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

The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG. Less Unless ( talk) 21:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Boston Virtual ARTCC (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, a quick google search shows no notable mentions in any reliable sources. Most citations in the article are just citing the organization itself or other related groups (i.e. VATSIM, etc). Kb03 ( talk) 22:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete most these virtual world hobby websites are rarely of note and nothing seen that shows this one is notable enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne ( talk) 12:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fails WP:GNG. RecycledPixels ( talk) 15:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If there are any high-quality references for this organisation, they're buried further down the google than I could find. RomanSpa ( talk) 11:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and restore redirect. ✗ plicit 23:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

Doesn’t meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Xclusivzik ( talk) 22:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Insufficient references. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC -- Whiteguru ( talk) 22:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete — Per Xclusivzik nom rationale I fail to see WP:MUSICBIO met. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and restore redirect to International Classification of Diseases which was there before this article about a rapper took over the page. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Few references, fails to meet WP:NMUSIC as per nom. Hughesdarren ( talk) 04:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete searching was difficult, due to the commonality of the acronym, but not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG and does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment The Vietnamese-language article vi:ICD (rapper) has a bunch of sources. I took a quick look at machine translations of them and nothing struck me as obvious WP:Significant coverage (not to mention that I have no idea if they are even WP:Reliable sources), but I really don't know. It would be helpful if somebody who speaks Vietnamese and/or is familiar with these sources could take a look at them. All in all, I'm leaning delete but very much open to arguments to the contrary.
  With regards to the article title ICD: If this article is kept, it should be moved to ICD (rapper). If that happens or the article is deleted, I'm not convinced that ICD should redirect to International Classification of Diseases since I'm not convinced that's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; even if we're only considering a medical context, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is fairly likely to be what a reader is looking for when searching for "ICD". As such, I suspect that there might be WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC, which would mean that ICD should be a disambiguation page. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete and restore redirect. It takes more than two YouTube links to meet WP:NMUSIC and one of them doesn't work anyway. Notfrompedro ( talk) 12:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 04:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Htein Lin (colonel) (  | 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:GNG, being a member of the Advisory Board of State Administration Council is not automatic grounds for inclusion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep, Two out of three references present are WP:SIGCOV, establishing notability per GNG. NemesisAT ( talk) 22:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Automatically notable as a former state-level government minister. "He previously served as the Minister of Security and Border Affairs of Rakhine State until 2017." Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep: This would have to pass through WP:GNG. It has a chance if more sources can be found, as his position as Minister of Security and Border Affairs of Rakhine State during the Rohingya Genocide is certainly a special instance and some English-language sources ( [1] [2]) show he played at least some role in the genocide. However, while several English language sources exist, most are just passing mentions or one sentence interviews. Burmese-language sources very likely exist, however, I'm unable to find them because Google seems to struggle searching that language. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Two out of three references present are WP:SIGCOV, establishing notability per GNG. Clear notability established. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 22:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep What the hell Afd? He was a minister of state, presidential adviser to the President Win Myint and a member of the Advisory Board of State. Advisory Board is the union level goverment position equivalent to the Advisor of the President's Office of Myanmar [3]. Advisory Board members are Presidential advisors!!! Very very clearly passes WP:NPOL as Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. He has held three state level gov posts. How much do you need? I'll report you at ANI for unresearched AfDs by new page reviewer. Other Burmese editors and experienced editors will decide he is notable or not? How Fanny! Taung Tan ( talk) 04:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Because of the current situation in Myanmar, I'm one of the four only Burmese Editors on English Wikipedia. Onel5969 You are trying to delete Burmese political articles that these are clearly notable (one of them Yin Yin Oo who has held two major gov posts as deputy director general of the Foreign Ministry of Myanmar and Presidential advisor), when senior Burmese Editors retired. Sorry you can't I've full knowledge on my country's politic. Taung Tan ( talk) 04:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Taung Tan, There was just simply some confusion regarding the notability of the post, but this AfD seems to have cleared that up. Please don't take these AfDs personally, they are just occasionally part of the process. Having known Onel for a couple of years at this point, I'm sure he had good intentions with this nom, so please don't take it out on him. Curbon7 ( talk) 10:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Well, why didn't he use talk page first for further discussion? I only create articles that are clearly notable. Taking my articles (even they are ministers) to AfD is degrades my reputation on Wikipedia. Taung Tan ( talk) 12:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep As a state-level minister and union-level presidential advisor, he clearly meets NPOL. Zin Win Hlaing ( talk) 05:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep clealy passes WP:NPOL as advisor to the State and Rakhine state minister of Security and Border Affairs. Advisory Board is high-ranking government position in Myanmar under the military regime. Marcus MT ( talk) 02:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep agree per above. Nonsense AfD, government ministers are auto notable on Wikipedia as passes WP:NPOL. 117.18.228.169 ( talk) 08:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. Ninja✮Strikers ^{« ☎»} 04:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Military operations of the Iran–Iraq War (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This page is an unneeded POV fork of Iran–Iraq War which itself is mostly on the military history of the war.

Besides the fork concerns, the article itself was created by a sock puppet. Current authorship: 91.9% of the current text in the article is written by the sock puppet. 6.4% is from a manual application of IABot (a technical edit), another 1.6% is from bots, and the remaining ~0.2% is from other users. If retained, this 158k article (99.8% sock+IABOT manually+bots) would require scrutiny on the content. Eostrix  ( ^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 21:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. The content is mostly duplicated from Iran–Iraq War, and though I can't speak as to whether the minor differences are POV pushing, the fact that there is so little new content does suggest that there is no need for an article to exist here - perhaps in the future the content can be split from the Iran-Iraq War page, but that should be done with consensus, attribution, and removal of the split content from said page. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Noting that after the creation by mostly copying (unattributed, Diannaa attributed for the creator) from the parent article on November 2018, there was no comparable excision of content from Iran–Iraq War (from November 2018 through today in August 2021 the parent article has grown in size and there were no edit chains removing portions of the article this is evident from the article history and may be seen in abbreviated form in the Year counts section of the revision statistics). The parent article has since seen the attention of editors (over a 1,000 edits), while this fork is mostly static with around 20 edits (and many of them technical in nature).-- Eostrix  ( ^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a POV fork. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Unusual one, this. Let me say, there is a clear consensus here that the preferred version of the article is the one which LP restored during the debate (hereafter, 'restored version'; the version that was nominated originally is the 'other version').

My assessment of the situation is that, given this consensus, a new consensus would be needed on the talk page to restore the 'other version', and anyone edit-warring to restore the 'other version' without doing this would be doing so against policy. I, and I imagine other administrators, will happily take action (including blocks and protections) if edit warring against consensus to restore the 'other version' continues. (Feel free to ping me to that effect if you require something to be done, my close here does not make me involved.) Daniel ( talk) 00:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Haitian Vodou and sexual orientation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article seems like essay to me. And if you look at the talk page, it seems like several others have issues with the article. BostonMensa ( talk) 21:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is absolutely an essay. WP would need to TNT it and completely start over to cover the concept. -- Kbabej ( talk) 22:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: This is an essay. As per above, WP:TNT applies here. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 23:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep I restored this revision from April, prior to when Agaou Wedo ( talk · contribs) hijacked the article and rewrote it without explanation. (They later gave the explanation, Revises the page based on deep knowledge of Haitian society and vodou culture as a Vodou practitioner. I also cited classic works on Vodou and Haitian society. Revision affirms Vodou as an ancestral spirituality, not a religion as the previous version suggested. Previous analysis examines Vodou through purely western eyes but demonstrate no knowledge of the practice. Previous version is filled with inaccuracies.) Any errors and POV issues in the old version can be improved. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per LaundryPizza's restoration. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • the version I nominated has been restored and I suspect if someone reverts it, there will be an edit war and this will go on indefinitely. I suggest that the article not only be deleted, but blocked from being re-created otherwise we will be going through the prod or AFD process each time. BostonMensa ( talk) 04:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • But as far as I can tell, one of the "sides" of this edit war consists of just one person ( User:Agaou Wedo). There are better tactics to deal with one person trying to get their way with an article than deleting the article altogether. See WP:3RR, for example. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I can see why you say that but considering he is blocked (IIRC for 31 hours) that might not apply in this case. My issue is more if someone knows that is possible, they can easily get around it by reverting it every few days or weeks and it will still be disruptive. But if you block the article from being re created, it solves that issue. BostonMensa ( talk) 19:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • BostonMensa, agree with Metropolitan90 article deletion to handle an edit war is a sledgehammer to crack an egg approach. Huggums537 ( talk) 21:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I can see both sides and I’m not going to have a tantrum if the article isn’t deleted. But I will get extremely pissed off, annoyed, frustrated, what have you if six months from now I happen to wonder what is going on with this topic and o see the same thing is going on. Which basically boils down to, IMHO, is how important is this topic? If others think this topic is definitely wiki worthy, then definitely explore every possible option to make this article the best it can be. But if in the course of the discussion, people express concern over whether or not it can ever be more than an essay or it can be written in a neutral tone, that to me is a different discussion. BostonMensa ( talk) 21:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • And what I was concerned about is happening. An anonymous user, that may or may not be User:Agaou Wedo again not only reverted the article but commented here and someone felt the need to delete the comment. Personally, I have no patience for this back and forth. If the “disruptive editing” was something the editor felt was something factual, like Donald Trump was wrong about airports and airplanes playing a vital role in the American Revolution, then yeah, stand up and keep insisting that George Washington never flew stealth bombers. But it sounds like the editors involved with this article are going to believe what they want to believe about homosexuality and will keep trying to get people to say UNCLE and give up reverting the homophobic edits. If you have more patience for this cat and mouse game, that’s great. BostonMensa ( talk) 14:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • More than likely it probably is a sock. The best thing to do is report to WP:SPI so a checkuser can investigate and both accounts will be blocked indefinitely. No more cat and mouse. Huggums537 ( talk) 15:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per restoration. The very title of this article suggests to me that you will never get around the fact that this topic will always include some type of narrative that is going to resemble that of an essay. If we are going to allow this topic the ability to "blow up and start over", then you will just keep blowing it up and starting over until you accept this concept. So, just make up your mind to accept the concept, or don't allow the topic the ability to exist in the first place. Huggums537 ( talk) 03:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as the article is now reasonably acceptable and non-essaylike Jackattack1597 ( talk) 09:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Odyssey of the Mind (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

based almost entirely on its own publications when it's sourced at all. (I made an attempt to fix it by removing the worst section--see page history--but I think its hopeless) . DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I agree that the article is not currently well-sourced, but there are better sources out there; see [4], [5], and [6], for example. I'm not recommending "keep" yet, but I think the supporters of this article may be able to improve it enough to get it kept. (By the way, the section that DGG removed was indeed worthy of removal. This article is about an intellectual competition, yet nearly a quarter of the article had been about the regulation of commemorative pin trading among the participants.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep AfD is not cleanup. This certainly needs cleanup, but there are sources, coverage like [7] [8] [9] should be enough for GNG. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• comment The three references above are all articles in local or regional newspapers about individual local teams who are entering the competition. The Orlando one gives only 2 sentences to the competition itself, and then describes extensively the resentation being prepared by the students The othets are similar. Such coverage is indicriminate. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 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 no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Damon Scott (  | 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:BIO in regards to notability per WP:ENT, and on reliability of sources due to most of citations provided seem to come from a personal website of the article's subject. GUtt01 ( talk) 19:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I see the consensus is that the finalists (top 3 or 4) in a major reality TV show tend to have enough coverage to rate an article here, as is the case here. He was also the suibkject of a documentary and has gotten other coverage, so he has gotten more than 15 minutes of fame. Bearian ( talk) 19:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete The Monkey Man documentary was 15 minutes long and shown on BBC Choice contrary to what the article claims. I couldn't find info on the Young, Gifted and Broke series so I can't see if it's significant coverage or not. The claim Scott finished second in BGT is dubious as only the winner (Paul Potts) was announced with the other finalists not being told their position. Article is badly sourced with far too many cites to his website. With only the Monkey Man providing sigcov it's a delete for me. Dougal18 ( talk) 15:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per Bearian. NemesisAT ( talk) 22:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Suresh Chakravarthi (  | 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 actor. Had rejected the draft here Draft:Suresh Chakravarthi and now this has surfaced. No multiple significant roles to pass WP:NACTOR and the sources are not sufficient for WP:GNG either. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 13:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 13:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 13:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 13:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.14.10 ( talk) 07:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Above is a random comment by an anonymous IP without explaining how it clearly passes the guidelines. Ought to be ignored. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 10:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Can't see any evidence of meeting NACTOR. There is some coverage with respect to Bigg Boss but that's not enough because participants are expected to be notable outside of thier involvement in Bigg Boss per WP:BIGBROTHER. -- Ab207 ( talk) 20:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet WP:NACTOR. Peter303x ( talk) 22:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 00:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails each of the four criteria of WP:NARTIST. Sources do confirm that she exists and does art, but the few media reviews as well as an "honourable mention at a competition" listed as an achievement really make one doubt whether the artist should have an encyclopaedia article. Also note that even though the subject is Israeli, there is no corresponding article on he-wiki.

The article here seems to be one of a series of articles promoting Israeli artists created by what it seems an agency or art broker. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 11:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 11:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Kashmiri, the creator of Rotem Reshef, User:viceversa.int has created Gidi Avivi, the founder of a film production company called Vice Versa Films [10]. There may be a case for a CoI wirh Avivi, but I see no connection to Roshef. Vexations ( talk) 16:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Vexations: Rotem Reshef's husband is Shai Reshef, founder and CEO of University of the People. Vice Versa partnered with UoPeople to produce short video clips about the University students and graduates around the world [11]. Pleasing one's business partner by creating a Wikipedia article about their wife? ROTFL — kashmīrī  ^TALK 15:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Does not pass NARTIST. Having won no prizes and getting one "honorable mention" is nowhere close to meeting notability requirements. The HuffPost article is by a contributor, which states at WP:RSP should not be used for BLPs as it has "near-zero editorial oversight". -- Kbabej ( talk) 23:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orlaw66). MER-C 18:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ocean View Abu Dhabi (  | 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 company. Fail of WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV. nearlyevil 665 14:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Query - Can I ask why is this company nominated for deletion when it was founded in part by the Eldest Son of the President of the UAE and well documented? O66 ( talk) 14:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  Because that alone does not make it a notable company. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^{( talk)} 01:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC) (If you reply to to me directly, please use a ping {{U|FormalDude}} to notify me.) reply

• Speedy Delete WP:A7 No indication of importance: company or organization. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^{( talk)} 01:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. References are adequate for this defunct company. I can't find out why the company ceased operation. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  Thank you O66 ( talk) 21:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The first three references appear to establish notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT ( talk) 13:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  Thank you O66 ( talk) 21:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Orlaw66, I know you mean well, but thanking individual editors for their Keep- !votes is neither necessary nor what this venue is for. AngryHarpy‍ ^talk 12:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Has independent references in national newspapers, etc., and award information. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 22:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Under WP:BEFORE it is stated:

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.

The article was created on 24 July 2021‎ and proposed for deletion on the same day, so I do not believe this procedure was followed. Adding {{ notability}} would have been more appropriate at this stage. Thus, I think the correct WP:AFD procedure under WP:BEFORE should be followed before a deletion process is considered again. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 14:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment (with source assessment table): Somewhat surprised to see so many keep votes with so many red flags in the reference pool, so I've created this source assessment table to clarify why I had nominated this in the first place. This table includes suspicious repetitions of text in between two articles that are purported to be 'reliable'. Hopefully this table will be of use for the final consensus. nearlyevil 665 16:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.aihitdata.com/company/00833BC5/s-b-k-holding/history	This is just a company database	This is just a company database	This is not coverage but rather a history of ownership and leadership changes in the company	✘ No
http://www.tradearabia.com/news/CONS_142401.html	? This is largely an interview piece and rest is run off the mill coverage about the company securing a deal	Highly likely this is a veiled press release as the last paragraph is identical to the one used in the fourth source, namely this bit: "Ocean View, Dubai, has been successfully marketing Dubai properties to high network individuals across the globe..."	Only the two first short paragraphs are about the company, and they only tell the ownership and leadership of the company	✘ No
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/new-firm-set-to-tap-abu-dhabi-s-real-estate-potential	? UAE's state-run propaganda outlet	? UAE's state-run propaganda outlet	Run off the mill coverage (two paragraphs) about the firm being founded. Half of it is direct citation from the company's rep	✘ No
https://www.albawaba.com/business/ocean-view-partners-sbk-holding-market-abu-dhabi-freehold-properties	Largely an interview piece	Highly likely this is a veiled press release as the last paragraph is identical to the one used in the second source, namely this bit: "Ocean View, Dubai, has been successfully marketing Dubai properties to high network individuals across the globe..."	No	✘ No
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/grand-design-85851.html	This is entirely an interview piece	Probably reliable	This is the founder talking about the company, so significant	✘ No
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/local/ocean-view-named-best-real-estate-agency	? UAE's state-run propaganda outlet	? UAE's state-run propaganda outlet	This is run off the mill coverage of the company receiving at a International Property Awards, a non-notable award in its own right. Half of the piece is the founder talking about the nominations.	✘ No
https://dubaicityguide.com/site/news/news-details/Company-News/31574/ocean-view-named-best-real-estate-agency-at-arabian-property-awards-for-second-year-running	Not independent	City guide website that says it 'accepts guests posts'	Similar to the sixth source, this is run off the mill coverage about the company receiving nominations at a non-notable award. Text is largely identical to the one in the sixth source, so this is either a lazy rewrite or just a paid post	✘ No
http://www.sandcastles.ae/dubai/ocean-view-real-estate/1377/	User-generated	User-generated	Similar to the sixth and seventh source, this is run off the mill coverage about the company receiving nominations at a non-notable award. Text is largely identical to the one in the sixth source, so this is either a lazy rewrite or just a paid post	✘ No
http://www.diad.co.za/stage/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2010-INTERNATIONAL-PROPERTY-LUXURY-COLLECTION-VOL.18-NO.2.pdf	? Unclear	This is a waiting lounge magazine, which is neither notable nor has clear editorial oversight	The company is just mentioned here for having been nominated for a non-notable property award	✘ No
https://www.aihitdata.com/company/00833BC5/s-b-k-holding/overview	This is just a company database	This is just a company database	This is not coverage but rather a history of ownership and leadership changes in the company	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Source assessment table:

(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.)
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.aihitdata.com/company/00833BC5/s-b-k-holding/history	This is just a company database	This is just a company database	This is not coverage but rather a history of ownership and leadership changes in the company	✘ No
http://www.tradearabia.com/news/CONS_142401.html	? This is largely an interview piece and rest is run off the mill coverage about the company securing a deal	Highly likely this is a veiled press release as the last paragraph is identical to the one used in the fourth source, namely this bit: "Ocean View, Dubai, has been successfully marketing Dubai properties to high network individuals across the globe..."	Only the two first short paragraphs are about the company, and they only tell the ownership and leadership of the company	✘ No
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/new-firm-set-to-tap-abu-dhabi-s-real-estate-potential	? UAE's state-run propaganda outlet	? UAE's state-run propaganda outlet	Run off the mill coverage (two paragraphs) about the firm being founded. Half of it is direct citation from the company's rep	✘ No
https://www.albawaba.com/business/ocean-view-partners-sbk-holding-market-abu-dhabi-freehold-properties	Largely an interview piece	Highly likely this is a veiled press release as the last paragraph is identical to the one used in the second source, namely this bit: "Ocean View, Dubai, has been successfully marketing Dubai properties to high network individuals across the globe..."	No	✘ No
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/grand-design-85851.html	This is entirely an interview piece	Probably reliable	This is the founder talking about the company, so significant	✘ No
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/local/ocean-view-named-best-real-estate-agency	? UAE's state-run propaganda outlet	? UAE's state-run propaganda outlet	This is run off the mill coverage of the company receiving at a International Property Awards, a non-notable award in its own right. Half of the piece is the founder talking about the nominations.	✘ No
https://dubaicityguide.com/site/news/news-details/Company-News/31574/ocean-view-named-best-real-estate-agency-at-arabian-property-awards-for-second-year-running	Not independent	City guide website that says it 'accepts guests posts'	Similar to the sixth source, this is run off the mill coverage about the company receiving nominations at a non-notable award. Text is largely identical to the one in the sixth source, so this is either a lazy rewrite or just a paid post	✘ No
http://www.sandcastles.ae/dubai/ocean-view-real-estate/1377/	User-generated	User-generated	Similar to the sixth and seventh source, this is run off the mill coverage about the company receiving nominations at a non-notable award. Text is largely identical to the one in the sixth source, so this is either a lazy rewrite or just a paid post	✘ No
http://www.diad.co.za/stage/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2010-INTERNATIONAL-PROPERTY-LUXURY-COLLECTION-VOL.18-NO.2.pdf	? Unclear	This is a waiting lounge magazine, which is neither notable nor has clear editorial oversight	The company is just mentioned here for having been nominated for a non-notable property award	✘ No
https://www.aihitdata.com/company/00833BC5/s-b-k-holding/overview	This is just a company database	This is just a company database	This is not coverage but rather a history of ownership and leadership changes in the company	✘ No
Table created using {{ source assess table}}

• Well done on the source table. I agree with the assessments. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I clicked on all the sources and did my own source assessment table in my head. I agree with nearlyevil665 that there are no WP:GNG passing sources in this article. They are self-published websites (not reliable), or obviously based off press releases from their tone and overuse of quotes (not independent), or they are database entries (not secondary). – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be kept. Only a single !vote that isn't keep and is weak, without any substantive reasoning. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 21:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Death of Sumila Ronghangpi (  | 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 the gruesome murder of a young girl that received a lot of coverage over a few days (in English) in late April and early May. Much of the coverage is statements from various organisations condemning the killing in response to the news. After the early days of May I can’t find any further coverage (in English) and based on this it appears the article fails WP:NOTNEWS. There may be additional sourcing in Hindi or Assamese that I can’t find or assess. Mccapra ( talk) 07:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 07:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 07:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 07:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep It seems to me this sits within #3 of WP:EVENTCRIT. I would disagree that the media coverage is all similar. There are five separate components which contribute to notability here: (1) The murder of the child (please note following reference contains extremely sensitive content) ^[1] (2) protests and popular reaction ^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]} (3) media commentary (calls for legislative reform) ^[7] (4) Government of Assam initiates inquiry (separate from criminal case) ^[8] and (5) media coverage of the hearings, public actions at the hearings and submissions from women's rights organisations. ^{[9] [10] [11]} I would assume as the criminal court case proceeds there will be ongoing coverage. This level of coverage, extent of popular reaction and state government actions indicate to me this is much more than an "ordinary" crime.

Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 14:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The article is of significance. This practise of child labours as domestic help is prevalent in the region, knowingly and unknowingly. It will help rise awareness. It also bring light to failure of various Govt. schemes on protection and education toward Female children.   Jor langneh (Talk) 06:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, I agree with Mccapra, the event isn’t notable. Sahaib ( talk) 09:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Heavy coverage. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Very wide coverage in English and Indian language media. I don't think WP:NOTTHENEWS applies - it talks about "routine coverage", with examples of "celebrity gossip". This is along way from that. Furius ( talk)

• Keep - Coverage for this case is extensive. WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 08:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as a stronger notability claim has been found than was present in the article at the time of nomination. Bearcat ( talk) 22:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Jam Mashooq Ali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Biography of a politician, which vaguely waves its hand in the direction of potentially valid notability claims under WP:NPOL but fails to substantiate or properly source them. It infoboxes him for a royal title which it completely fails to verify that he ever really held -- and then the body text asserts that he's merely a descendant of the former ruling dynasty of his region several centuries ago, which (a) does not necessarily make him the holder of an actual royal title, and (b) is completely unsupported by any of the article's actual sources. Then it asserts that he was a federal minister, but fails to explain or source what cabinet position he ever held or when -- and the sources do the same, using the words "federal minister" but then failing to substantiate what ministerial role he ever held or when. And otherwise, the article just claims that he was an advisor to a prime minister and that he was the son of a provincial chief minister, neither of which are notability claims at all -- and all of this is sourced to three very short and unsubstantive blurbs announcing his death, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever shown of any significant GNG-building coverage about his work.
As I'm not an expert in Pakistani topics, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more expertise can fix it -- but as it stands, the potentially notable stuff here isn't properly verified and the verifiable stuff isn't notable at all, so this can't be kept without significant improvement. Bearcat ( talk) 20:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Passes WP:NPOL, although it took me time to find. [12] This source states that he was an MPA (like a US state legislator) in Singh, which confers NPOL. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Curbon7 – he's presumptively notable under WP:NPOL as a state-level legislator. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep passes NPOL, held a cabinet level position with status as Federal Minister as advisor to the PM for the Indus River System Authority. ^{[1] [2]}

Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 12:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• keep — as per WP:POLITICIAN. I've added refs from official government websites and reliable papers. He was member of Sindh Assembly (1988), member of National Assembly(1990, 1993 and 1997) and advisor to PM Nawaz Sharif and PM Shahid Khaqan Abbasi with status of Federal Minister. Please have a look on this diff [13]. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep He was elected to the National Assembly of Pakistan in 1990, 1993 and 1997 elections. Before that, he was a member of the Provincial Assembly of Sindh from 1988 to 1990. Passes WP:NPOL. Added 5 more categories to the article, removed unsourced content referring to his connection being a local royalty. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 17:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Thanks for saving this, all. I'm withdrawing this accordingly. Bearcat ( talk) 22:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 23:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

Appears to fail WP:Notability (software). Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete — Per rationale by Rubbish computer. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:35, 31 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) 23:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Nina Belforte (  | 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 an actress and political consultant, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for either actresses or political consultants. The notability claim as an actress is that she had her debut acting role in a film that was just released two weeks ago -- but just having had an acting role is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, and the sources for it consist of a Rotten Tomatoes profile (not a notability-supporting source at all) and a bunch of articles about the film which glancingly namecheck her existence in the cast list while failing to actually say a single word about her or her performance, thus not helping to build notability. And as for her political work, the notability claim is that she's had jobs, sourced only to a primary source interview self-published by her own former employer -- but that also isn't a notability-buidling source, as (a) it isn't external attention being paid to her by an independent source, and (b) she isn't the subject under discussion, but the interviewer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 19:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Sorry-- new to this. Thought when the names are hyperlinked, information could be added, so researched subjects and included where i found information. Articles referencing her name are established news sources. MovieGeek1986

Since it's always possible for anybody to wikilink absolutely any word or phrase in any article at any time, the existence of a presumptive redlink in another article is not in and of itself an automatic guarantee that an article can actually be written that meets our inclusion standards. Bearcat ( talk) 21:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep: Agree on the political references-- needs considerable improvement in the reference arena. On the acting portion: she was given a top billing in the film, and was mentioned as a starring actor in a multitude of publications (needs better references as well). If she wasn't notable however, she wouldn't have been given the consideration of "starring" by production or publications, nor would she have been given top billing. But she was, so I think this counts as notable. Perhaps this should be a draft until it's referenced appropriately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:430F:3000:B140:8EEC:4B43:73BD ( talk • contribs) 2:39 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact of having had acting roles is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself — no matter how many acting roles an actor or actress has or hasn't had, the notability test is not in the list of credits, but in the depth and range and volume of coverage about her and her performances that can or can't be shown to support an article with. Sources that mention her name aren't enough, if they don't focus on her. Bearcat ( talk) 21:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence of notability for either acting or politics at this time. Trillfendi ( talk) 17:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't yield anything to satisfy the notability issues presented in the nomination. The coverage about her career, either in the sense of acting or political activism, is cursory at best. Does not meet WP:GNG at this time. -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 19:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. as per Deepfriedokra below. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Shovan (  | 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. KnightMight ( talk) 19:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KnightMight ( talk) 19:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Revert hijack and block the hijacker from editing - see this diff which, ironically, followed User:Deepfriedokra protecting the page due to persistent vandalism. Not sure how this user still managed to hijack the page but they did. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I have reverted to pre hijacking and blocked hijacker. Hijacker was auto confirmed and not stopped by PC. Will increase to SP. SOmeone, please sppedy keep this. i do not want to mess it up. Kudos to @ Spiderone: for catching this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

See also previous hijacking of same article, a comment on the talk page left by the same editor and Teahouse post where the culprit describes Shovan as being their 'client'. Clear WP:NOTHERE and WP:COI behaviour that we do not need any more of on Wikipedia. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 31 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) 23:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

Web series fails WP:GNG for a lack of significant, in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Was initially PRODed, but a user de-PRODed for its brief mention in an NYT article. Can't be merged because the creators nor the platform have standalone articles. Delete. Citrivescence ( talk) 19:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence ( talk) 19:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Aside from the NYT source already in the article, I also found a small mention in an article that was printed in a couple of small papers. However, in both cases, the actual coverage is extremely minimal, basically consisting of a couple of sentences. This is far from being able to count as significant coverage in either of those sources. This article also contains a link to a review from Tubefilter, which I am largely unfamiliar with, and am not sure is a valid reliable source. However, even if it is, it appears to be the only source that could be considered to be significant coverage, and this is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:52, 31 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. czar 21:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

No notable work or award. Rocky Masum ( talk) 17:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rocky Masum ( talk) 17:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: There seems to be substantial coverage in Bengali language sources. Can anyone speak on it? Furius ( talk) 11:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Hello, We deleted the article on bnwiki for notability. bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:নিবন্ধ অপসারণের প্রস্তাবনা/মমতাজ আলীয়া আকবরী. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 18:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Well, that's pretty decisive, really. Delete. Furius ( talk) 01:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

Previously PROD deleted under Nathália Rossi. I'm still not seeing any improvement in the situation with regards to WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG so I'm taking it to AfD to establish consensus. According to her WTA, ITF and her German Wikipedia page, she fails NTENNIS as she has only had success in 10K events.

In terms of coverage, I found this blog post and this routine match report on a tennis news site. This is far from the depth required for GNG. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, no evidence of meeting WP:TENNIS nor WP:GNG. LizardJr8 ( talk) 18:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per nom, fails WP:NTENNIS. DMySon ( talk) 06:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete doesn't meet sport specific guideline or GNG per nom. Jevansen ( talk) 23:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Nothing indicates notability.-- Dewritech ( talk) 16:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Vexations ( talk) 18:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

Twice declined at AfD, See Draft:Saatchi_Yates, unresolved questions about Conflict of Interest. Vexations ( talk) 17:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations ( talk) 17:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep The gallery is notable, AFC is a voluntary process, and a perceived COI is not a strong enough reason to delete an article about a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Cullen328, That's not how I read WP:COIEDIT. The creator of the draft has a clear CoI as evidenced by the edit summaries: Special:Contributions/Conarco20: "Publishing the Saatchi Yates page for the first time. All information has been provided by the directors of the gallery and the press coverage." and "we made the article less opinionated and more fact based, and relying on sources". https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Saatchi_Yates&oldid=1035423352 is not exactly a copy/paste move, but largely based in the draft. This version should be removed and the AfC process should resume to deal with the fact that the subject is involved in the creation of the article. Vexations ( talk) 11:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Vexations, "should" is not a synonym for "must". "Should" indicates a recommendation but not an absolute requirement. The gallery is notable and the encyclopedia is better off with this article than without it. The comments that you interpret as evidence of COI, I interpret as an effort toward verifiability and the neutral point of view. The article is surprisingly unpromotional if your COI assumption is true, and can easily be improved as time goes by. Why send it back to AFC? That's busy work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Cullen328, Conarco20 identifies as "we". Per WP:ROLE accounts shared by multiple people are as a rule forbidden and blocked. This is part of an effort to promote the gallery and the artists that it represents. The gallery that has only been around since October 2020, and has organized just three exhibitions: Pascal Sender 15 October - 20 December 2020, a group show with Draft:Jin Angdoo, Draft:Mathieu Julien, Draft:Kevin Pinsembert and Hams Klemens 3 March - 26 May 2021 and Tesfaye Urgessa. All emerging artists with no career to speak of, showing at a brand-new gallery with no established record of anything. And Boom! All of a sudden they're all notable, because their promotional campaign has been so effective, and we refuse to follow our own policies and guidelines. Bwegh... Vexations ( talk) 17:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 23:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Big Time Audition (  | 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 television film/episode, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, passing mention in a book, database listing on RT with no critical reviews and being included in a list from a student newspaper is not significant coverage BOVINEBOY 2008 16:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Episodes are very murky thing of our project. May I suggest the creator to look at How I Met Your Mother and South Park episodes for reference?-- Filmomusico ( talk) 18:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 08:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 23:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Turkey Fork, Virginia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Continuing the reverse-alphabetical trek through Pittsyvlania county, we come to another one where I can't even really determine what this was. Topos show a handful of buildings at a road junction, and my WP:BEFORE did not enlighten me as to what is/was here. I just got scanner errors for "turkeycock", which seems to be a common natural feature name in this area and results for a stream in West Virginia. Maybe others can do better, but this isn't looking like a notable location. Hog Farm _Talk 16:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Chances are what this one is, Turkey Fork is describing the road junction itself ("fork in the road"), rather than an actual community. This may have expanded into a colloquialism for that particular rural neighborhood, but that isn't enough to confer WP:GEOLAND. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:01, 31 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) 23:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Dubai Herbal and Treatment Centre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Spam with huge amount of WP:REFBOMBs, fails WP:NCORP. P 1 9 9   ✉ 16:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. P 1 9 9   ✉ 16:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• delete I'm not finding any sources that meet the requirements of WP:N. Hobit ( talk) 17:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 16:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ani Nenkova (  | 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 GNG, ANYBIO, and NPROF. Almost all the sourcing I could find is from what she wrote or schools where she has been affiliated; nothing independent. She has no named chair and no notable fellowships. As we know, NPROF does not posit hard numbers for notability purposes so her number of publications makes no objective difference. These sorts of pieces are almost always promotional, written by undisclosed CoI accounts. It should never have been accepted through AfC. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment It's not the number of publications that matters, but whether they have been influential. In that regard, an h-index of 49 with 28 publications having more than 100 citations [14] is not too shabby. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ XOR'easter: So this is your own subjective judgement? I see no cut-off in PROF for an h-index value. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. H-index of nearly 50, including highly cited work in which she is the first author (e.g. her scholar profile shows the first three with her as the first author and with 631, 617, and 524 citation respectively). User:Chris troutman, the unfounded COI allegations here are off color. The article is not overly promotional, and looking at the creator's other articles ones sees Ellen Riloff and Mona Diab with the common thread being female academics in Computational linguistics but not any organization (e.g. company or university) one would consider as flags for COI.-- Eostrix  ( ^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 18:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is a high-citation field but I think the citation record is good enough for WP:PROF#C1 nevertheless. Citation order appears to be meaningful for her publications and she's first on many of the top-cited ones. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with stunning citation record in highly cited field. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC). reply
• Keep as per Eostrix NHCLS ( talk) 14:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. clearly above average (but not outstanding) citation record for the field with 20+ papers with 100+ citations. -- hroest 18:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep None of the reasons to devalue the citation record (e.g., difficulty of assigning credit amid giant collaborations) seem to apply. Her h-index is higher than 22 out of the 26 coauthors listed on Google Scholar, definitely putting her on the upside. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Seems to meet WP:NPROF on citations. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Meets NPROF thanks to plenty of citations. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 09:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Whittletown, Virginia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I'm not entirely for sure what this is/was. This name doesn't appear on topos, and GNIS is sourced to something called Maps of Pittsylvania County with Danville & Chatham, Virginia by an Ohio publisher named Merchant Maps. The sole Newpapers.com result I could get for Whittletown in Virginia papers was one from the 1930s about an 11-year old's homemade newspaper. Searching isn't bringing up much. I think it's safe to say that WP:GEOLAND isn't met and WP:GNG almost certainly isn't. Hog Farm _Talk 16:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: A Google maps search shows this is just a small neighborhood within Chatham, Virginia. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:11, 31 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 Formula 1: Drive to Survive. Daniel ( talk) 23:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Drive To Survive (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Classic WP:TWODABS situation. The Netflix series is commonly just known as Drive to Survive; by comparison, the video game is only subtitled in select regions. Additionally, the Netflix series article consistently gets more visitors by a margin of at least 10:1, and even more. For this reason, this page would be better served as a redirect to the Netflix series article, with a possible hatnote to the video game article. Sceptre ( talk) 15:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Sceptre ( talk) 15:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete If the game is known as simply Mashed, then it can't be the primary topic. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Formula 1: Drive to Survive and hatnote. (The nom could have done this without AfD). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

Doesn't seem to be notable at all, it's just a concept devised by some two people. No sources apart from the general one. External link is dead, don't think this publication exists anymore. BeŻet ( talk) 15:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Nothing here indicates that the concept is notable within the fields of political science, philosophy, economics, or anywhere outside its own creators' writings. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:28, 31 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 Global Guardians. Daniel ( talk) 23:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. There isn't any significant coverage on the character. TTN ( talk) 15:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 15:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 15:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge with the founding members section of Global Guardians in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 19:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Global Guardians. Clearly not enough in-depth coverage to satisfy real-world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 31 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. I'm not seeing a strong argument to redirect an odd title, although the argument to retarget "Null the Living Darkness" is persuasive. The argument to merge is weakened by the complete absence of secondary sources in the article, but if someone wants a userspace copy to develop towards a merger, I would be willing to provide one. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. TTN ( talk) 15:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 15:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 15:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: N per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ ( talk) 17:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: N per above. Hypogaearoots ( talk) 07:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: N. In my message to the closer, I ask that the redirect goes to his section with his information being transferred there. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 22:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I think a DAB should be more specific, as I expected this to be about the TMNT character Null. Argento Surfer ( talk) 12:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect the variant Null the Living Darkness to List of Marvel Comics characters: N#Null, the Living Darkness. I can't see PRESERVE being relevant here, though a bare minimum in the article itself can be merged to that list section so it doesn't stay empty. Per Argento Surfer, the article title may serve better as a redirect to Null (disambiguation)#Arts and media. Or just delete it, per nom. Avilich ( talk) 18:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Null (disambiguation)#Arts and media and merge the content of this article to the Character list linked above. Argento Surfer ( talk) 12:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Williston, Maryland. (ATD) Daniel ( talk) 23:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Pealiquor Landing, Denton, Maryland (  | 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 the sole survivor of a group nomination, but it should have been deleted the first time rather than make us waste time going over it again. GMaps shows a rather baronial house at the location now, but older aerials seem to show that it replaced a considerably smaller building some twenty to thirty years ago. And we've got an explanation for the name, but that it wasn't a settlement, just a pea packing plant at some point. Mangoe ( talk) 14:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Williston, Maryland, with mention of the locality. I have found some NewspaperArchive articles about Pealiquor, and more than just on the canning factory, but they are not enough to write an article. Pealiquor became quite the camping and picnicking spot, and a few people lived in the area, but so far, that's all I've been able to find. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete One of a dozen river landings on the Upper Choptank that played a role in the overall local history but were not notable in their own right. – dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus that the sources provided do not meet the notability guideline. Mojo Hand ( talk) 16:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Javier Clemente Engonga Avomo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I can't find any reliable sources about him that would meet the WP:BASIC or WP:GNG guideline. Failing that, he could meet notability through WP:NAUTHOR but all I can find on him are self-published sources and I can't see any clear establishment of notability. He exists because his books are on Amazon and Waterstones but I can't find any in-depth coverage on him or any of his books. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Draft:Javier Clemente Engonga Avomo exists and was declined by User:Timtrent and User:TheBirdsShedTears. User has created a new copy in main space, therefore contesting the draftification of the article, as is their right. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, a non-notable biography. TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 14:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 15:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above comments and nom. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 19:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

delreijabirGreetings, and thanks for using the word welcome to wikipedia eventhought it doesnt' really seems that way. Regarding all of the messages and comments for the proposal of deleting of this article i would like to comment the following: A. Up to 5 independent external sources have been added on the existence of this person, please check the article before just talking about delation; B. Equatorial Guinea is the closest to North Korea, but when someone has occupied public responsabilities in strategic sectors and has written more than 300 books within a country with less than 2 million citizen, that should be notable and relevant enough for anyone to see the notability of this, instead of making assumptions after reading an article that is not even yet finished. C. I have no conflict of interest regarding this article or this person, i know this country and its people, and all of the comments i see here for deletion seems like racism to me, which is odd and wierd, but very common when talking about any issues or notability of a person of african descent. D. Is my first time publishing an article on Wikipedia eventhough i am a daily reader, so i apologize in advance for the mistakes on writing and edditing this article, and i truelly welcome any support and help that can be given. E. Regarding the i can't find any reliable sources about him that would meet the WP:BASIC or WP:GNG comment, it only took me 5 minutes to find up to 5 reliable external independent sources, including an UN report, but most of the information on him are in spanish. Thank you and God bless you all!

Only this source contains more than a trivial mention of him so my stance is the same as before. Oh and I'm not racist either. As an ethnic minority, I abhor racism. How dare you make unfounded accusations of racism like this that completely trivialise genuine racism that does still occur. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The note above substantial coverage is not from a reliable source for establishing notability as it looks like a company newsletter. No other coverage of substance to establish inclusion has been provided nor could I find any. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete even tough he has over 100 books, there is not much news coverage about him and this could be because the subjects he has written about have little interest. As such, he is not notable. Peter303x ( talk) 19:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Snow Crash#Distributed republics. Editors may merge content from history. Except for Newimpartial, all agree that this should be covered in the context of Snow Crash, if at all. Sandstein 21:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

It seems to be a concept used in a single science-fiction book, I don't see how it deserves a separate article on Wikipedia, considering there isn't even much written here about it. BeŻet ( talk) 14:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - discussed in reliable, independent secondary sources cited in the article. Meets WP:GNG. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't see it being mentioned though in Neo-Victorianism and the Memory of Empire. Don't have access to the other one. BeŻet ( talk) 19:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't know why you say that. It's there. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The Tattooed Girl: The Enigma of Stieg Larsson and the Secrets Behind the Most Compelling Thrillers of Our Time says In Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash and The Diamond Age, the concept of a "distributed republic" is introduced; it means a "nation" where citizens and physical assets are scattered around the globe, often changing, in many loosely connected anarchist communities. The concept is adapted, and acknowledged, in the online, anarchist "Hacker Republic" in the Millennium novels, where Lisbeth Salander is a "citizen".

The only search result for "distributed republic" I got in Neo-Victorianism and the Memory of Empire was America is conspicuously absent in the novel, recalled only in the hegemonic presence of "Neo-Victorian" culture, code for the technologically and culturally dominant "New Atlantis" tribe or "phyle" (ibid., p.33) that co-exists among others like the dominant Nipponese and Hindustanis but also the "Ashantis, Kurds, Armenians, Navajos, Tibetans, Senderos, Mormons, Jesuits, Lapps, Pathans, Tutsis, the First Distributed Republic and its innumerable offshoots, Heartlanders, Irish, and one or two local CryptNet cells" (ibid., p490)., but that was on page 132–133 ( https://books.google.com/books?id=d2Xv0n40fE0C&pg=PT133), not on the indicated page 124. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Newimpartial: as TompaDompa pointed out, it's not there. And it's just briefly mentioned in The Tattooed Girl. Doesn't seem notable to me. BeŻet ( talk) 11:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

When a reference is on another page, that isn't what most of us mean by "not there". And the Tatooed Girl reference meets SIGCOV in this context, since it provides a definition usable in this article. The concept is also discussed in The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought and some peer-reviewed articles, so I'm not really worried about the sourcing. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

What peer-reviewed articles? BeŻet ( talk) 18:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

E.g., [15], [16]. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

But are these sources discussing the "distributed republic", or other aspects of the book? If it is the latter, then they don't support notability of the subject. BeŻet ( talk) 18:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Newimpartial, I've looked at those sources. Distributed Information: Complexity Theory in the Novels of Neal Stephenson and Linda Nagata contains the collocation "distributed republic" precisely once, in the sentence In fact The Diamond Age is chock full of distributed systems: not only the global communications media Net but organizations like CryptNet and the "gestalt society" of the Drummers, the peasant society of Chinese rice-farmers, the First Distributed Republic that springs up in the West of Carl Hollywood's grandfather, and Dramatis Personae, the autonomously intelligent play of performer/spectators. Remediated Readers: Gender and Literacy in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age contains the collocation "distributed republic" precisely zero times. I want you to explain how you think these sources demonstrate notability for the topic of distributed republics. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for looking at those article sources. While they may not grant Notability for the topic outside the novel, but the book-length sources do meet WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

But the "book-length sources" _do not_ talk about the concept of the "distributed republic", they just mention it in passing. I'm yet to see a source that talks about it in more detail at all. BeŻet ( talk) 13:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The Tatooed Girl is not what policy considers a passing mention, and neither is the Routledge Handbook. In both cases, there is ample information that can be used to source the article, beyond a mere mention. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Could you please show examples of what you mean. BeŻet ( talk) 14:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

For the record, what The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought says is In both Snow Crash and his later book, Diamond Age, Stephenson describes distributed republics—fluid governments that range across the world, occupying many various places at various times and following wherever their citizen-customers go. He presents these as for-profit enterprises, such as Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong franchise, or as shattered remnants of former nation-states, such as the leftover bits of the former United States, now known as Fedland. Stephenson portrays the former as tough but fair and, perhaps more important, good value for the crypto-buck. He depicts the latter as a pathetically shrunken relic, psychotically obsessed with false order. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

That to me is a passing mention. Had there been whole chapters about the whole concept itself, that would be different. BeŻet ( talk) 15:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

You can believe what you like, but there isn't anything in WP policy supporting your opinion. No topic requires whole chapters to establish Notability. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Likewise WP policy does not say that a brief, unsubstantial mentioning of a phrase in a source is enough to make something notable - see WP:SIGCOV. WP:NOTABILITY is established via consensus following guidelines, so you can't really frame the discussion as "case closed". I'd also look at the "Presumed" clause: means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not only I am trying to dispute that there is significant coverage of the topic, but also trying to argue that the topic does not deserve a separate article. The coverage you are mentioning seems to me to only present superficial descriptions of the concept, and does not go any further (based on the fragments that TompaDompa kindly shared). BeŻet ( talk) 22:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The question Notability is meant to answer is, do we have sourcing for a separate article? Descriptions of the concept, even if you find them superdicial, absolutely suffice as article sources. Also, you have not made any argument that WP:NOT applies here, which is the only example given in the "presumed" clause for why a GNG pass should not result in an article being retained. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete or redirect to Snow Crash. There appears to be nothing beyond trivial coverage on the topic itself. The above sources seem to use it to very briefly define its context in relation to discussion on the books. If those sources aren't present in the novel articles, they should probably be added there. TTN ( talk) 20:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment The above delsort was applied due to the article being purely WP:INUNIVERSE and falsely claiming that this is a widespread concept. A {{ fiction}} tag from November 2010 was removed without explanation or improvement in October 2017. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge Even with the limited sourcing above, per WP:NOPAGE this should be discussed in the main article topic as a fictional element of that. Reywas92 ^Talk 14:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Snow Crash#Distributed republics. There wasn't (and isn't) really anything to merge since the content at distributed republic matches the contents of the cited sources poorly, but I have at any rate added a brief description based on the sources I've quoted above and an additional one I found to my proposed redirect target. All coverage of the topic I have found has related to Stephenson's books Snow Crash and The Diamond Age, and I wouldn't call any of it WP:Significant coverage—the topic is hardly discussed, merely described. Based on the sources uncovered so far, I don't see a case for a stand-alone article at all. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Just so that we are clear, there is no reason that a topic must be discussed, rather than described, to have a standone article. That isn't the way WP:N (or WP:SIGCOV) works. Also, the fact that this article's topic is discussed in relation to two different novels is actually a sleeper !keep argument. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • For something to qualify as significant coverage, it would generally have to be discussed within the source. If it is merely being briefly described within a larger context and receives no actual attention, that is the opposite of significant coverage. TTN ( talk) 16:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • That's not what the guidelines say, though. There is talk of a trivial mention, but a sentence description of what something is, is not a "trivial mention". It is also clearly stated that a subject need not me the main topic of the source to count as significant coverage. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Being briefly described for context is a trivial mention. Not having any focus as a talking point is a trivial mention. The whole point about not needing to be the main topic is the difference between something being discussed within a couple paragraphs rather than being the subject of a full chapter. Both are valid significant coverage. One sentence in which the topic is not at all discussed is below that threshold. TTN ( talk) 17:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
          • I accept that this is your opinion. But there is nothing in policy that sets the bar as a couple paragraphs. Since the purpose of WP:N is not to gauge importance but to determine whether a reliably sourced article can be written, it seems that descriptive sentences should be fine. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • What WP:Significant coverage says is "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I think a one- or two-sentence description of a fictional concept is a trivial mention; the coverage is brief and not in-depth. Discussed vs. described is my way of explaining why I don't think it's significant coverage. And if you compare what the article currently says vs. what the cited sources say, you'll see that original research was indeed needed to extract that content. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • What content is in the current article that is not documented in the sources listed, or in Routledge, but instead is OR? Newimpartial ( talk) 22:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I'm getting a bit fed up with your attitude towards checking what the sources say, especially considering that I caught you lying about what one of them ( Remediated Readers: Gender and Literacy in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age) says earlier in this discussion. The sources are quoted above, and you can look at the article yourself and compare. However, for the benefit of everyone else:
          The article currently says The distributed republic is a concept of fluid republic consisting of land and citizens scattered around the globe, changing far more frequently than conventional nation-states. In fiction, many of these republics are corporate entities, while others are more loosely connected anarchist communities. The concept is rooted in the anarcho-capitalist, dystopian cyberpunk subgenre of science fiction, and was used extensively by novelist Neal Stephenson in his books Snow Crash and The Diamond Age.
          None of this can be attributed to Neo-Victorianism and the Memory of Empire, one of the two sources cited.
          citizens scattered around the globe and loosely connected anarchist communities can be attributed to The Tattooed Girl: The Enigma of Stieg Larsson and the Secrets Behind the Most Compelling Thrillers of Our Time, the other cited source. So could used by novelist Neal Stephenson in his books Snow Crash and The Diamond Age, but not the present used extensively [...]. fluid republic cannot be attributed to that source. consisting of land cannot. changing far more frequently than conventional nation-states cannot. many of these republics are corporate entities cannot. The concept is rooted in the anarcho-capitalist, dystopian cyberpunk subgenre of science fiction cannot.
          fluid, but not fluid republic, can be attributed to The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought, a source which is not cited on the article (more about that later). consisting of land is dubious. changing far more frequently than conventional nation-states cannot be attributed to that source. The concept is rooted in the anarcho-capitalist, dystopian cyberpunk subgenre of science fiction cannot.
          The phrasing many of these republics are corporate entities, while others are more loosely connected anarchist communities is an amalgamation of what two different sources—only one of which is actually cited—in a way that misrepresents both. One says loosely connected anarchist communities with no other type, and the other says for-profit enterprises [...] or [...] shattered remnants of former nation-states.
          The entire phrasing of the article (The distributed republic is [...]. In fiction, [...]. The concept [...] was used extensively by novelist Neal Stephenson in his books Snow Crash and The Diamond Age.) implies that this is a real-world phenomenon which has also been used in fiction, in particular by Stephenson. What the sources say is that this is a fictional concept Stephenson uses in his works.
          The reason for all of this is, of course, that the sources were added in 2015 to text that had mostly been added back in 2006 ("Snow Crash" was added in 2007, " cypherpunk" was changed to " cyberpunk" in 2011, and "in fiction" was added in 2014). This is a classic case of adding a bunch of WP:Original research to an article and then looking for sources to verify it. Here, it was partially successful. It should of course still never have happened. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Well, getting a bit fed up seems to have led to you making mistakes: did you read The Diamond Girl reference carefully? The whole point of that discussion is that the concept of the distributed republic is acknowledged and adapted in the Millenium novels by Steig Larsson. In other words, it is not only used by Neal Stevenson, as you baldly stated above.
          • Look, I get that you're annoyed to be having this discussion, and I am not hear to defend the sloppy text of the present (or past) versions of this article. But WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the question for AfD is whether Reliable Sources address the topic and whether it is encyclopaedic. The fact that this fictional political-economic form has originated in novels by one author, and then been explicitly adapted in other fiction by another author - as documented in RS criticism - is evidence of its encyclopaedicity whether this (or I) annoy you or not. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Edit conflict: postscriptAnd if you actually need sourcing for the contextually obvious links from cyberpunk to the distributed republic concept, here's a doctoral thesis that does so. Should it be cited in the article? Probably, but once again, NOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
            • Yes, I read the excerpt from The Tattooed Girl: The Enigma of Stieg Larsson and the Secrets Behind the Most Compelling Thrillers of Our Time carefully. That's why I didn't say the concept was only used by Neal Stephenson—I said that the sources say it is a fictional concept Stephenson uses in his works (my exact words above), which is true. I also didn't say that it was also used by Stieg Larsson, because what the source says is that it was adapted, and acknowledged by Larsson. I chose my words rather carefully, you see. You're making it a bit difficult to WP:AGF here—first you lie about what the sources say, and then you claim I said something I didn't.
              I don't agree that the question for AfD is whether Reliable Sources address the topic and whether it is encyclopaedic—that's you shifting the goalposts. The question for this AfD is whether this stand-alone article should be kept, deleted, merged, redirected, draftified, or some other WP:Alternative to deletion. That's not the same thing. You need to make a case that this warrants a stand-alone article (which would necessitate meeting WP:GNG), not that this is something which should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. TompaDompa ( talk) 01:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
              • To be brutally accurate, the AfD non offered no actual grounds for deletion, but Notability seemed to be implied. Do you have another reason in mind? That I am aware, there are only a few typically valid deletion arguments at AfD: BLP concerns, COI editing, Notability and NOT. Are you trying to suggest something else? Because what I see is a GNG pass where NOT, BLP concerns and COI don't apply. Also, don't accuse me of lying just because I made (and admitted) a mistake. That's a WP:CIVIL violation.
              • By contrast, I was crediting you with good faith when I attributed your omissions from Tattooed girl to a mistake. But it seems you left that aspect of the critical discussion out on purpose, even though you knew (?) it was relevant to the deletion discussion? Have I got that right, now? Newimpartial ( talk) 01:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
                • There are 14 canonical WP:Reasons for deletion, and that's explicitly not exhaustive. WP:ATD-M says Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. That's basically what I'm proposing, except the article was and is in such a poor state that I rewrote it from scratch at the target article instead. WP:PAGEDECIDE says Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. Even for topics that are notable, a stand-alone article is not necessarily the best solution. As an example, I'm fairly sure that the extended editions of The Lord of the Rings films would technically meet WP:GNG, but I also think forking would be a bad idea there.
                  I didn't get the impression that you admitted making a mistake (is this the edit you're referring to?), but you obviously have now, so I apologize.
                  The point I was making mostly had to do with the phrasing making it sound like a real-world concept (which it isn't), and to a lesser extent about how the article de-emphasizes Stephenson compared to the sources; I was originally going to write that the sources say Stephenson originated the concept (which it seems he did), but they don't really say that so I changed the phrasing. That Larsson adapted, and acknowledged the concept didn't seem germane to that. If I understand you correctly, you think it's relevant for different reasons, since you think it demonstrates that the concept should have a stand-alone article. I disagree, because I don't think the coverage is sufficiently in-depth to be considered WP:Significant coverage regardless. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The thing is, your first talk-quote is premised on the fictional element being non-notable - unless it fails GNG, that provision simply does not apply. My whole argument here is that being discussed, at minimum, in two RS books and a dissertation is a pretty clear indication of Notability for a fictional element.

Meanwhile, your second talk quote - which observes that it is sometimes better to cover notable topics on part of a broader topic - is actually one I heartily agree with. But it does not apply to a fictional element the RS on which connect directly to two novels by one writer and several by another. 02:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we are at an impasse. I don't think this meets WP:GNG since I don't think any of these sources provide WP:Significant coverage as I don't think they go into sufficient depth (I don't agree with your characterization that the topic is discussed in these sources), but clearly we disagree.

I was initially optimistic that the dissertation The evolution of cyberpunk into postcyberpunk: The role of cognitive cyberspaces, wetware networks and nanotechnology in science fiction might provide WP:Significant coverage (though WP:GNG asks for multiple sources and I don't think any of the other ones rise to the level of WP:Significant coverage). So I read it intent on being able to use it to write more about the topic of distributed republics in-article and perhaps change my stance on what should be done with the page. The dissertation says The political structure and the new social order outlined in The Diamond Age derive from Stephenson's previous novel Snow Crash, which presents a geopolitical division consisting of a set of colonies identified as 'Burbclaves' (suburban enclaves) and Franchulates (political franchises), both assembled by peoples with common interests. In contrast, in The Diamond Age the Earth is organized in diverse city-states pertaining to different 'distributed republics' whose territories are scattered around the planet. This enables Stephenson to examine various aspects of our current globalized order, its new economic alternatives (like post-capitalism) and other issues such as the success and failure of ancient social philosophies that, in the novel, are labeled as New Victorianism or New Confucianism. In other words, the concept of distributed republics is briefly described for context, as TTN put it. I wish we had more in-depth sources providing WP:Significant coverage for the topic so we could write a proper stand-alone article discussing it in detail, but my standards for what I consider WP:Significant coverage are higher than this. TompaDompa ( talk) 03:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

And higher than WP stipulates. :). I offered the dissertation merely to cover one or two of the gaps you were pointing to above as "unsupported by the current sources"; if I had meant to imply that it offers an additional level of depth beyond a mere discussion contributing to a GNG pass, I hope I would have chosen my words to communicate that. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

You keep saying that other editors are wrong about what the threshold for WP:Significant coverage is. Again, what WP:SIGCOV says is "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There does not exist any general consensus about where to draw the line, so we judge it case-by-case. Some editors focus on length of coverage; a cut-off of WP:One hundred words has been suggested. Some editors focus on breadth of coverage. Some editors focus on depth of coverage. You previously stated that the purpose of WP:N is not to gauge importance but to determine whether a reliably sourced article can be written, it seems that descriptive sentences should be fine, which is fairly similar to the ideas expressed in the essay Wikipedia:Significant coverage not required. That's certainly one possible way to view it, but it doesn't enjoy community consensus the way you seem to imply. I don't think having one or two sentences describing the concept of distributed republics for context in order to discuss something different is significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail, but you are of course allowed to disagree. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I'll try one more time to articulate what I think the GNG and SIGCOV are for, which is to answer the question, "do the sources suffice to write an encyclopaedic entry on the topic?" In this case, I believe they do. You have raised an additional question - which I also see as relevant - namely, is the sourced information better treated in the context of a larger topic? Since this article's subject is not limited to one book or to one author, my provisional answer is no: it is better treated as a separate article.

It is my view, by the way, not that there is one correct interpretation of SIGCOV, and I am its custodian, but rather that the threshold for significant coverage has been deliberately kept vague in the guideline so that it can be interpreted differently in different contexts. I am also arguing that, in line with the purpose of Notability (which is not gauging the importance of the topic, but rather its potential sourcing) the relevant interpretation in this instance (and in most) is a permissive one. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Snow Crash, if the content gets too long, a Technology of Snow Crash article is probably the better option. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 16:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Pusey Crossroads, Delaware (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Topos and aerials say this is... a crossroads. Nobody else has anything to say, so not notable. Mangoe ( talk) 14:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - all I'm finding is passing mentions, clickbait, a 1984 National Gazetter calling it a locale (geography), which by definition is not a community, and a 1967 government document calling it a locality. This does not seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 15:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete The many inconsistencies between the National Gazetteers and GNIS show how poor a source the latter is. Reywas92 ^Talk 15:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: As the name suggests, literally just a crossroads. Nothing even remotely notable here. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:15, 31 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 13:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sayeed Abubakar (Poet) (  | 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 notability requirements, fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Most of the references are to his publisher website or not reliable blogs and websites. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 08:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 08:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 08:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Vinegarymass911. ~ Yahya ( ✉) • 11:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Dear Editors,

I am trying my best to improve my article "Sayeed Abubakar (Poet)" by citing information from various reliable sources. If you have any advice more on this regard, please let me know. Sincerely Yours User: Shish Mohammad Jakaria ( talk) voted twice.

• Delete Most of the references are from his publisher website, non reliable blogs and websites. No sig coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 00:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

As a number of sources show the presence of this poet and his contributions both to Bengali poetry and world poetry, I think this article will help the world readers to know about the modern poetry of the world. Other editors may come to enrich this article more. User: Shish Mohammad Jakaria ( talk) 06:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Dear আফতাবুজ্জামান, what do you mean by reliable blogs and websites? His writings and discussion on this poet are found in many world famous website like PoemHunter.com, Poetry Soup, Somewherein blog and so on. Please clarify the matter with examples and help me to improve my article with reliable sources. Sincerely yours, User:Shish Mohammad Jakaria ( talk)

As far as I have studied the modern Bengali poetry of the recent times, the poet discussed in this article is one of the most important ones. I have tried my best to provide references in favor of my article. This poet is well-known, not only to the Bengali readers but also to the world-readers, as he is one of the Top 500 Poets of the World according to the survey of Poemhunter.com. Therefore, I think that this article related to this great poet should not be considered for deletion, rather it should be protected for the interest of the world-readers and honorable editors may come to enrich this article. As a new editor, my article may have some shortcomings because of my lack of knowledge about setting up an article in wikipedia. I may be advised more regarding how to enrich this article. User: Shish Mohammad Jakaria ( talk) 5:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think you should read WP:RS. Poemhunter.com isn't WP:RS, it is user generated, anyone can create account and post, vote there. "This poet is well-known, not only to the Bengali readers but also to the world-readers" ^{citation needed}. The poet's article ( bn:সায়ীদ_আবুবকর) on bnwiki was deleted twice.-- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 18:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete I don't understand why the article is not deleted already, why it's relisted. The consensus is clear, the article creator is the only person who keeps cheating and flooding this discussion with "keep" votes. The sources in the article do not establish notability. The first source is a poem written by the subject of the article, which is followed by 19 external links to an online bookstore rokomari.com with the poet's books (this basically constitutes mass-spamming), the same with the Amazon link. Then there are several links to dailynayadiganta.com, kaliokalam.com, chinnofoundation.org and dinkal.in which just post the poet's poems. There are just a couple of sources that cover the subject of the article, but they are either passing mentions ( [17]) or a source like this one which does not cover him in great detail, the article is basically anonymous and the website itself does not look like a reliable source. The only source that looks semi-decent is timenewsbd.net, but even the article itself looks anonymous (or reprinting a press release) and the website, like many others, looks like a one-man show. There are also many links to articles written or translated by the poet himself at dailynayadiganta.com, dailyinqilab.com and onnoekdiganta.com. And so on. The mass-spamming nature of the external links in this article is absolutely ridiculous and should by itself be a reason for deleting the article. I also believe the article creator should be blocked from editing for persistent disruptive editing, cheating, spamming and WP:CIR issues.— J. M. ( talk) 19:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no reliable, independent coverage so clearly fails WP:GNG Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Attention to all the honorable editors and users of Wikipedia: My article "Sayeed Abubakar (Poet)" may be deleted or not, it does not matter. If it is deleted according to the Wikipedia policy, I have no complaint. I think that for lack of my competence I have failed to submit my article properly. I have worked hard for many days on this article. So, I will feel shocked, no doubt. But already I have felt extremely shocked at the behavior of a user named J.M. I want to draw your attention to what he has already done to me. First, he has used several words such as "Cheat" and "cheating" about me on my talk page. On 31 July 2021 at 08:44, he wrote, "Please do not try to cheat" and on the same date at 18:55 he again wrote, "Stop cheating" and later he threatened me saying, "you will be blocked from editing". My question is, is such a behavior expected from a user? Is it not a misconduct? I will request you all to observe the page which way he has marked my discussion. I think, he has done it for some malice against me. So I propose that this user named J.M. should be immediately blocked from Wikipedia. If not, new users like me may lose any interest in this world famous website. Actually, I am a very new user and still mere a student who is eager to learn more and more but don't like to be abused as nobody likes it at all. A gentleman is recognized by his language, by nothing else. Sincerely yours, User: Shish Mohammad Jakaria ( talk)

Adding four "keep" votes to this discussion definitely constitutes cheating: one, two, three, four. The first three attempts could perhaps be attributed to inexperience, but the user kept doing it despite being warned about it, so there is no excuse.— J. M. ( talk) 08:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails (1) WP:NGRIDIRON (never appeared in a regular season game in the NFL, CFL, or other qualifying league -- NFL Europe and UFL are not qualifying leagues), (2) WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards and principally a backup [started one of 17 games at Washington State -- see here]), and (3) WP:GNG (my searches in both Google and Newspapers.com fail to turn up WP:SIGCOV of the type required). Cbl62 ( talk) 07:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Finding a decent amount in the archives, such as [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Seems to meet GNG. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 01:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Respectfully disagree. Not one of these articles is focused on Dada as the primary topic. Given the lack of significant accomplishment at Washington State (1 career start) and zero appearances in a qualifying professional league, I would want to see SIGCOV focused more directly on Dada to support maintenance of a stand-alone article. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. –– FORMALDUDE^{( talk)} 02:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete I found nothing that I would consider significant independent coverage. In addition, he fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Papaursa ( talk) 23:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No evidence of SIGCOV. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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