewhere - presumably one article about a particular Olympic Games appeared before any of the others. We don't, and shouldn't, delete articles merely because Wikipedia is incomplete. How can moving to draft possibly help? The state of the article is perfectly clear and no one will be misled. Thincat ( talk) 10:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • But that one particular Olympic Game was obviously notable. How is the list of which charts were available in 1967 a notable subject? Has this year in particular received significant attention? Per your reasoning, you would be happy if people started making the same list for all other years as well (which would then nicely invalidate the above speedy keep of course). The reason for deletion is not "because Wikipedia is incomplete", that is a nice strawman. The reason for deletion is because the 1967 catalogue is not a notable subject at all. The only reason I raised draftification and so on was because some of the contents of this non-notable sbject article could perhaps be reused by someone else to create an article on a notable subject. Apparently I shouldn't have tried to be accommodating and thinking about this, and should simply have advocated straight-forward Delete, fails WP:N instead. Fram ( talk) 10:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • The idea that the topic isn't notable wasn't raised at all in your nomination. I thought you were finding a problem of principle in this sort of article. Thincat ( talk) 10:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      • You're right, I should have added that at the start. I'll do this now (but will note that I added it) so other commenters aren't confused. It was the basis for my nomination, but what I wrote down were my further thoughts on the issue only. Fram ( talk) 10:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

As the one who put in the work to tabulate this, I obviously wish to see it kept. Yes, it's a snapsot, but of a pretty slow-moving scene. As you can see from the edition dates these charts remained in use for decades. A listing of this sort every 20 years or so would come close to giving comprehensive coverage. The choice of 1967 is not exactly random. It is the only global catalogue since 1914 that is available on the internet, and the 1914 one: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332262/UKHO-1914-Archives-Catalogue.pdf is of too poor quality for OCR. If more become available I will be happy to tabluate them! Until then, the listing is, I agree, not comprehensive. As others have pointed out, citing WP:NOTCLEANUP that is not in itself a sufficient reason for deletion. Also citing NOTCLEANUP, "Remember that there is no deadline". I suggest the question might be "is it useful?" For me, as one interested in all things nautical, it certainly is (and will continue to be so even if no longer on WP). I suspect there are others like me who find this valuable. Why should they be deprived of it? No-one has suggested that the information is not reliable or properly sourced. As for notability, I'd written most of this before seeing the last posts. It's a bit difficult to make a case when the ground seems to be shifting... But if the topic of Admiralty Charts is notable, it's difficult to see how an index that helps people to find the chart they are looking for is not notable. Kognos ( talk) 12:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• • • • • Like I said, a list of all charts may be a notable addition: a list of all charts which were available in 1967 (or 1918 or 2005 or 2021) is not. Fram ( talk) 13:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is basically a copy-paste of the WP:CATALOG Catalogue of Admiralty Charts 1967 Complete Edition and I fail to see why this directory of maps available in that year is a notable encyclopedic topic, sourced only to this primary source which it replicates. This link – which can certainly be useful – should be highlighed in the Admiralty chart but it's not clear what makes this catalogue an article. Reywas92 ^Talk 14:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

It's not a simple replication. What makes it useful (to me) is the fact that the list is sorted by chart number. Kognos ( talk) 15:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• move to Wikisource I agree that there is some value here, but nonetheless it is a transcription of a primary source. The admiralty offers on their website an almost identical listing of the current charts in the form of a spreadsheet. This is exactly the sort of thing that Wikisource was intended to hold, and it's way outside our purview as an encyclopedia and not a collection of primary texts. Mangoe ( talk) 01:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Transwiki to Wikisource. Why the hell would we simply delete something of this quality that took so much work to make? As has been pointed out, this is a significant year for the charts, and being sorted by chart number; sad to imagine it being washed away for essentially no good reason. jp× g 04:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep: This is a very valuable source of information and is exactly what Wikipedia is for. Also WP:NOTCLEANUP per others. Dr. Universe ( talk) 20:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, if a list of all charts is to be considered notable, this snippet of that list ought to be considered notable too. It appears Kognos is keen to work on this subject area more, so coverage will improve over time if this is kept. I would also support a move to Wikisource if the only alternative being considered is deletion. NemesisAT ( talk) 20:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply