Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 02 November 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Turkey–Vanuatu relations

Turkey–Vanuatu relations (  | 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 is very little to relations besides assisting Vanuatu in disaster response: no embassies, agreements, state visits or ministers meeting, migration and trade is non existent. The Turkish Foreign Affairs website says very little [1]. LibStar ( talk) 23:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Bhutan–Turkey relations

Bhutan–Turkey relations (  | 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 is very little to these relations: no embassies, state visits, agreements. Trade is very low at USD1.6 million and a bit of aid money given by Turkey. LibStar ( talk) 23:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Saint Kitts and Nevis–Turkey relations

Saint Kitts and Nevis–Turkey relations (  | 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 third party coverage. Very limited relations: no embassies, agreements, trade is relatively low, only high level meeting is one between foreign ministers in 28 years of relations. LibStar ( talk) 23:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ali Tajdary

Ali Tajdary (  | 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

(1) WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion.
(2) WP:SINGER - had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
(3) WP:NACTOR where that significant roles in multiple notable films where by the subject is cover in lenght in dept by independent reliable sources about the the films he was featured in.
(4) WP:GNG for not having significant coverage by indepndent, reliable sources (IRS) where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept. and not merely passing mentioned. (note:interview /IT tune/marketing articles are considered on indepdent.
So far from the sources in the article there are either not do not meet GNG requirements stated above. Since the subject is from Iran and it is a little difficult for me to find sources or to check if there are IRS other editors could find, pls provide, but at this stage subject doesnt meet any notability requirements. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm really sorry for the people who applied for dismissal, because they applied for dismissal without the slightest search. They did not even pay attention to the acting profession of this person. Doesn't it matter if his film won an award in Russia? Isn't the person who won the Best Actor award at the Iranian Film Festival credible? Doesn't anyone who has a biography in a national newspaper matter? All sources are the most authoritative Iranian sources, and unfortunately the people who suggested here have no knowledge or information about Wikipedia and the validity of the links. links 1:manzoom.ir The first link is the database of Iranian artists.

2: shoroonline.ir The second link is the national and state newspaper of Iran.

3: sarshenasan.com the third link of the authoritative news platform is the work of well-known artists and has been used as a source in hundreds of Wikipedia articles.

4: sarshenasan.com the fourth link of the authoritative news platform is the work of well-known artists and has been used as a source in hundreds of Wikipedia articles.

5: rahetaraghi.ir The fifth link is a news site with twenty years of experience that publishes the most important political news, sports art

6: daramadnews.com The sixth link is the news agency and under the supervision of the Iranian government

7: ecoperaian.ir The seventh link of the Economic and Artistic News Agency is a subset of Hamshahri Iran newspaper

8: sarshenasan.com the eighth link is a newsletter for Iranian artists and celebrities, which also produces more than 100 Iranian films and has a print magazine.

9: mehrnews.com The ninth link of Mehr News Agency is one of the top five news agencies in Iran. This news agency is under the direct supervision of the government and has more than two hundred news sites under the agency.

10: shoroonewspaper It is the tenth link of the Iranian state newspaper

13: The 13th link of the Iranian News Agency is one of the top five Iranian news agencies

14, 15, 16, 17, 18 These four links are the largest and most reputable sites for distributing works of artists in Iran and the world

20, 21 these two links are one of the most reputable second-rate newspaper and magazine in the Iranian ministry of culture and guidance. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 these six links are also reputable iranian news agencies that have been used as a reference in thousands of wikipedia articles. with a short search in these news agencies, you can find out their credibility.

This article is too authoritative, but the people who commented here did not explicitly do the slightest research. A cursory Google search reveals the importance of this article. Are any of you Iranians? Are you aware of the validity of my links due to the deletion of the data? Do you expect a link from the New York Times to be sent to you? Do not forget that I wrote an article about an Iranian person and my links are the most reputable news agencies in Iran.

I ask the top and top managers of Wikipedia to judge this article according to the two professions (Ali Tajdary) acting and singing, which iranian artist has such links in the English Wikipedia, according to the rules of Wikipedia, if an actor it is valid to have an acting award, now how insignificant is the person who has won awards in two films and has acted in seven Iranian tv films and played a series that has twenty-five million tv viewers. Hoseinkandovan (talk) -- Hoseinkandovan ( talk) 10:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Hosein kandovan reply

Hoseinkandovan

It's really funny that some people here are not credible sources, it' s really funny that you do not consider a nationwide newspaper or five reputable news agencies, I'm sorry that people here have commented that they do not have the slightest information and still can not even Distinguish between valid and invalid, -- Hoseinkandovan ( talk) 10:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC) ← reply

Hoseinkandovan

In my opinion, this is a conspiracy to delete an article that does not even need to be defended, certainly the main editors of Wikipedia will make the right decision by paying more attention to all the points and links and the subject.-- Hoseinkandovan ( talk) 11:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply


  • Delete: per above, fails several notability guidelines. this person has acted in seven main films number of films acted in does not matter, acting in multiple films does not make someone notable. the singer has two authentic music albums with wide publishers having albums released does not equal notability, lots of youtube musicians/singers I listen to have released albums, none of them are notable. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 13:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply


Lavalizard101 You are completely wrong because he was the first role in the humiliation of a valid film, he was the first role in a series that all Iranians have seen, I am an Iranian, I know better than you which Iranian film is valid and which is not valid, (Special Love Line Series), in which Tajdari has been the main actor, is one of the top five series in Iran that almost most Iranians have seen. The movie (fourth round) is one of the most prestigious movies in Iran and has won many awards. And Tajdari has been the actor of that prestigious film, he has also played the lead role in a film called (the butter fly) and he has won the acting award as the leading actor. You have to pay attention to the rules, the rules of Wikipedia say that the actor who won the award is valid, the rules of Wikipedia say that the actor who has played a significant role in several prestigious films is valid, you can not comment on the rules of Wikipedia.-- Mehrab fatemi iran ( talk) 13:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

[[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101] An actor can be famous even with an important film, your words are irrelevant and show that you do not have enough information, many actors in the world have become famous with only one film, in any case, the films in which (Ali Tajdari) has been an actor. It is a popular Iranian film. The Holy Defense Festival in Iran is one of the strictest film festivals and only one person can win it every year. Tajdari has won the Best Actor Award in that film.-- Mehrab fatemi iran ( talk) 13:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)(blocked sock) reply

You have to pay attention to the rules, the rules of Wikipedia say that the actor who won the award is valid, the rules of Wikipedia say that the actor who has played a significant role in several prestigious films is valid, you can not comment on the rules of Wikipedia I have been here for several years I know the rules, the above could like a personal attack, the article fails WP:GNG. You also keep using the word "valid" that means nothing to Wikipedia its notability that matters. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 13:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

*Keep The article is important and valuable. WP:NACTOR The article is important. In terms of acting, he has played the lead role in eight films. He has two acting awards. The movies and series she has acted in are also important. In two films, he won the Best Actor Award. He has played a role in a series as the main character and singer of the title track. TV series are important. WP:SINGER The singer has concerts in Iranian cities. He has two authentic music albums and her music has been used as the title track of the series.

Searching Wikipedia has several names in movies, series and albums.

Links are valid. Links are not quotes from this singer and are written by a news reporter. So they are considered valid news. There are two national newspapers and a print magazine in the links. These links are valid from Wikipedia.

The article is valid and valuable in every way-- A.T wikinevis ( talk) 19:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Hosein kandovan You wrote that there may have been a collusion to delete this article. Sometimes this happens on Wikipedia. But do not worry, the final review is done by senior Wikipedia administrators. They read the article more carefully. In my opinion, the removal of the proposals is a bit suspicious, but there is no need to worry. Leave the review to the managers and they will make the right decision-- A.T wikinevis ( talk) 20:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)(blocked sock) reply

  • Keep - First I want to say that User:Hosein kandovan messaged me to vote on this page, because of another vote I had done on a similar Persian page. However, I guarantee you that my vote is independent and this is how I personally feel. I had originally seen this discussion and was going to post KEEP, but decided to pass because there were already too many DELETE votes. However, seeing that there is at least one other person that thinks the page should be kept, I am placing my vote now. I agree that the subject of the article meets WP:ENT because of his acting career, winning an award and being in award winning movie. You have to also realize that a Persian actor is not going to have much coverage in reliable English publications. In addition, he is also a host to a TV series with worldwide coverage. NOTE TO ADMINS: I added the vote 'Keep' to User:Hosein kandovan's post. I don't think he is aware how to properly vote. If he has been caught for socking, I agree that all the votes from the sock accounts should be removed, but you should at min keep one vote from him and read his arguments. Chelokabob ( talk) 09:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    The votes from someone currently blocked for socking within this very AfD are likely to be discarded or weighted minimally. Also, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how would you have voted here independently if you were asked by Hoseinkandovan when you wouldn't have otherwise voted (considering you decided not to vote before)? Thanks, Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 22:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    I initially voted KEEP on the same guy's TV show page Uncensored_With_Ali_Tajdary. I was going to also vote KEEP here, but then I saw many Deletes and decided not to. But then the said user sent a message to my talk page, asking if I could also vote here. I told him it was pointless because there were many delete votes, but if he could find good in-depth articles to let me know or post about it. I then noticed that he posted here some good arguments, which I had not seen, including the fact that the subject has won awards and been in award winning movies, so I decided for sure the page deserves my vote now and maybe it is possible to convince admins to keep the page. Do you still want to keep your vote as Delete, after reading my reasoning? I feel the subject meets WP:ENT. Chelokabob ( talk) 22:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Well for one shoroonewspaper yielded nothing in the Google search engine. sarshenasan.com is an Iranian blog site as I see by the url itself, rahetaraghi.ir is rather reliable. This, along with mehrnews.com and shoroonline.ir makes the person to be semi-notable. The only question remains is whether rahetaraghi.ir and shoroonline.ir are daily newspapers or not, because if they are, it doesn't make him notable. Akharin News Agency and Daramad News Agency are a bit sketchy. They seem reliable but at the same time I fail to find the journalist himself. In fact, all Iranian news sites don't carry a single journalist, that is why the whole discussion was in limbo.-- Filmomusico ( talk) 17:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Please realize that most Persian journalists and writers are afraid to use their names online, for fear of the Iranian Government arresting them for something that they may say that the government does not like. This would not mean that the publications are unreliable. Even, some of the publications that are operating outside the country hide their owner's identities, because the Iranian government has been known to even go after them outside the country. There is currently a journalist in hiding that the government tried to kidnap, but failed and more info. Chelokabob ( talk) 18:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

*Keep Hi, the sources are valid. The newspaper is the beginning of a print newspaper. Go to the newspaper site. There are printed copies.There are at least ten official Iranian news outlets in the links. Mehr news agency. sarshenasan news agensy daramad news shoroonewspaper secret news agensy rahetaraghi news rokna news agensy barkhat news matlabak news ecopersian agensy These are the main Iranian news outlets. Please pay more attention. Each of us can make a suggestion to delete or keep this article,But according to all the points, one should comment so that the personal right is not lost.The article is entitled to be registered on the wiki due to the subject and links. 


WP:SINGER

WP:NACTOR

WP:ENT  — Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
A.T wikinevis (
talk • 
contribs) 
20:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC) (blocked sock)
reply
A.T wikinevis : You cannot place 2 KEEP votes. But you can post it as COMMENT. Chelokabob ( talk) 20:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm seeing legitimate greivances about move-warring and premature creation of articles about films that are announced but not really notable. Anyone move-warring may consider this a warning against doing so. But we cannot judge this specific case based on anything besides notability, and there's consensus here that the topic is now notable. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film)

AfDs for this article:
Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (3d nomination)

This article is being move-warred into article space after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (2nd nomination). Admins User:Vanamonde93 and User:Liz have both moved it back to draft space and said not to move it back into article space until it is released. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Then shouldn't this be dealt through WP:RFPP? It sounds like the last WP:AFD from a month ago is nothing different here. – The Grid ( talk) 23:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I just don't understand why you want this article to be deleted for the third time. I understand why it was deleted the second time because there was not a lot of information about Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021), but since that deletion, there have been multiple reliable sources plus a trailer of the film. Besides, I don't remember Turning Red's article getting deleted because the movie hasn't come out yet. Also, more clips and other promotional material could surface before the film premiers on December 3, 2021. So, in conclusion, deleting Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film)'s Wikipedia article would not really help. - ZX2006XZ ( talk) 0:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks like you're not understanding the Wikipedia article guidelines through the WP:AfC process. The process has been to draftify (note: this is also my vote) the article until there are sufficient resources. A new trailer doesn't suffice this requirement - please read WP:NFILMS – The Grid ( talk) 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 17:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Insaniquarium characters

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

Pure game guide article that goes against policy of articles being guides, especially due to its listing of stats such as how much each fish costs and how to unlock them. It seems like a misguided good faith attempt, but is better off on FANDOM or GameFAQs. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 22:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was withdrawn. Nomination rationale no longer holds true. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 04:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Trois-Pistoles (disambiguation)

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

At Talk:Trois-Pistoles (disambiguation) § Requested move 25 October 2021, 162 etc. and Ortizesp raised the point that one of the trois entries on this page, Three Pistols, is not an actual title match and should be removed, making this a WP:ONEOTHER situation that can be handled with a hatnote. I agree with their logic, and suggest deletion. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 22:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sunniva Schultze-Florey

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

Seems to be non-notable after some pre-discussion. They're is essentially no WP:SECONDARY context for this BLP. scope_creep Talk 22:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment The Det er skumlere å la alle sparepengene stå i banken source is an advertisement, according to the Om DNB Nyheter (About DNB Nyheter) page (Google translation: "DNB Nyheter is not an ordinary online newspaper. We are not independent, we are not neutral journalists and we who write here are paid by the bank. Nevertheless, DNB Nyheter is not "just" advertising either.") Beccaynr ( talk) 05:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 10:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

William C. White

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

This biography appears to have an extremely sketchy basis for its notability, which appears to be primarily derived from the fact that the subject's mother is a notable entry as the founder of a church. Most of the sources attributed to this article merely affirm that the individual was indeed born, with little further information - certainly nothing justifying this rather expansive biographical entry. The sourcing, overall, seems extremely poor. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment @ 78.26: Question is this person notable? Catfurball ( talk) 15:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment - as I have, elsewhere, been accused of having a COI, I shall not !vote. However, as I have some expertise in the topic area and there's been minimal participation I should present some sources I know about, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Unfortunately I don't have access at the moment to newspapers.com, it has been renewed but it's a significant obstacle to research at the moment. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 19:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep Meets WP:GNG. It adds Infomation to the religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) sock strike Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The sources produced by 78.26 demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. The book by Moon (1993) is particularly important: Was Ellen G. White manipulated by her son? An Adventist author explores the life of W.C. White to discover whether he dominated his mother's later years. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 17:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rochas Foundation

Rochas Foundation (  | 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:NGO. Created by sock Ugbedeg. It is an WP:ADMASQ article. scope_creep Talk 22:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Draftify. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Vendetta (upcoming film)

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

Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG, film has not received significant coverage, all sources are nearly identical write-ups from a press release and do not constitute as WP:SIGCOV BOVINEBOY 2008 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Government of New York (state). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Social Services District (New York)

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

All this says is that each county of NY is a "social services district", except NYC which is its own district, and each district has their own social services department. Most government entities in NY state are set up that way, so that's not notable on its own. Aside from that, this article says basically nothing. Apocheir ( talk) 01:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Apocheir ( talk) 01:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any consensus on the proposed redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

A redirect is fine for me. - Apocheir ( talk) 21:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Death NYC

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

No secondary sources at all for this very generically named artist. Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Death NY might be difficult to search for (although I tried with a custome search that indexes hundreds of art-related sources and came up empty), but “Don’t Easily Abandon The Hope” is a rather easy-to-seach-for string that also yields very little. Note how [7] says: "Growing up in New York City, being expose to many different cultures and perspectives often causes her think and questions everything that she sees on the street." and [8] says: "She grew up in New York, she was exposed to a variety of cultures, which made her question the things she saw on the street." not cited, but [9] has "Growing up in New York, she was exposed to a wide variety of cultures, which led her to question the things she saw on the street very early." None of that is original reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations ( talk • contribs)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Alexandra Zerner

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

The sources at the base of the article are not suitable to be the basis of a biographical article. I have conducted a search that turned up all manner of self-published content by Zerner but no reliable coverage. At this point, she does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Modussiccandi ( talk) 20:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rajeev Mishra

Rajeev Mishra (  | 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:NCRIC inclusion as a cricket player and as an administrator his mentions in sources are passing; more notable county administrators have been deleted. WP:GNG likely not met. StickyWicket ( talk) 20:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I withdraw my nomination per the comments below. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 10:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sea Park (ship)

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

Related discussion. This seems to only have coverage in large indexes that could probably apply to thousands of ships. Qwerfjkl talk 20:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gunning baronets. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone article; redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rev. Sir Henry John Gunning, 4th Baronet

Rev. Sir Henry John Gunning, 4th Baronet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 19:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of The Chronicles of Amber characters. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Dworkin Barimen

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

Minor fictional character. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Peter N. Griffith

Peter N. Griffith (  | 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 anything that would help with generating an actual bio, and I'm not seeing a real claim to one of the WP:SNGs like WP:ARTIST either. The listed info looks to just be an (outdated) IMDB mirror, and the page creator was blocked long ago for not being cognizant of notability guidelines (and later noted as a sock). 2pou ( talk) 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Bedford College (Australia)

AfDs for this article:
Bedford College (Australia) (  | 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 about non-profit a educational institution has never had sources other than links back to the school since page creation in 2006. Page was built entirely by NSW ip address(es) which even today still contribute and appear to have some COI association with the school, based on puffy language and "we" pronouns used. I've done a reasonable Gsearch and found nothing meeting RS. It's significant apparently no students of this institution have vandalized/contributed, which IMHO is unusual for such articles. It is entirely possible this business school doesn't meet standards for inclusion. In my Gsearch I did find one SEO consultant who includes their work for the subject in their brag page. I have no proof this is related, but I think it likely. BusterD ( talk) 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

St. Stephen Academy (Sacramento, California)

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

A non-notable private school that only existed for two years. Cannot find any independent sources to establish notability. It appears that they existed only on the parish grounds (normally these high schools have much larger facilities separate from a parish church) and they had few students during their existence.

Please note: While I was not affiliated directly with the school, I do have a professional COI with this article. While I hate to see the article go, I think the topic simply does not meet notability guidelines. Pax Verbum 18:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 10:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Moldavanka, Kazakhstan

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

Despite my efforts, I was unable to find any reliable reference in English, Romanian or Russian to such a settlement on the territory of present Kazakhstan. The source is the article is a head of a cultural association with no clear expertise, and the settlement may be a result of a confusion. Note that the same source misspells the name of another settlement (Basarabka instead of Bessarabka) and is apparently unaware the name of that settlement changed in 1993. Anonimu ( talk) 14:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: unfortunately, I can't find a single source to indicate that this settlement ever existed; I've tried to search for Moldovanka, Aktobe and Moldovanka, Kazakhstan in Russian with no use. If it was renamed, then it should have an official document indicating so, but I cannot find any evidence that it ever existed at all. Also, Moldovanka apparently just translates to Moldavian in Russian. Gorden 2211 ( talk) 04:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Gorden 2211 & the nom's searches; I also got no hits for such a place in Kazakhstan on GeoNames. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 11:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Elva Trill

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Rejected at Afc and moved to mainspace. Bitpart actor, lots of single episodes. Nothing mainstream. scope_creep Talk 17:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep Whoever proposed article for deletion didn't read the sources. All three initial sources are reliable. I added 3 more. I don't know what Evoke is, is it like the Irish version of People or Us Weekly magazines?-- Filmomusico ( talk) 18:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fiona Fung. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sweet Melody (album)

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

Came here from Talk:Sweet Melody (song)#Requested move 1 November 2021 and noticed back and forth blanking of this page. Hopefully, this AfD will generate consensus on if this album meets inclusion criteria. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 17:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Huh? How is this forum shopping? The nominator wasn't even involved in any of the back-and-forth redirecting and unredirecting that's been happening in the history. I think they were right to bring it here for discussion. Colin M ( talk) 00:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
I said intentional or not, I think the discussion could have been made on the talk page before reaching here. – The Grid ( talk) 13:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The previous AFD was for someone else. Geschichte ( talk) 17:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Paul Deasy

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

Previously-deleted page still Municipal politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 16:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

List of missing persons in Ireland

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

List possibly meets WP:LISTCRUFT. It is dyamic and infinite list that is not up to date per [10]. I can't see the worth but could be notable. scope_creep Talk 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Nacsport

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

Sportsnac

Sports analysis company that does not satisfy corporate notability. Naïve Google search shows that it advertises using social media. That isn't secondary coverage.

A review of the sources shows that they are either press releases, or are about the video analysis of sport using their software.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 El Pais Promotional interview with founder No Yes No
2 La Provincia Interview with founder No No
3 Marca.com Article about the use of video analysis including by Nacsport Yes No, passing mention of Nacsport Yes No
4 Basketball.ca 404-compliant
5 RugbyLeague.com Announcement that they are using Nacsport software Yes Yes Yes No
6 TelegraphandArgus.com Story about using Nacsport software Yes No, passing mention of Nacsport Yes No
7 RFEH.es Another story about video analysis of hockey Yes No, passing mention of Nacsport Yes No

The conclusion is that the software probably passes software notability, but this isn't written as an article about the software. This is written as an article about a non-notable company that has developed a product that may be notable.

This article was created in article space, and was moved to draft space by User:Celestina007. It was then moved back to article space by its originator within less than an hour, stating that the suggested edits were made (mostly removal of unverified material). The article is tagged as conflict of interest; the author has acknowledged a previous paid relationship, but denies being a paid editor at this time. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Note from writer - Hi, I'm the writer of this article. Thanks to Robert McClenon for this. It is, without a doubt, the most helpful feedback I have received since I started the process of trying to get an article published on Wikipedia. I started this with the best of intentions and almost gave up. The process for publishing articles is extremely laborious and not one of the moderators who rejected my draft or moved it into the draftspace have given me good advice on why this is the case (save for a couple of emails offering to publish it for me for payment)!

From this feedback from Robert, I can now deduce that my error was writing about the company and not the software. Also, I think I more or less understand what has been said about the references. So, thank you again, Robert McClenon. Finally, I have a way forward. I think the software is definitely notable (although in a fairly small niche) as it is used by professional sports teams around the world and is one of the big three sports video analysis software on the market.

So, if someone one this chat could help me and answer a question, I would be eternally grateful. Is it better to have this page deleted and start completely afresh with the rewrite (focusing on the software), or should I simply edit the page that is currently published? DuncRitchie 15:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Florencio Rojas (tattoo artist)

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

This article on a tattoo artist is sourced mainly from interviews. Being primary sources, they don't help us establish his notability. I've conducted a search and found no secondary coverage of him that could be classed as reliable, significant, and independent. I believe he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Modussiccandi ( talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America 1000 10:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Kamuzu Kassa

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

Even though it's stated that the subject has won Addis Music Award Best Composer 2011 I couldn't find any in detail coverage about him. I've looked in English and Amharic and all I've got was couple of mentions. For me he fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. Less Unless ( talk) 15:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Logs: 2020-10 move to → Draft:Kamuzu Kassa
-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as G7. Geschichte ( talk) 09:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Juan Rute

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

An English sailor who was part of the conquest and settlement of the Plata region. All sources are either passing mentions or about his descendants, and virtually all are primary sources: fails WP:BASIC. We just know that he existed because he was part of a list from 1569 and one nobleman protested because foreigners like him were being granted benefits ( [12]), and that's about it. Pilaz ( talk) 15:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Daniel MacGregor

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

The subject fails notability guidelines. Only 2 of the refs talk about him (very little), all the rest are about his startup. I couldn't find any source that would talk about him in detail. Less Unless ( talk) 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedily deleted ( log) under criterion G4. (non-admin closure) Tol ( talk | contribs) @ 00:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Right.. I am absolutely sick and tired of having to argue with people as to why there isn’t allowed to be a list of remaining actors or even a list of major initial actors from the classic period in Hollywood. These lists exist for the ‘New Hollywood’ period but why not for this? And apologies to you as I’m unsure of your name, but to whomever claimed that the list of major actors was too broad, if you knew anything about film or the study of film as I do, as it was my majors degree at university you would know and understand that those notes were the major figures throughout the period mentioned, adjusted to include those of an ethnic background whom at the time were held back from attaining the spotlight. Please actually have a think a think about what you are doing before you choose to delete it. The previous deleted page was up for deletion as it had an unclear date as for the “Golden age of Hollywood”, hence why that phrase has been kept out of this page and discussion completely.

I truly believe it is important for future generations to know the important figures from this period in film history, wether it be for personal knowledge or academic, and I challenge others that think different to explain otherwise.

Thank you and kind regards Bradonwiki :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradonwiki ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema

AfDs for this article:
List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list has no inclusion criteria (past "major actors" and "other major figures"), and is unsourced. It says that it's a list of "major actors" and "other major people", but deciding whether someone is "major" is often going to be difficult. I think that this list is going to have problems, no matter how well put together it is — if it's small, then its inclusion criteria will be difficult and probably subjective, and if it's large, it gets closer to becoming an indiscriminate list. Right now, it's the former. Tol ( talk | contribs) @ 14:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Has now been tagged as such. Newshunter12 ( talk) 20:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm usually wary of stretching speedy deletion criteria, and so I try to err on the side of AfD/PROD. As G4 applies only when the recreation is "sufficiently identical", and I don't know how similar this is to the deleted article, I nominated it for AfD instead. Tol ( talk | contribs) @ 00:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

CameraLK

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

Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING and it failed to WP:COMPANY and WP:SIRS. The article is full of introduction and own history and it does not say about Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.. There are many shops like this in Sri Lanka and we are not going to create article for them. JusticeForce101 ( talk) 13:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Gihan Jayaweera ( talk) 20:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down ( talk) 14:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C.

Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails both WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG Rupert1904 ( talk) 13:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There are plenty of sources to substantiate the long-term notability of this match. Not only was it the biggest away win in the Premier League for 20 years, it was also the first time a substitute had scored four goals in a match, which is a record that still stands. Anyone claiming this doesn't satisfy GNG hasn't looked hard enough for sources. Furthermore, this nomination smacks of WP:POINT, since the nominator created Bremer SV 0–12 FC Bayern Munich which is now also at AfD. – Pee Jay 13:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Agree with PeeJay's response. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 14:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • This match is not notable. There's already been a discussion on the talk page about this very point. It's no longer the biggest away win of all time so it's not a record. Should Norwich City's away win over Arsenal on the first day of the 1992–93 season have its own article since it was the biggest away win for a time? Additionally, a player (substitute or not) scoring four goals in a single match is not notable enough to warrant an article. There have been plenty of instances of players scoring 4 goals in the Premier League. Aguero scored five goals against Newcastle in 2015, I don't see an article about that match. Berbatov scored 5 against Blackburn in 2010 and no article on that match either. And I am fine with Bayern Munich article being deleted if that's the consensus. We should have a higher level of scrutiny for assessing articles. Rupert1904 ( talk) 14:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • There was a discussion about it on the article talk page 12 years ago, which I participated in, and during the intervening years, my opinion has changed. The sources are clearly there, you're just being salty about an article you created apparently being a hair's breadth away from a WP:SNOW deletion. If you think other matches are notable, by all means test the water and create the articles for them, but don't go around nominating other articles for deletion just because an article you created might get rightfully deleted. – Pee Jay 14:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I don't care if that article is deleted if that's the consensus. It's good to create articles and learn what the notability is. This article too has zero notability. It's not the record away win in the league and a player scoring a hat-trick isn't notable either. Rupert1904 ( talk) 14:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          • It was of course the record away win in the league when the article was created. Is your argument that any article on a record-breaking achievement should be deleted when the record is surpassed? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
            • Potentially. It should be discerned on a case by case basis though. This was a meaningless match that's been glorified as being noteworthy for having held a league record for a period of time. It doesn't hold the record anymore so why does it exist? There's nothing noteworthy left to this match. Rupert1904 ( talk) 15:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
              • The fact that it broke a record at the time should be reason enough to keep it. The fact that it held the record for 20 years makes the case even stronger. But the records are incidental to the fact that the match itself does continue to get talked about more than 99 percent of all the other matches in Premier League history, as proven by the sources, hence notability is satisfied. – Pee Jay 16:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                • The match rarely gets brought up and to suggest it's in the top 1% of talked about matches in PL history is ludicrous and very biased towards United history. And your two sources from the article (that aren't from 1999) that suggests that the match gets talked about regularly are both dead links. But it looks like one was from the Mirror (in 2011 so very outdated now) and listed ten of the highest scoring games in Premier League history at the time (I would imagine most of those matches do not have their own article) and the other link was seemingly a blog post article about the 10th anniversary of the match. Since neither of those links work, those sources don't satisfy anything and so again this is match is not notable. Rupert1904 ( talk) 19:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                  • Are you serious? There are 380 matches every single season (more in the early years), and we're now in the Premier League's 30th season. To suggest this match isn't in the top 1% of most-talked-about matches is the more ludicrous statement. – Pee Jay 19:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                    • It's not brought up regularly and the sources you used to lend credence to this claim are dead links. I just did a few google searches for best Premier League matches of all time, most memorable PL matches of all time, best PL matches of the 1990s, etc. and in all the articles, this match wasn't brought up once. So if simply an article listing matches is what you think makes a match notable, then again it doesn't meet the criteria. BBC, Bleacher Report, Four Four Two, 1Sports1, SportMob, Football Whispers, What Culture, The Football Faithful, Bleacher Report 2, etc. I could go on and provide more working links as examples of many mores matches that are talked about more regularly. It's a great win for United for sure and a memorable day for Ole when he looks back at his playing career but it's not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. Rupert1904 ( talk) 19:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets WP:LASTING --17:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. Maybe Ole should have put himself on last Sunday? Anyway, to contradict the unsigned comment immediately above, this match does not meet WP:LASTING in any way. It was a routine league fixture between the best and worst teams in the PL at the time. Given the respective qualities of the two teams, this one is much less notable than Man U's 8–2 win over Arsenal which at least had the merit of matching two good teams, albeit one was not so good on the day. As a routine league fixture, the 1999 match wasn't a cup final or a title decider so it had no significant effect on football at the time and has no historical value. The score per se is WP:TRIVIA and the article fails NEVENT and GNG. No Great Shaker ( talk) 19:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

    • The score is not trivia. It's not just a case of one team scoring a kinda high number of goals, it was the record away win in the history of the Premier League at the time and held that record for 20 years. – Pee Jay 20:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

:::The score is statistical and if that is the only rationale for the article it breaches WP:NOSTATS. I do not oppose Arbroath 36–0 Bon Accord because a world record score was achieved, but all other matches must have some importance beyond the routine. This match wasn't a cup final and, involving as it did the top and bottom teams in 1999, it was as far from being a title decider as it is possible to be. It fails NEVENT and GNG. The fact that nine goals were scored is WP:TRIVIA in terms of that season and football history. No Great Shaker ( talk) 21:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 13:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

CHNW-FM (British Columbia)

CHNW-FM (British Columbia) (  | 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 a low-power emergency alert radio station, with no reliably sourced indication that it would pass WP:NMEDIA -- there's no discernible evidence that this has ever been a CRTC-licensed service. Although the article was initially created with a CRTC decision in the external links, that actually seems to have been a sloppy copy-paste error from another radio station -- the decision didn't actually pertain to this at all, but to a different radio station on a different frequency, in Metro Vancouver but not in New Westminster, and that's long since been removed from the article since it had nothing to do with this topic.
In actual fact, this is a CRTC-exempt service operated by an amateur radio society on behalf of the city under the Canadian equivalent to USian Part 15 rules, which NMEDIA explicitly deprecates as not a notable class of radio station -- and even the sourcing here just consists of glancing namechecks of the service's existence in obituaries of a broadcaster who briefly worked for this station long after retiring from the other jobs that actually made him famous enough to get obituaried, which means neither of them are about this station strongly enough to get it over WP:GNG in lieu of having to have a broadcasting license.
And even more importantly, CHNW-FM definitely isn't its call sign anymore (if it ever really was in the first place, which I also can't verify): the CHNW call sign was adopted by an unrelated station in Winnipeg a few weeks ago, whose article was just moved to the non-standard naming format CHNW (FM) earlier today and has to be moved again to supersede the low-power New Westminster emergency station at this title regardless of what we decide to do about the emergency station.
So the existence of a low-power emergency information service (with the call sign VE7NWR rather than CHNW) could be briefly mentioned in New Westminster's article and Media in Vancouver, but the station doesn't have a CRTC license for the purposes of qualifying for its own separate article as a standalone topic. Bearcat ( talk) 13:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is rough consensus that the available sources are insufficient. Randykitty ( talk) 16:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ayşe Sibel Yanıkömeroğlu

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

Being a vice-president of a local party couldn't make her notable; unless she won a seat in the parliament or assumed a state/ national-level position, it's impossible to say she meets WP:NPOL. Htanaungg ( talk) 13:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • comment per wp:basic: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" we have multiple independent sources covering article subject. -- Skwovet ( talk) 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Gregory Austin McConnell

Gregory Austin McConnell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All prior XfDs for this page:


OK, let's look at the references given here:

I see no indication in further purported references that would overcome the deletion discussion outcome here.

Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 12:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No opinion about renaming. Geschichte ( talk) 17:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

AEDM

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

Article had originally been nominated for PROD, due to WP:GNG concerns. Editor removed notice without addressing any of the concerns. Equine-man ( talk) 16:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep, the album now meets WP:NALBUM per sources provided by Superastig.- Xclusivzik ( talk) 08:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there's no strong consensus for Draftify, Delete, or Redirect. In addition, the album has been released since the article's nomination which grants the opportunity for more coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Nadia Sirry

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article consists mainly of the artist's CV with a few weak references. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Evelyn B. Pantig

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

A quick WP:BEFORE seems to indicate this is most likely an accurate article. Therefore, the subject is clearly not notable. –– FormalDude talk 06:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Pathan (film)

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

as per WP:NFILM, the film is not even announced, it's not notable. Coderzombie ( talk) 07:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

What I meant to imply was, that the production or principal photography can't be announced without announcing the project itself and no primary or reliable sources done that. Coderzombie ( talk) 11:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Danny Lockwood

Danny Lockwood (  | 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 the notability guideline for people. Most of the references are to Lockwood's own publications (his now-defunct local free newspaper The Press, or his self-published book). The few independent sources are passing mentions in coverage of his legal dispute with a government minister, a single event. –  Joe ( talk) 09:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salt, given the move warring and likely sockpuppetry evident in the article history. Randykitty ( talk) 16:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ahsan Farooq

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

Notability, see article history, especially this edit by Robert McClenon. One of the "Bot" accounts have been blocked, other account tagged. Toastskat ( talk) 10:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment was moved to draft before being moved by one of the "bot" accounts, moved back to draft by @ Bearcat:, before the same "bot" accoutn moved it back to mainspace claiming it was approved when the page history makes it very clear it was not approved. Obvious Sockpuppetry going on, paid/coi etc. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Top Chef: Miami#Contestants. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Brian Malarkey

Brian Malarkey (  | 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 and WP:SIGCOV. At best, should revert to what it was - a redirect to Top Chef. Geoff | Who, me? 11:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that the article has been improved enough to suggest deletion is not appropriate, per WP:HEY. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rock Island 886

Rock Island 886 (  | 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, I could not find any references to support this locomotive's notability. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 02:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin  Talk 02:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 ( talk) 05:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An event happening does not on its own make something notable. There needs to be verifiable information and enough information to support an independent article. There is a consensus of participating editors here that there is not sufficient information for a notable article and it may even fail to pass our expectations of verifiability. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Battle of Rajasthan (738 CE)

Battle of Rajasthan (738 CE) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've checked and cleared many times about this battle, and there is not a single mention of this battle in contemporary sources, not even in primary. I written about this in article's talk page too around 17 days ago but got no response, if any Contributor can provide good source that will be good for the article otherwise administrators should look into it. Basedch ( talk) 03:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Sanjay Sharma 2006, p. 204.
  2. ^ Sanjay Sharma 2006, p. 187.
  3. ^ Bhandarkar 1929, p. 30.
  4. ^ Bhandarkar 1929, pp. 30–31; Rāya 1939, p. 125; Majumdar 1977, p. 267; Puri 1986, p. 46; Wink 2002, p. 208
Al Hind the making of Indi Islamic world by Andre wink.. he talks about Nagabhat1 and his battle with Arabs 49.204.161.225 ( talk) 21:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete lack of reliable source proving notability. The region was not called Rajasthan back then. So this seems like a made up article. Agree with AllyD. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per AllyD. The topic has enough sources for a redirect, Battle of Rajasthan, but there is no reason any user would search for this particular title variation. If anyone develops enough sources for a standalone article in the future, they can ask for the redirect's protection to be changed. 68.189.242.116 ( talk) 16:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename it to Arab raids in Rajasthan or Arab invasion of Rajasthan with particular time period. And I do not agree with @Venkat TL that Rajasthan was not a region at that time hence it should be deleted. Name changes, India was not the name of the country centuries ago yet we use word India even for Earliest history of India. Anyway coming to the point, the Arab invasion of modern Rajasthan was some watershed event as this is mentioned by many historians. The invasion stopped by local dynasties changed further power dynamics in this part of India. But there is not any evidence that this was a single battle as per my knowledge nor if it was fought in a particular year. The event is mentioned by two celebrated and recognised historians of Early history of Rajasthan, Dr Dashratha Sharma and Dr Dinesh Chandra Shukla. Hence I propose to rename the page and if agreed I can edit the page accordingly to make it a war page instead of a battle. If some people agree I can edit it right away if it still doesn't look as per wiki standard, we can agree to get it re-directed or deleted, whichever way editors prefer. Sajaypal007 ( talk) 13:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as I'm not seeing coverage in reliable sources, and the title is not a reasonable search term. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Wise Group

Wise Group (  | 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 requirements Padavalam🌂  ►  10:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Onmyway22 talk 05:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Alice Kinloch

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

A draft is already there Draft:Alice Kinloch. Also, the article is not meeting GNG. Onmyway22 talk 08:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted. 331dot ( talk) 06:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

PaaSoo Technology

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

An advert of a company created by its employee and fails WP:GNG Onmyway22 talk 07:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 16:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Tahsin Pasha (bureaucrat)

Tahsin Pasha (bureaucrat) (  | 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 an Ottoman official who was a high ranking civil servant but but a minister, member of parliament or holder of any post that would make him notable. There is a single mysterious offline source. I don’t think this subject is notable. Mccapra ( talk) 21:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

If you said that it wasn't enough I would've said nothing, but no sources at all? Damn. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I initially created this article as a stub because he is an important figure in the Abdulhamid era of the Ottoman Empire. He was Abdulhamid's most trusted man, I think he is notable. The problem is finding sources about him, which is the tricky part. Abdulhamid era was not known for being a free environment. Sincerely, Adigabrek Talk Circassia 15:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Adigabrek. A close adviser to a ruler would seem to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Must have been important in the regime and, per Styyx above, it looks as if there are more sources out there. No Great Shaker ( talk) 21:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment thanks to Styx for finding these sources but the only ones I can see are passing mentions. The subject may have been presented in a tv series as “very important” and “Abdulhamid’s right hand man” but I’m not seeing any sources that support this. Mccapra ( talk) 04:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-per as above. Best Regards.--- ✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗ plicit 14:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I suspect the problem is that "bureaucrat" is too weak a descriptor, if what others have said is true. However we only have a very short article, so that the stub-tag should be reinstated. However, I am concerned about the number of times we get a Turkish bio that derives from a TV drama series, where it is not clear whether the subject was a real person, portrayed in a manner justified by history; and where conversely, the subject could be a person invented by the author for the purposes of historical fiction. Historical novels are a legitimate genre of literature, but those appearing in novels can be inventions of the author, who needs a character to carry his story forward. I make no suggestion in this case, trusting that the creator was acting in good faith. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
That’s also my concern. I’ve no doubt the subject existed and had some state function, but what exactly he did isn’t clear to me. The fact that he featured in a tv drama doesn’t mean he was notable, and it might have suited the narrative to give an important role to a relatively minor individual. The Ottoman state was highly bureaucratic and kept excellent records; Istanbul was also full of foreign diplomats, advisers and others, so it really stretches credibility to say that there could have been a key figure in the regime about whom we hardly have any sources. Mccapra ( talk) 19:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I originally created this page by translating this. The person is real, he has a book where he wrote his memoirs. It's just that we don't have many sources on him. Adigabrek Talk Circassia 17:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are questions raised by both the delete and keep position whether there are sufficient sources to show that the subject holds a position that would pass WP:NPOL or if there is sufficient sourcing to meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 ( talk) 07:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

John Doyle (critic)

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

There are no signification third party sources supporting this person's notability. Secondary source for them did not bring up any since the page was originally labelled years ago. Also, several accounts with his name, likely sockpuppets, see the entry's talk page. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk) 05:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I did not consider that someone could be notable purely for their insulting comments and impugning of the reputation of others. Kind seems like WP:COAT to me, but hey, get it - maybe a bit less of a hagiography then is in order. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk) 02:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Dirpy

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

This is one of the multiple services to offer an unofficial YouTube media downloader. Dirpy is not notable. Further, between the paid options and the "See also" link in the YouTube article, there is too much undue emphasis on Dirpy. LABcrabs ( talk) 05:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hannah Montana (season 2). Randykitty ( talk) 16:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Achy Jakey Heart

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

I don't see a reason for this article to exist; no real notability here. wizzito | say hello! 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 13:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Chuan Sha

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

Fails bio AINH ( talk) 01:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AINH ( talk) 01:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 马竞松; 吴小燕, eds. (2017). 当代加拿大华裔作家作品赏析 [Appreciation of the Works by Contemporary Chinese Canadian Writers] (in Chinese). Lijiang Publishing. ISBN  9787540780685. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

      The book has a chapter about Chuan Sha. The book notes from Google Translate: "Chapter Three: Chuan Sha and the novel "Sunshine" 1. Introduction to the author Chuan Sha, whose real name is Yin Xiangze, was born in Chongqing, China in 1952, and his ancestral home is Shandong. After graduating from the Department of Physics of Sichuan University in 1980 with a laser major... Chuan Sha's works were published in the United States "Chinese and Foreign Forum", China's "Genesis" (Taiwan), "Poetry", "Flower City", "Appreciation of Masterpieces", "World Chinese Literature" And other newspapers and magazines."

    2. Jack, ed. (2002-03-22). "简介川沙" [Profile of Chuan Sha]. 星星生活 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-31. Retrieved 2021-10-31.

      The magazine article notes from Google Translate: "Zhang Ling (Canadian female writer, vice president of Canadian Chinese PEN Association, author of novels "Looking at the Moon" and "The Staggered Other Shore"): 'Encountering the passion of poetry in an era lacking the atmosphere of poetry is an emotional dislocation. Chuan Sha's collection of poems "The Crowd Dragging the Shadow" brings us such an emotional dislocation. Emotional dislocation often leads to jumps in thinking. On the jumping and disjointed road of thinking, we are controlled by Chuan Sha, and we unknowingly step into a state of searching. In the end we discovered that what we found was a long-lost link in the chain of poetry.'" The article also includes biographical coverage about Chuan Sha: "Canadian Chinese writer and poet. Born in Chongqing, Sichuan, China, his ancestral home is Shandong. Graduated from Sichuan University and worked as a literary editor in a publishing house in China. He went to the UK in 1991 and immigrated to Canada in 1999. Currently the editor-in-chief of Canada Poseidon Publishing House."

    3. Language for a New Century: Contemporary Poetry from the Middle East, Asia, and Beyond. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 2008. ISBN  978-0-393-33238-4. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

      The book has a chapter on page 304 titled "Chuan Sha: The Wolves Are Roaring". The book notes: "Chuan Sha is a Chinese-Canadian writer, poet, and critic, and his work includes novels, short stories, poems, plays, essays, and literary reviews. A graduate of Sichuan University, he has lived in Toronto since 1999. Chuan Sha is now editor-in-chief of Canada's Poseidon Publishing House, director of the Chinese Canadian Poets Association, and a member of the Chinese Canadian"

    4. 一代飛鴻: 北美中國大陸新移民作家小說精選與點評 [A Generation of Feihong: Selections and Comments on Novels by New Immigrants from North America and Mainland China] (in Chinese). 舟出版社. 2005. p. 361. ISBN  978-0-9748303-8-4. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

      The book notes from Google Translate, "Comment from anger to humor: A brief discussion on Huang Junxiong Chuan Sha (Chinese Canadian writer, poet, playwright)."

    5. "大型音乐舞蹈诗剧《合欢》在多伦多成功演出" [Large-scale music and dance poetry drama "Acacia" was successfully performed in Toronto]. 环球华报 (in Chinese). 2008-11-03. Archived from the original on 2013-10-03. Retrieved 2021-10-31.

      The article notes from Google Translate: ""Hehuan" is an original script written by a Chinese Canadian writer, poet and playwright Chuan Sha, screenwriter and lyrics. It is also his second screenplay officially performed in Canada. It is reported that Chuansha's script "Acacia" was originally in four acts and 19 scenes. The Chinese and English versions have been revised several times."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chuan Sha ( Chinese: 川沙) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 12:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a third time in the hope of getting some thoughts on Cunard's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Patrick Norton

AfDs for this article:
Patrick Norton (  | 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 pass WP:GNG/ WP:BIO. Previous nomination ended in keep essentially because multiple users said WP:ILIKEIT and assumed that Norton WP:INHERITS notability from the projects he has worked on. I was unable to find independent and reliable secondary sources. There does not appear to be a clear redirect target. TipsyElephant ( talk) 12:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Rogermx ( talk) 15:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Paul Thurrott

Paul Thurrott (  | 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 pass WP:BIO/ WP:GNG. When searching for independent and reliable secondary sources I mostly found passing mentions of Thurrott. The only in depth source I could find is this WP:INTERVIEW from The Verge, which would be considered a primary source. I don't see any clear redirect targets. TipsyElephant ( talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Entropy (anonymous data store)

Entropy (anonymous data store) (  | 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:NSOFT and WP:GNG. Apparently, the most notable aspect of this software project is its shutdown notice. Anton.bersh ( talk) 21:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Actifed (computer virus)

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable computer virus. SL93 ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Phalcon/Skism or delete. After looking into this a bit, I think that either Phalcon/Skism or their product the Phalcon-Skism Mass Produced Code Generator are notable. I tossed together a quick stub at Phalcon/Skism and will hopefully find time to do a bit more searching. I really couldn't find anything on Actifed, so either deletion or redirecting to the group that wrote the tool used to generate it (in the unlikely event anyone ever searches for it) seems appropriate. There's a Comparison_of_computer_viruses article that is also a popular redirect target for these kinds of articles, though we know so little about Actifed that I can't even fill out the table. So maybe best removed from that table as well... Ajpolino ( talk) 17:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both "keep" and "delete" !votes are rather weak, except for the nom. However, even after 2 relistings no new sources that are substantial enough to tilt this over GNG have been found. As this is a BLP, I find the "delete" case stronger. Randykitty ( talk) 17:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sujeet Swami

Sujeet Swami (  | 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. Not a social activist in the traditional sense. Known for a single event, getting his 35 Rupees back. Coverage all stems from one event. scope_creep Talk 20:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Its still all one-event stuff. If he hadn't lost his 35 Rupees and his temper, none of this would have happened. That is a true definition of being non-notable. He didn't create these events, under his own impetus, it was created for him. So its WP:BLP1E fodder. scope_creep Talk 15:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

What else is he known for exactly? scope_creep Talk 14:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Perfetti Van Melle. Sandstein 17:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Giorgio Perfetti

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source in the article is a shared Forbes profile (not a particularly good source, more like a database entry). I can't find much else, beyond confusion with a similarly named footballer (for ex. this). This is also borderline A7, as being a "billionaire heir" is not a claim to significance, and notability is not inherited from the company they're supposedly a co-owner of. A potential outcome could be redirecting this to the company page.

As to the brother: same issues, and really the only other information is something run-of-the-mill: billionaires buying himself a yacht. Really, that is not the kind of stuff that goes in an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America 1000 11:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ebne Hasan Khan

Ebne Hasan Khan (  | 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 producer. The person is a director of Impress Telefilm. It seems all of work produced by his company listed as his work in the article. I googled in Bangla and English but didn't find any significant coverage. There are some refs in the article but they all are just passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 01:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte ( talk) 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Daintree National Park. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty ( talk) 17:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Noah, Queensland

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

Another Queensland locality with no population and no claim to notability. Fails both WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Mangoe ( talk) 01:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte ( talk) 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

(The locality's redirect needs to be maintained to maintain completeness of the geography of the shire it is in.) Aoziwe ( talk) 12:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While some editors suggest that America's Most Wanted provides the main coverage of this topic and that alone is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, other editors have shown a variety of sources which can be used to demonstrated notability. And it is this later effort which has gained a consensus of participating editors here. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

McKinney homicide

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

Local crime with no lasting impact or coverage. Being featured on America's Most Wanted does not confer notability. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper or newswire service. KidAd • SPEAK 02:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte ( talk) 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Agree with Geschichte. –– FormalDude talk 08:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Mlb96 - thanks for responding. Obviously the guides can be read different ways, but I disagree. In my view, coverage in diverse sources over 10+ years easily makes this WP:LASTING and puts it outside of WP:NOTNEWS. This falls pretty squarely between EVENTCRIT #1 and #2 in my view. I strongly disagree that a metro area with a population and land-area roughly that of Belgium is the "immediate region" in this context: "immediate region" here would be McKinney city or at most Collin County, of which McKinney is the capital - how else are we to interpret "immediate" other than that area that most closely surrounds the location where it happen? Expanding "immediate region" beyond that to include country-sized regions would make events with effects lasting years and reported over a long period of time in many countries automatically fail the guide, which cannot have been the intent of the guide given its emphasis on national-scale coverage. FOARP ( talk) 09:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 16:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary

Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary (  | 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:NORG due to a lack of reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of this institution. ( t · c) buidhe 03:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

_____

I am not clear as to why this would be deleted. This is a seminary that employees people and has a fair number of students. It is located in the real community of Owensboro, KY. It is one of several seminaries using a new format that encourages and often requires their students, training to be pastors, to stay in their local church where they are mentored and trained by their pastors throughout seminary studies. As more resources are found discussing the history of this insitution the content that benefits the article is being added. This is what make me unclear about why the article would be deleted. Kyle.Mullaney ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Kyle.Mullaney Hi, I suggest you read WP:NORG which explains the notability requirements for organizations. In a nutshell, to have a Wikipedia article, the seminary must have independent sources that cover it in depth. It isn't entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists. ( t · c) buidhe 14:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: According to WP:NORG,

    The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.

Under Schools,, the guideline specifies,

All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.

— Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 18:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Bahia Pacifica

Bahia Pacifica (  | 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. Could not find significant coverage. The fact that it's one of the tallest buildings in Panama City does not confer automatic notability. LibStar ( talk) 02:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sanjay Awasthy

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

I was the closing admin for a very recently-closed AfD on Sanjay Awasthy. The consensus of that discussion was to delete the article. However, the previous AfD appears to have taken place in the midst of a political election in India, which Awasthy appears to have won shortly after the prior AfD closed. Therefore, while this is admittedly somewhat unusual, I've decided that the best course of action is to start another procedural AfD to discuss the fate of this article, in light of this new information. My hope is that AfD participants can discuss whether or not the results of this recent election provide sufficient notability for Awasthy to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't have any personal opinion on whether this article should be kept or deleted. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ...Baby One More Time (album)#Release and promotion. This is an unusual situation where even people who are bolding a !vote as keep admit that it does not satisfy our policies or guidelines for notability. This suggests a consensus that this article does not meet our standard for an independent article. Given the late comment that there is existing material in an article that would be of interest to a reader looking for information about this tour, a redirect seems to be an appropriate reading of consensus. Editors could also choose to merge some more information from the article using its history if they wish per our normal editing processes. Note: I had originally relisted this but the last comment came in while I was relisting which provides enough of a consensus, I feel, to support a close rather than a relist because it was already a marginal relist for the reasons explained above. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

L'Oreal Hair Zone Mall Tour

L'Oreal Hair Zone Mall Tour (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:NTOUR, "Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources." This article does not have any sources to show significant media coverage, and hence this concert tour is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Theknine2 ( talk) 11:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm not going to judge this on NTOUR because obviously it wouldn't meet it, but on the basis of an WP:IAR. We've got a great window on the start of Spears's career within this article; well-sourced as to the background and overall, even if many of those are sourced to books. It doesn't feel crufty, nor is there the usual overload of radio station publicity sources or 'teenagers at a mall screaming at a pop star, amirite?' local news aftermath stories these type of articles are usually polluted with. It's a fine article with good sources detailing a small tour that started her rise, and I don't see any reason for deletion. Nate • ( chatter) 00:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There does not seem to be much hope that draftifying would be of any use. Randykitty ( talk) 17:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

GIR (proxy voting)

GIR (proxy voting) (  | 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 seem to have any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify- Wikipedia does not accept promotional content. An article has to be written in neutral point of view and has to meet the notability guidelines too. It has improvement opportunities. So, it can be draftified. Mommmyy ( talk) 18:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 ( talk) 05:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Aside from routine coverage of their SHARE merger in 2020, the references in the article are tending to be items about individual or links to Corporate Knights reports in whose creation they were involved, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Beyond that, searches are finding very little for GIR or SHARE. A company providing services, but fails WP:NCORP. AllyD ( talk) 14:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_3&oldid=1055228620"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 02 November 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Turkey–Vanuatu relations

Turkey–Vanuatu relations (  | 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 is very little to relations besides assisting Vanuatu in disaster response: no embassies, agreements, state visits or ministers meeting, migration and trade is non existent. The Turkish Foreign Affairs website says very little [1]. LibStar ( talk) 23:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Bhutan–Turkey relations

Bhutan–Turkey relations (  | 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 is very little to these relations: no embassies, state visits, agreements. Trade is very low at USD1.6 million and a bit of aid money given by Turkey. LibStar ( talk) 23:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Saint Kitts and Nevis–Turkey relations

Saint Kitts and Nevis–Turkey relations (  | 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 third party coverage. Very limited relations: no embassies, agreements, trade is relatively low, only high level meeting is one between foreign ministers in 28 years of relations. LibStar ( talk) 23:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ali Tajdary

Ali Tajdary (  | 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

(1) WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion.
(2) WP:SINGER - had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
(3) WP:NACTOR where that significant roles in multiple notable films where by the subject is cover in lenght in dept by independent reliable sources about the the films he was featured in.
(4) WP:GNG for not having significant coverage by indepndent, reliable sources (IRS) where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept. and not merely passing mentioned. (note:interview /IT tune/marketing articles are considered on indepdent.
So far from the sources in the article there are either not do not meet GNG requirements stated above. Since the subject is from Iran and it is a little difficult for me to find sources or to check if there are IRS other editors could find, pls provide, but at this stage subject doesnt meet any notability requirements. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm really sorry for the people who applied for dismissal, because they applied for dismissal without the slightest search. They did not even pay attention to the acting profession of this person. Doesn't it matter if his film won an award in Russia? Isn't the person who won the Best Actor award at the Iranian Film Festival credible? Doesn't anyone who has a biography in a national newspaper matter? All sources are the most authoritative Iranian sources, and unfortunately the people who suggested here have no knowledge or information about Wikipedia and the validity of the links. links 1:manzoom.ir The first link is the database of Iranian artists.

2: shoroonline.ir The second link is the national and state newspaper of Iran.

3: sarshenasan.com the third link of the authoritative news platform is the work of well-known artists and has been used as a source in hundreds of Wikipedia articles.

4: sarshenasan.com the fourth link of the authoritative news platform is the work of well-known artists and has been used as a source in hundreds of Wikipedia articles.

5: rahetaraghi.ir The fifth link is a news site with twenty years of experience that publishes the most important political news, sports art

6: daramadnews.com The sixth link is the news agency and under the supervision of the Iranian government

7: ecoperaian.ir The seventh link of the Economic and Artistic News Agency is a subset of Hamshahri Iran newspaper

8: sarshenasan.com the eighth link is a newsletter for Iranian artists and celebrities, which also produces more than 100 Iranian films and has a print magazine.

9: mehrnews.com The ninth link of Mehr News Agency is one of the top five news agencies in Iran. This news agency is under the direct supervision of the government and has more than two hundred news sites under the agency.

10: shoroonewspaper It is the tenth link of the Iranian state newspaper

13: The 13th link of the Iranian News Agency is one of the top five Iranian news agencies

14, 15, 16, 17, 18 These four links are the largest and most reputable sites for distributing works of artists in Iran and the world

20, 21 these two links are one of the most reputable second-rate newspaper and magazine in the Iranian ministry of culture and guidance. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 these six links are also reputable iranian news agencies that have been used as a reference in thousands of wikipedia articles. with a short search in these news agencies, you can find out their credibility.

This article is too authoritative, but the people who commented here did not explicitly do the slightest research. A cursory Google search reveals the importance of this article. Are any of you Iranians? Are you aware of the validity of my links due to the deletion of the data? Do you expect a link from the New York Times to be sent to you? Do not forget that I wrote an article about an Iranian person and my links are the most reputable news agencies in Iran.

I ask the top and top managers of Wikipedia to judge this article according to the two professions (Ali Tajdary) acting and singing, which iranian artist has such links in the English Wikipedia, according to the rules of Wikipedia, if an actor it is valid to have an acting award, now how insignificant is the person who has won awards in two films and has acted in seven Iranian tv films and played a series that has twenty-five million tv viewers. Hoseinkandovan (talk) -- Hoseinkandovan ( talk) 10:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Hosein kandovan reply

Hoseinkandovan

It's really funny that some people here are not credible sources, it' s really funny that you do not consider a nationwide newspaper or five reputable news agencies, I'm sorry that people here have commented that they do not have the slightest information and still can not even Distinguish between valid and invalid, -- Hoseinkandovan ( talk) 10:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC) ← reply

Hoseinkandovan

In my opinion, this is a conspiracy to delete an article that does not even need to be defended, certainly the main editors of Wikipedia will make the right decision by paying more attention to all the points and links and the subject.-- Hoseinkandovan ( talk) 11:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply


  • Delete: per above, fails several notability guidelines. this person has acted in seven main films number of films acted in does not matter, acting in multiple films does not make someone notable. the singer has two authentic music albums with wide publishers having albums released does not equal notability, lots of youtube musicians/singers I listen to have released albums, none of them are notable. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 13:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply


Lavalizard101 You are completely wrong because he was the first role in the humiliation of a valid film, he was the first role in a series that all Iranians have seen, I am an Iranian, I know better than you which Iranian film is valid and which is not valid, (Special Love Line Series), in which Tajdari has been the main actor, is one of the top five series in Iran that almost most Iranians have seen. The movie (fourth round) is one of the most prestigious movies in Iran and has won many awards. And Tajdari has been the actor of that prestigious film, he has also played the lead role in a film called (the butter fly) and he has won the acting award as the leading actor. You have to pay attention to the rules, the rules of Wikipedia say that the actor who won the award is valid, the rules of Wikipedia say that the actor who has played a significant role in several prestigious films is valid, you can not comment on the rules of Wikipedia.-- Mehrab fatemi iran ( talk) 13:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

[[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101] An actor can be famous even with an important film, your words are irrelevant and show that you do not have enough information, many actors in the world have become famous with only one film, in any case, the films in which (Ali Tajdari) has been an actor. It is a popular Iranian film. The Holy Defense Festival in Iran is one of the strictest film festivals and only one person can win it every year. Tajdari has won the Best Actor Award in that film.-- Mehrab fatemi iran ( talk) 13:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)(blocked sock) reply

You have to pay attention to the rules, the rules of Wikipedia say that the actor who won the award is valid, the rules of Wikipedia say that the actor who has played a significant role in several prestigious films is valid, you can not comment on the rules of Wikipedia I have been here for several years I know the rules, the above could like a personal attack, the article fails WP:GNG. You also keep using the word "valid" that means nothing to Wikipedia its notability that matters. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 13:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

*Keep The article is important and valuable. WP:NACTOR The article is important. In terms of acting, he has played the lead role in eight films. He has two acting awards. The movies and series she has acted in are also important. In two films, he won the Best Actor Award. He has played a role in a series as the main character and singer of the title track. TV series are important. WP:SINGER The singer has concerts in Iranian cities. He has two authentic music albums and her music has been used as the title track of the series.

Searching Wikipedia has several names in movies, series and albums.

Links are valid. Links are not quotes from this singer and are written by a news reporter. So they are considered valid news. There are two national newspapers and a print magazine in the links. These links are valid from Wikipedia.

The article is valid and valuable in every way-- A.T wikinevis ( talk) 19:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Hosein kandovan You wrote that there may have been a collusion to delete this article. Sometimes this happens on Wikipedia. But do not worry, the final review is done by senior Wikipedia administrators. They read the article more carefully. In my opinion, the removal of the proposals is a bit suspicious, but there is no need to worry. Leave the review to the managers and they will make the right decision-- A.T wikinevis ( talk) 20:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)(blocked sock) reply

  • Keep - First I want to say that User:Hosein kandovan messaged me to vote on this page, because of another vote I had done on a similar Persian page. However, I guarantee you that my vote is independent and this is how I personally feel. I had originally seen this discussion and was going to post KEEP, but decided to pass because there were already too many DELETE votes. However, seeing that there is at least one other person that thinks the page should be kept, I am placing my vote now. I agree that the subject of the article meets WP:ENT because of his acting career, winning an award and being in award winning movie. You have to also realize that a Persian actor is not going to have much coverage in reliable English publications. In addition, he is also a host to a TV series with worldwide coverage. NOTE TO ADMINS: I added the vote 'Keep' to User:Hosein kandovan's post. I don't think he is aware how to properly vote. If he has been caught for socking, I agree that all the votes from the sock accounts should be removed, but you should at min keep one vote from him and read his arguments. Chelokabob ( talk) 09:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    The votes from someone currently blocked for socking within this very AfD are likely to be discarded or weighted minimally. Also, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how would you have voted here independently if you were asked by Hoseinkandovan when you wouldn't have otherwise voted (considering you decided not to vote before)? Thanks, Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 22:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    I initially voted KEEP on the same guy's TV show page Uncensored_With_Ali_Tajdary. I was going to also vote KEEP here, but then I saw many Deletes and decided not to. But then the said user sent a message to my talk page, asking if I could also vote here. I told him it was pointless because there were many delete votes, but if he could find good in-depth articles to let me know or post about it. I then noticed that he posted here some good arguments, which I had not seen, including the fact that the subject has won awards and been in award winning movies, so I decided for sure the page deserves my vote now and maybe it is possible to convince admins to keep the page. Do you still want to keep your vote as Delete, after reading my reasoning? I feel the subject meets WP:ENT. Chelokabob ( talk) 22:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Well for one shoroonewspaper yielded nothing in the Google search engine. sarshenasan.com is an Iranian blog site as I see by the url itself, rahetaraghi.ir is rather reliable. This, along with mehrnews.com and shoroonline.ir makes the person to be semi-notable. The only question remains is whether rahetaraghi.ir and shoroonline.ir are daily newspapers or not, because if they are, it doesn't make him notable. Akharin News Agency and Daramad News Agency are a bit sketchy. They seem reliable but at the same time I fail to find the journalist himself. In fact, all Iranian news sites don't carry a single journalist, that is why the whole discussion was in limbo.-- Filmomusico ( talk) 17:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Please realize that most Persian journalists and writers are afraid to use their names online, for fear of the Iranian Government arresting them for something that they may say that the government does not like. This would not mean that the publications are unreliable. Even, some of the publications that are operating outside the country hide their owner's identities, because the Iranian government has been known to even go after them outside the country. There is currently a journalist in hiding that the government tried to kidnap, but failed and more info. Chelokabob ( talk) 18:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

*Keep Hi, the sources are valid. The newspaper is the beginning of a print newspaper. Go to the newspaper site. There are printed copies.There are at least ten official Iranian news outlets in the links. Mehr news agency. sarshenasan news agensy daramad news shoroonewspaper secret news agensy rahetaraghi news rokna news agensy barkhat news matlabak news ecopersian agensy These are the main Iranian news outlets. Please pay more attention. Each of us can make a suggestion to delete or keep this article,But according to all the points, one should comment so that the personal right is not lost.The article is entitled to be registered on the wiki due to the subject and links. 


WP:SINGER

WP:NACTOR

WP:ENT  — Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
A.T wikinevis (
talk • 
contribs) 
20:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC) (blocked sock)
reply
A.T wikinevis : You cannot place 2 KEEP votes. But you can post it as COMMENT. Chelokabob ( talk) 20:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm seeing legitimate greivances about move-warring and premature creation of articles about films that are announced but not really notable. Anyone move-warring may consider this a warning against doing so. But we cannot judge this specific case based on anything besides notability, and there's consensus here that the topic is now notable. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film)

AfDs for this article:
Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (3d nomination)

This article is being move-warred into article space after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (2nd nomination). Admins User:Vanamonde93 and User:Liz have both moved it back to draft space and said not to move it back into article space until it is released. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Then shouldn't this be dealt through WP:RFPP? It sounds like the last WP:AFD from a month ago is nothing different here. – The Grid ( talk) 23:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I just don't understand why you want this article to be deleted for the third time. I understand why it was deleted the second time because there was not a lot of information about Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021), but since that deletion, there have been multiple reliable sources plus a trailer of the film. Besides, I don't remember Turning Red's article getting deleted because the movie hasn't come out yet. Also, more clips and other promotional material could surface before the film premiers on December 3, 2021. So, in conclusion, deleting Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film)'s Wikipedia article would not really help. - ZX2006XZ ( talk) 0:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks like you're not understanding the Wikipedia article guidelines through the WP:AfC process. The process has been to draftify (note: this is also my vote) the article until there are sufficient resources. A new trailer doesn't suffice this requirement - please read WP:NFILMS – The Grid ( talk) 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 17:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Insaniquarium characters

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

Pure game guide article that goes against policy of articles being guides, especially due to its listing of stats such as how much each fish costs and how to unlock them. It seems like a misguided good faith attempt, but is better off on FANDOM or GameFAQs. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 22:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was withdrawn. Nomination rationale no longer holds true. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 04:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Trois-Pistoles (disambiguation)

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

At Talk:Trois-Pistoles (disambiguation) § Requested move 25 October 2021, 162 etc. and Ortizesp raised the point that one of the trois entries on this page, Three Pistols, is not an actual title match and should be removed, making this a WP:ONEOTHER situation that can be handled with a hatnote. I agree with their logic, and suggest deletion. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 22:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sunniva Schultze-Florey

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

Seems to be non-notable after some pre-discussion. They're is essentially no WP:SECONDARY context for this BLP. scope_creep Talk 22:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment The Det er skumlere å la alle sparepengene stå i banken source is an advertisement, according to the Om DNB Nyheter (About DNB Nyheter) page (Google translation: "DNB Nyheter is not an ordinary online newspaper. We are not independent, we are not neutral journalists and we who write here are paid by the bank. Nevertheless, DNB Nyheter is not "just" advertising either.") Beccaynr ( talk) 05:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 10:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

William C. White

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

This biography appears to have an extremely sketchy basis for its notability, which appears to be primarily derived from the fact that the subject's mother is a notable entry as the founder of a church. Most of the sources attributed to this article merely affirm that the individual was indeed born, with little further information - certainly nothing justifying this rather expansive biographical entry. The sourcing, overall, seems extremely poor. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment @ 78.26: Question is this person notable? Catfurball ( talk) 15:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment - as I have, elsewhere, been accused of having a COI, I shall not !vote. However, as I have some expertise in the topic area and there's been minimal participation I should present some sources I know about, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Unfortunately I don't have access at the moment to newspapers.com, it has been renewed but it's a significant obstacle to research at the moment. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 19:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep Meets WP:GNG. It adds Infomation to the religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) sock strike Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The sources produced by 78.26 demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. The book by Moon (1993) is particularly important: Was Ellen G. White manipulated by her son? An Adventist author explores the life of W.C. White to discover whether he dominated his mother's later years. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 17:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rochas Foundation

Rochas Foundation (  | 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:NGO. Created by sock Ugbedeg. It is an WP:ADMASQ article. scope_creep Talk 22:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Draftify. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Vendetta (upcoming film)

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

Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG, film has not received significant coverage, all sources are nearly identical write-ups from a press release and do not constitute as WP:SIGCOV BOVINEBOY 2008 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Government of New York (state). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Social Services District (New York)

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

All this says is that each county of NY is a "social services district", except NYC which is its own district, and each district has their own social services department. Most government entities in NY state are set up that way, so that's not notable on its own. Aside from that, this article says basically nothing. Apocheir ( talk) 01:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Apocheir ( talk) 01:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any consensus on the proposed redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

A redirect is fine for me. - Apocheir ( talk) 21:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Death NYC

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

No secondary sources at all for this very generically named artist. Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Death NY might be difficult to search for (although I tried with a custome search that indexes hundreds of art-related sources and came up empty), but “Don’t Easily Abandon The Hope” is a rather easy-to-seach-for string that also yields very little. Note how [7] says: "Growing up in New York City, being expose to many different cultures and perspectives often causes her think and questions everything that she sees on the street." and [8] says: "She grew up in New York, she was exposed to a variety of cultures, which made her question the things she saw on the street." not cited, but [9] has "Growing up in New York, she was exposed to a wide variety of cultures, which led her to question the things she saw on the street very early." None of that is original reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations ( talk • contribs)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Alexandra Zerner

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

The sources at the base of the article are not suitable to be the basis of a biographical article. I have conducted a search that turned up all manner of self-published content by Zerner but no reliable coverage. At this point, she does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Modussiccandi ( talk) 20:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rajeev Mishra

Rajeev Mishra (  | 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:NCRIC inclusion as a cricket player and as an administrator his mentions in sources are passing; more notable county administrators have been deleted. WP:GNG likely not met. StickyWicket ( talk) 20:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I withdraw my nomination per the comments below. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 10:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sea Park (ship)

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

Related discussion. This seems to only have coverage in large indexes that could probably apply to thousands of ships. Qwerfjkl talk 20:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gunning baronets. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone article; redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rev. Sir Henry John Gunning, 4th Baronet

Rev. Sir Henry John Gunning, 4th Baronet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 19:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of The Chronicles of Amber characters. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Dworkin Barimen

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

Minor fictional character. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Peter N. Griffith

Peter N. Griffith (  | 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 anything that would help with generating an actual bio, and I'm not seeing a real claim to one of the WP:SNGs like WP:ARTIST either. The listed info looks to just be an (outdated) IMDB mirror, and the page creator was blocked long ago for not being cognizant of notability guidelines (and later noted as a sock). 2pou ( talk) 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Bedford College (Australia)

AfDs for this article:
Bedford College (Australia) (  | 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 about non-profit a educational institution has never had sources other than links back to the school since page creation in 2006. Page was built entirely by NSW ip address(es) which even today still contribute and appear to have some COI association with the school, based on puffy language and "we" pronouns used. I've done a reasonable Gsearch and found nothing meeting RS. It's significant apparently no students of this institution have vandalized/contributed, which IMHO is unusual for such articles. It is entirely possible this business school doesn't meet standards for inclusion. In my Gsearch I did find one SEO consultant who includes their work for the subject in their brag page. I have no proof this is related, but I think it likely. BusterD ( talk) 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

St. Stephen Academy (Sacramento, California)

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

A non-notable private school that only existed for two years. Cannot find any independent sources to establish notability. It appears that they existed only on the parish grounds (normally these high schools have much larger facilities separate from a parish church) and they had few students during their existence.

Please note: While I was not affiliated directly with the school, I do have a professional COI with this article. While I hate to see the article go, I think the topic simply does not meet notability guidelines. Pax Verbum 18:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 10:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Moldavanka, Kazakhstan

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

Despite my efforts, I was unable to find any reliable reference in English, Romanian or Russian to such a settlement on the territory of present Kazakhstan. The source is the article is a head of a cultural association with no clear expertise, and the settlement may be a result of a confusion. Note that the same source misspells the name of another settlement (Basarabka instead of Bessarabka) and is apparently unaware the name of that settlement changed in 1993. Anonimu ( talk) 14:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: unfortunately, I can't find a single source to indicate that this settlement ever existed; I've tried to search for Moldovanka, Aktobe and Moldovanka, Kazakhstan in Russian with no use. If it was renamed, then it should have an official document indicating so, but I cannot find any evidence that it ever existed at all. Also, Moldovanka apparently just translates to Moldavian in Russian. Gorden 2211 ( talk) 04:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Gorden 2211 & the nom's searches; I also got no hits for such a place in Kazakhstan on GeoNames. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 11:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Elva Trill

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Rejected at Afc and moved to mainspace. Bitpart actor, lots of single episodes. Nothing mainstream. scope_creep Talk 17:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep Whoever proposed article for deletion didn't read the sources. All three initial sources are reliable. I added 3 more. I don't know what Evoke is, is it like the Irish version of People or Us Weekly magazines?-- Filmomusico ( talk) 18:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fiona Fung. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sweet Melody (album)

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

Came here from Talk:Sweet Melody (song)#Requested move 1 November 2021 and noticed back and forth blanking of this page. Hopefully, this AfD will generate consensus on if this album meets inclusion criteria. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 17:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Huh? How is this forum shopping? The nominator wasn't even involved in any of the back-and-forth redirecting and unredirecting that's been happening in the history. I think they were right to bring it here for discussion. Colin M ( talk) 00:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
I said intentional or not, I think the discussion could have been made on the talk page before reaching here. – The Grid ( talk) 13:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The previous AFD was for someone else. Geschichte ( talk) 17:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Paul Deasy

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

Previously-deleted page still Municipal politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 16:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

List of missing persons in Ireland

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

List possibly meets WP:LISTCRUFT. It is dyamic and infinite list that is not up to date per [10]. I can't see the worth but could be notable. scope_creep Talk 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Nacsport

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

Sportsnac

Sports analysis company that does not satisfy corporate notability. Naïve Google search shows that it advertises using social media. That isn't secondary coverage.

A review of the sources shows that they are either press releases, or are about the video analysis of sport using their software.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 El Pais Promotional interview with founder No Yes No
2 La Provincia Interview with founder No No
3 Marca.com Article about the use of video analysis including by Nacsport Yes No, passing mention of Nacsport Yes No
4 Basketball.ca 404-compliant
5 RugbyLeague.com Announcement that they are using Nacsport software Yes Yes Yes No
6 TelegraphandArgus.com Story about using Nacsport software Yes No, passing mention of Nacsport Yes No
7 RFEH.es Another story about video analysis of hockey Yes No, passing mention of Nacsport Yes No

The conclusion is that the software probably passes software notability, but this isn't written as an article about the software. This is written as an article about a non-notable company that has developed a product that may be notable.

This article was created in article space, and was moved to draft space by User:Celestina007. It was then moved back to article space by its originator within less than an hour, stating that the suggested edits were made (mostly removal of unverified material). The article is tagged as conflict of interest; the author has acknowledged a previous paid relationship, but denies being a paid editor at this time. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Note from writer - Hi, I'm the writer of this article. Thanks to Robert McClenon for this. It is, without a doubt, the most helpful feedback I have received since I started the process of trying to get an article published on Wikipedia. I started this with the best of intentions and almost gave up. The process for publishing articles is extremely laborious and not one of the moderators who rejected my draft or moved it into the draftspace have given me good advice on why this is the case (save for a couple of emails offering to publish it for me for payment)!

From this feedback from Robert, I can now deduce that my error was writing about the company and not the software. Also, I think I more or less understand what has been said about the references. So, thank you again, Robert McClenon. Finally, I have a way forward. I think the software is definitely notable (although in a fairly small niche) as it is used by professional sports teams around the world and is one of the big three sports video analysis software on the market.

So, if someone one this chat could help me and answer a question, I would be eternally grateful. Is it better to have this page deleted and start completely afresh with the rewrite (focusing on the software), or should I simply edit the page that is currently published? DuncRitchie 15:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Florencio Rojas (tattoo artist)

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

This article on a tattoo artist is sourced mainly from interviews. Being primary sources, they don't help us establish his notability. I've conducted a search and found no secondary coverage of him that could be classed as reliable, significant, and independent. I believe he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Modussiccandi ( talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America 1000 10:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Kamuzu Kassa

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

Even though it's stated that the subject has won Addis Music Award Best Composer 2011 I couldn't find any in detail coverage about him. I've looked in English and Amharic and all I've got was couple of mentions. For me he fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. Less Unless ( talk) 15:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Logs: 2020-10 move to → Draft:Kamuzu Kassa
-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as G7. Geschichte ( talk) 09:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Juan Rute

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

An English sailor who was part of the conquest and settlement of the Plata region. All sources are either passing mentions or about his descendants, and virtually all are primary sources: fails WP:BASIC. We just know that he existed because he was part of a list from 1569 and one nobleman protested because foreigners like him were being granted benefits ( [12]), and that's about it. Pilaz ( talk) 15:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Daniel MacGregor

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

The subject fails notability guidelines. Only 2 of the refs talk about him (very little), all the rest are about his startup. I couldn't find any source that would talk about him in detail. Less Unless ( talk) 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedily deleted ( log) under criterion G4. (non-admin closure) Tol ( talk | contribs) @ 00:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Right.. I am absolutely sick and tired of having to argue with people as to why there isn’t allowed to be a list of remaining actors or even a list of major initial actors from the classic period in Hollywood. These lists exist for the ‘New Hollywood’ period but why not for this? And apologies to you as I’m unsure of your name, but to whomever claimed that the list of major actors was too broad, if you knew anything about film or the study of film as I do, as it was my majors degree at university you would know and understand that those notes were the major figures throughout the period mentioned, adjusted to include those of an ethnic background whom at the time were held back from attaining the spotlight. Please actually have a think a think about what you are doing before you choose to delete it. The previous deleted page was up for deletion as it had an unclear date as for the “Golden age of Hollywood”, hence why that phrase has been kept out of this page and discussion completely.

I truly believe it is important for future generations to know the important figures from this period in film history, wether it be for personal knowledge or academic, and I challenge others that think different to explain otherwise.

Thank you and kind regards Bradonwiki :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradonwiki ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema

AfDs for this article:
List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list has no inclusion criteria (past "major actors" and "other major figures"), and is unsourced. It says that it's a list of "major actors" and "other major people", but deciding whether someone is "major" is often going to be difficult. I think that this list is going to have problems, no matter how well put together it is — if it's small, then its inclusion criteria will be difficult and probably subjective, and if it's large, it gets closer to becoming an indiscriminate list. Right now, it's the former. Tol ( talk | contribs) @ 14:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Has now been tagged as such. Newshunter12 ( talk) 20:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm usually wary of stretching speedy deletion criteria, and so I try to err on the side of AfD/PROD. As G4 applies only when the recreation is "sufficiently identical", and I don't know how similar this is to the deleted article, I nominated it for AfD instead. Tol ( talk | contribs) @ 00:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

CameraLK

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

Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING and it failed to WP:COMPANY and WP:SIRS. The article is full of introduction and own history and it does not say about Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.. There are many shops like this in Sri Lanka and we are not going to create article for them. JusticeForce101 ( talk) 13:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Gihan Jayaweera ( talk) 20:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down ( talk) 14:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C.

Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails both WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG Rupert1904 ( talk) 13:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There are plenty of sources to substantiate the long-term notability of this match. Not only was it the biggest away win in the Premier League for 20 years, it was also the first time a substitute had scored four goals in a match, which is a record that still stands. Anyone claiming this doesn't satisfy GNG hasn't looked hard enough for sources. Furthermore, this nomination smacks of WP:POINT, since the nominator created Bremer SV 0–12 FC Bayern Munich which is now also at AfD. – Pee Jay 13:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Agree with PeeJay's response. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 14:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • This match is not notable. There's already been a discussion on the talk page about this very point. It's no longer the biggest away win of all time so it's not a record. Should Norwich City's away win over Arsenal on the first day of the 1992–93 season have its own article since it was the biggest away win for a time? Additionally, a player (substitute or not) scoring four goals in a single match is not notable enough to warrant an article. There have been plenty of instances of players scoring 4 goals in the Premier League. Aguero scored five goals against Newcastle in 2015, I don't see an article about that match. Berbatov scored 5 against Blackburn in 2010 and no article on that match either. And I am fine with Bayern Munich article being deleted if that's the consensus. We should have a higher level of scrutiny for assessing articles. Rupert1904 ( talk) 14:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • There was a discussion about it on the article talk page 12 years ago, which I participated in, and during the intervening years, my opinion has changed. The sources are clearly there, you're just being salty about an article you created apparently being a hair's breadth away from a WP:SNOW deletion. If you think other matches are notable, by all means test the water and create the articles for them, but don't go around nominating other articles for deletion just because an article you created might get rightfully deleted. – Pee Jay 14:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I don't care if that article is deleted if that's the consensus. It's good to create articles and learn what the notability is. This article too has zero notability. It's not the record away win in the league and a player scoring a hat-trick isn't notable either. Rupert1904 ( talk) 14:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          • It was of course the record away win in the league when the article was created. Is your argument that any article on a record-breaking achievement should be deleted when the record is surpassed? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
            • Potentially. It should be discerned on a case by case basis though. This was a meaningless match that's been glorified as being noteworthy for having held a league record for a period of time. It doesn't hold the record anymore so why does it exist? There's nothing noteworthy left to this match. Rupert1904 ( talk) 15:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
              • The fact that it broke a record at the time should be reason enough to keep it. The fact that it held the record for 20 years makes the case even stronger. But the records are incidental to the fact that the match itself does continue to get talked about more than 99 percent of all the other matches in Premier League history, as proven by the sources, hence notability is satisfied. – Pee Jay 16:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                • The match rarely gets brought up and to suggest it's in the top 1% of talked about matches in PL history is ludicrous and very biased towards United history. And your two sources from the article (that aren't from 1999) that suggests that the match gets talked about regularly are both dead links. But it looks like one was from the Mirror (in 2011 so very outdated now) and listed ten of the highest scoring games in Premier League history at the time (I would imagine most of those matches do not have their own article) and the other link was seemingly a blog post article about the 10th anniversary of the match. Since neither of those links work, those sources don't satisfy anything and so again this is match is not notable. Rupert1904 ( talk) 19:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                  • Are you serious? There are 380 matches every single season (more in the early years), and we're now in the Premier League's 30th season. To suggest this match isn't in the top 1% of most-talked-about matches is the more ludicrous statement. – Pee Jay 19:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                    • It's not brought up regularly and the sources you used to lend credence to this claim are dead links. I just did a few google searches for best Premier League matches of all time, most memorable PL matches of all time, best PL matches of the 1990s, etc. and in all the articles, this match wasn't brought up once. So if simply an article listing matches is what you think makes a match notable, then again it doesn't meet the criteria. BBC, Bleacher Report, Four Four Two, 1Sports1, SportMob, Football Whispers, What Culture, The Football Faithful, Bleacher Report 2, etc. I could go on and provide more working links as examples of many mores matches that are talked about more regularly. It's a great win for United for sure and a memorable day for Ole when he looks back at his playing career but it's not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. Rupert1904 ( talk) 19:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets WP:LASTING --17:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. Maybe Ole should have put himself on last Sunday? Anyway, to contradict the unsigned comment immediately above, this match does not meet WP:LASTING in any way. It was a routine league fixture between the best and worst teams in the PL at the time. Given the respective qualities of the two teams, this one is much less notable than Man U's 8–2 win over Arsenal which at least had the merit of matching two good teams, albeit one was not so good on the day. As a routine league fixture, the 1999 match wasn't a cup final or a title decider so it had no significant effect on football at the time and has no historical value. The score per se is WP:TRIVIA and the article fails NEVENT and GNG. No Great Shaker ( talk) 19:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

    • The score is not trivia. It's not just a case of one team scoring a kinda high number of goals, it was the record away win in the history of the Premier League at the time and held that record for 20 years. – Pee Jay 20:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

:::The score is statistical and if that is the only rationale for the article it breaches WP:NOSTATS. I do not oppose Arbroath 36–0 Bon Accord because a world record score was achieved, but all other matches must have some importance beyond the routine. This match wasn't a cup final and, involving as it did the top and bottom teams in 1999, it was as far from being a title decider as it is possible to be. It fails NEVENT and GNG. The fact that nine goals were scored is WP:TRIVIA in terms of that season and football history. No Great Shaker ( talk) 21:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 13:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

CHNW-FM (British Columbia)

CHNW-FM (British Columbia) (  | 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 a low-power emergency alert radio station, with no reliably sourced indication that it would pass WP:NMEDIA -- there's no discernible evidence that this has ever been a CRTC-licensed service. Although the article was initially created with a CRTC decision in the external links, that actually seems to have been a sloppy copy-paste error from another radio station -- the decision didn't actually pertain to this at all, but to a different radio station on a different frequency, in Metro Vancouver but not in New Westminster, and that's long since been removed from the article since it had nothing to do with this topic.
In actual fact, this is a CRTC-exempt service operated by an amateur radio society on behalf of the city under the Canadian equivalent to USian Part 15 rules, which NMEDIA explicitly deprecates as not a notable class of radio station -- and even the sourcing here just consists of glancing namechecks of the service's existence in obituaries of a broadcaster who briefly worked for this station long after retiring from the other jobs that actually made him famous enough to get obituaried, which means neither of them are about this station strongly enough to get it over WP:GNG in lieu of having to have a broadcasting license.
And even more importantly, CHNW-FM definitely isn't its call sign anymore (if it ever really was in the first place, which I also can't verify): the CHNW call sign was adopted by an unrelated station in Winnipeg a few weeks ago, whose article was just moved to the non-standard naming format CHNW (FM) earlier today and has to be moved again to supersede the low-power New Westminster emergency station at this title regardless of what we decide to do about the emergency station.
So the existence of a low-power emergency information service (with the call sign VE7NWR rather than CHNW) could be briefly mentioned in New Westminster's article and Media in Vancouver, but the station doesn't have a CRTC license for the purposes of qualifying for its own separate article as a standalone topic. Bearcat ( talk) 13:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is rough consensus that the available sources are insufficient. Randykitty ( talk) 16:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ayşe Sibel Yanıkömeroğlu

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

Being a vice-president of a local party couldn't make her notable; unless she won a seat in the parliament or assumed a state/ national-level position, it's impossible to say she meets WP:NPOL. Htanaungg ( talk) 13:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • comment per wp:basic: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" we have multiple independent sources covering article subject. -- Skwovet ( talk) 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Gregory Austin McConnell

Gregory Austin McConnell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All prior XfDs for this page:


OK, let's look at the references given here:

I see no indication in further purported references that would overcome the deletion discussion outcome here.

Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 12:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No opinion about renaming. Geschichte ( talk) 17:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

AEDM

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

Article had originally been nominated for PROD, due to WP:GNG concerns. Editor removed notice without addressing any of the concerns. Equine-man ( talk) 16:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep, the album now meets WP:NALBUM per sources provided by Superastig.- Xclusivzik ( talk) 08:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there's no strong consensus for Draftify, Delete, or Redirect. In addition, the album has been released since the article's nomination which grants the opportunity for more coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Nadia Sirry

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article consists mainly of the artist's CV with a few weak references. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Evelyn B. Pantig

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

A quick WP:BEFORE seems to indicate this is most likely an accurate article. Therefore, the subject is clearly not notable. –– FormalDude talk 06:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Pathan (film)

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

as per WP:NFILM, the film is not even announced, it's not notable. Coderzombie ( talk) 07:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

What I meant to imply was, that the production or principal photography can't be announced without announcing the project itself and no primary or reliable sources done that. Coderzombie ( talk) 11:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Danny Lockwood

Danny Lockwood (  | 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 the notability guideline for people. Most of the references are to Lockwood's own publications (his now-defunct local free newspaper The Press, or his self-published book). The few independent sources are passing mentions in coverage of his legal dispute with a government minister, a single event. –  Joe ( talk) 09:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salt, given the move warring and likely sockpuppetry evident in the article history. Randykitty ( talk) 16:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ahsan Farooq

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

Notability, see article history, especially this edit by Robert McClenon. One of the "Bot" accounts have been blocked, other account tagged. Toastskat ( talk) 10:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment was moved to draft before being moved by one of the "bot" accounts, moved back to draft by @ Bearcat:, before the same "bot" accoutn moved it back to mainspace claiming it was approved when the page history makes it very clear it was not approved. Obvious Sockpuppetry going on, paid/coi etc. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Top Chef: Miami#Contestants. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Brian Malarkey

Brian Malarkey (  | 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 and WP:SIGCOV. At best, should revert to what it was - a redirect to Top Chef. Geoff | Who, me? 11:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that the article has been improved enough to suggest deletion is not appropriate, per WP:HEY. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rock Island 886

Rock Island 886 (  | 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, I could not find any references to support this locomotive's notability. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 02:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin  Talk 02:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 ( talk) 05:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An event happening does not on its own make something notable. There needs to be verifiable information and enough information to support an independent article. There is a consensus of participating editors here that there is not sufficient information for a notable article and it may even fail to pass our expectations of verifiability. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Battle of Rajasthan (738 CE)

Battle of Rajasthan (738 CE) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've checked and cleared many times about this battle, and there is not a single mention of this battle in contemporary sources, not even in primary. I written about this in article's talk page too around 17 days ago but got no response, if any Contributor can provide good source that will be good for the article otherwise administrators should look into it. Basedch ( talk) 03:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Sanjay Sharma 2006, p. 204.
  2. ^ Sanjay Sharma 2006, p. 187.
  3. ^ Bhandarkar 1929, p. 30.
  4. ^ Bhandarkar 1929, pp. 30–31; Rāya 1939, p. 125; Majumdar 1977, p. 267; Puri 1986, p. 46; Wink 2002, p. 208
Al Hind the making of Indi Islamic world by Andre wink.. he talks about Nagabhat1 and his battle with Arabs 49.204.161.225 ( talk) 21:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete lack of reliable source proving notability. The region was not called Rajasthan back then. So this seems like a made up article. Agree with AllyD. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per AllyD. The topic has enough sources for a redirect, Battle of Rajasthan, but there is no reason any user would search for this particular title variation. If anyone develops enough sources for a standalone article in the future, they can ask for the redirect's protection to be changed. 68.189.242.116 ( talk) 16:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename it to Arab raids in Rajasthan or Arab invasion of Rajasthan with particular time period. And I do not agree with @Venkat TL that Rajasthan was not a region at that time hence it should be deleted. Name changes, India was not the name of the country centuries ago yet we use word India even for Earliest history of India. Anyway coming to the point, the Arab invasion of modern Rajasthan was some watershed event as this is mentioned by many historians. The invasion stopped by local dynasties changed further power dynamics in this part of India. But there is not any evidence that this was a single battle as per my knowledge nor if it was fought in a particular year. The event is mentioned by two celebrated and recognised historians of Early history of Rajasthan, Dr Dashratha Sharma and Dr Dinesh Chandra Shukla. Hence I propose to rename the page and if agreed I can edit the page accordingly to make it a war page instead of a battle. If some people agree I can edit it right away if it still doesn't look as per wiki standard, we can agree to get it re-directed or deleted, whichever way editors prefer. Sajaypal007 ( talk) 13:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as I'm not seeing coverage in reliable sources, and the title is not a reasonable search term. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Wise Group

Wise Group (  | 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 requirements Padavalam🌂  ►  10:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Onmyway22 talk 05:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Alice Kinloch

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

A draft is already there Draft:Alice Kinloch. Also, the article is not meeting GNG. Onmyway22 talk 08:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted. 331dot ( talk) 06:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

PaaSoo Technology

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

An advert of a company created by its employee and fails WP:GNG Onmyway22 talk 07:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 16:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Tahsin Pasha (bureaucrat)

Tahsin Pasha (bureaucrat) (  | 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 an Ottoman official who was a high ranking civil servant but but a minister, member of parliament or holder of any post that would make him notable. There is a single mysterious offline source. I don’t think this subject is notable. Mccapra ( talk) 21:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

If you said that it wasn't enough I would've said nothing, but no sources at all? Damn. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I initially created this article as a stub because he is an important figure in the Abdulhamid era of the Ottoman Empire. He was Abdulhamid's most trusted man, I think he is notable. The problem is finding sources about him, which is the tricky part. Abdulhamid era was not known for being a free environment. Sincerely, Adigabrek Talk Circassia 15:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Adigabrek. A close adviser to a ruler would seem to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Must have been important in the regime and, per Styyx above, it looks as if there are more sources out there. No Great Shaker ( talk) 21:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment thanks to Styx for finding these sources but the only ones I can see are passing mentions. The subject may have been presented in a tv series as “very important” and “Abdulhamid’s right hand man” but I’m not seeing any sources that support this. Mccapra ( talk) 04:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-per as above. Best Regards.--- ✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗ plicit 14:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I suspect the problem is that "bureaucrat" is too weak a descriptor, if what others have said is true. However we only have a very short article, so that the stub-tag should be reinstated. However, I am concerned about the number of times we get a Turkish bio that derives from a TV drama series, where it is not clear whether the subject was a real person, portrayed in a manner justified by history; and where conversely, the subject could be a person invented by the author for the purposes of historical fiction. Historical novels are a legitimate genre of literature, but those appearing in novels can be inventions of the author, who needs a character to carry his story forward. I make no suggestion in this case, trusting that the creator was acting in good faith. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
That’s also my concern. I’ve no doubt the subject existed and had some state function, but what exactly he did isn’t clear to me. The fact that he featured in a tv drama doesn’t mean he was notable, and it might have suited the narrative to give an important role to a relatively minor individual. The Ottoman state was highly bureaucratic and kept excellent records; Istanbul was also full of foreign diplomats, advisers and others, so it really stretches credibility to say that there could have been a key figure in the regime about whom we hardly have any sources. Mccapra ( talk) 19:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I originally created this page by translating this. The person is real, he has a book where he wrote his memoirs. It's just that we don't have many sources on him. Adigabrek Talk Circassia 17:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are questions raised by both the delete and keep position whether there are sufficient sources to show that the subject holds a position that would pass WP:NPOL or if there is sufficient sourcing to meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 ( talk) 07:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

John Doyle (critic)

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

There are no signification third party sources supporting this person's notability. Secondary source for them did not bring up any since the page was originally labelled years ago. Also, several accounts with his name, likely sockpuppets, see the entry's talk page. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk) 05:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I did not consider that someone could be notable purely for their insulting comments and impugning of the reputation of others. Kind seems like WP:COAT to me, but hey, get it - maybe a bit less of a hagiography then is in order. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk) 02:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Dirpy

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

This is one of the multiple services to offer an unofficial YouTube media downloader. Dirpy is not notable. Further, between the paid options and the "See also" link in the YouTube article, there is too much undue emphasis on Dirpy. LABcrabs ( talk) 05:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hannah Montana (season 2). Randykitty ( talk) 16:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Achy Jakey Heart

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

I don't see a reason for this article to exist; no real notability here. wizzito | say hello! 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 13:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Chuan Sha

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

Fails bio AINH ( talk) 01:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AINH ( talk) 01:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 马竞松; 吴小燕, eds. (2017). 当代加拿大华裔作家作品赏析 [Appreciation of the Works by Contemporary Chinese Canadian Writers] (in Chinese). Lijiang Publishing. ISBN  9787540780685. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

      The book has a chapter about Chuan Sha. The book notes from Google Translate: "Chapter Three: Chuan Sha and the novel "Sunshine" 1. Introduction to the author Chuan Sha, whose real name is Yin Xiangze, was born in Chongqing, China in 1952, and his ancestral home is Shandong. After graduating from the Department of Physics of Sichuan University in 1980 with a laser major... Chuan Sha's works were published in the United States "Chinese and Foreign Forum", China's "Genesis" (Taiwan), "Poetry", "Flower City", "Appreciation of Masterpieces", "World Chinese Literature" And other newspapers and magazines."

    2. Jack, ed. (2002-03-22). "简介川沙" [Profile of Chuan Sha]. 星星生活 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-31. Retrieved 2021-10-31.

      The magazine article notes from Google Translate: "Zhang Ling (Canadian female writer, vice president of Canadian Chinese PEN Association, author of novels "Looking at the Moon" and "The Staggered Other Shore"): 'Encountering the passion of poetry in an era lacking the atmosphere of poetry is an emotional dislocation. Chuan Sha's collection of poems "The Crowd Dragging the Shadow" brings us such an emotional dislocation. Emotional dislocation often leads to jumps in thinking. On the jumping and disjointed road of thinking, we are controlled by Chuan Sha, and we unknowingly step into a state of searching. In the end we discovered that what we found was a long-lost link in the chain of poetry.'" The article also includes biographical coverage about Chuan Sha: "Canadian Chinese writer and poet. Born in Chongqing, Sichuan, China, his ancestral home is Shandong. Graduated from Sichuan University and worked as a literary editor in a publishing house in China. He went to the UK in 1991 and immigrated to Canada in 1999. Currently the editor-in-chief of Canada Poseidon Publishing House."

    3. Language for a New Century: Contemporary Poetry from the Middle East, Asia, and Beyond. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 2008. ISBN  978-0-393-33238-4. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

      The book has a chapter on page 304 titled "Chuan Sha: The Wolves Are Roaring". The book notes: "Chuan Sha is a Chinese-Canadian writer, poet, and critic, and his work includes novels, short stories, poems, plays, essays, and literary reviews. A graduate of Sichuan University, he has lived in Toronto since 1999. Chuan Sha is now editor-in-chief of Canada's Poseidon Publishing House, director of the Chinese Canadian Poets Association, and a member of the Chinese Canadian"

    4. 一代飛鴻: 北美中國大陸新移民作家小說精選與點評 [A Generation of Feihong: Selections and Comments on Novels by New Immigrants from North America and Mainland China] (in Chinese). 舟出版社. 2005. p. 361. ISBN  978-0-9748303-8-4. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

      The book notes from Google Translate, "Comment from anger to humor: A brief discussion on Huang Junxiong Chuan Sha (Chinese Canadian writer, poet, playwright)."

    5. "大型音乐舞蹈诗剧《合欢》在多伦多成功演出" [Large-scale music and dance poetry drama "Acacia" was successfully performed in Toronto]. 环球华报 (in Chinese). 2008-11-03. Archived from the original on 2013-10-03. Retrieved 2021-10-31.

      The article notes from Google Translate: ""Hehuan" is an original script written by a Chinese Canadian writer, poet and playwright Chuan Sha, screenwriter and lyrics. It is also his second screenplay officially performed in Canada. It is reported that Chuansha's script "Acacia" was originally in four acts and 19 scenes. The Chinese and English versions have been revised several times."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chuan Sha ( Chinese: 川沙) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 12:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a third time in the hope of getting some thoughts on Cunard's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Patrick Norton

AfDs for this article:
Patrick Norton (  | 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 pass WP:GNG/ WP:BIO. Previous nomination ended in keep essentially because multiple users said WP:ILIKEIT and assumed that Norton WP:INHERITS notability from the projects he has worked on. I was unable to find independent and reliable secondary sources. There does not appear to be a clear redirect target. TipsyElephant ( talk) 12:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Rogermx ( talk) 15:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Paul Thurrott

Paul Thurrott (  | 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 pass WP:BIO/ WP:GNG. When searching for independent and reliable secondary sources I mostly found passing mentions of Thurrott. The only in depth source I could find is this WP:INTERVIEW from The Verge, which would be considered a primary source. I don't see any clear redirect targets. TipsyElephant ( talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Entropy (anonymous data store)

Entropy (anonymous data store) (  | 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:NSOFT and WP:GNG. Apparently, the most notable aspect of this software project is its shutdown notice. Anton.bersh ( talk) 21:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Actifed (computer virus)

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable computer virus. SL93 ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Phalcon/Skism or delete. After looking into this a bit, I think that either Phalcon/Skism or their product the Phalcon-Skism Mass Produced Code Generator are notable. I tossed together a quick stub at Phalcon/Skism and will hopefully find time to do a bit more searching. I really couldn't find anything on Actifed, so either deletion or redirecting to the group that wrote the tool used to generate it (in the unlikely event anyone ever searches for it) seems appropriate. There's a Comparison_of_computer_viruses article that is also a popular redirect target for these kinds of articles, though we know so little about Actifed that I can't even fill out the table. So maybe best removed from that table as well... Ajpolino ( talk) 17:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both "keep" and "delete" !votes are rather weak, except for the nom. However, even after 2 relistings no new sources that are substantial enough to tilt this over GNG have been found. As this is a BLP, I find the "delete" case stronger. Randykitty ( talk) 17:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sujeet Swami

Sujeet Swami (  | 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. Not a social activist in the traditional sense. Known for a single event, getting his 35 Rupees back. Coverage all stems from one event. scope_creep Talk 20:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Its still all one-event stuff. If he hadn't lost his 35 Rupees and his temper, none of this would have happened. That is a true definition of being non-notable. He didn't create these events, under his own impetus, it was created for him. So its WP:BLP1E fodder. scope_creep Talk 15:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

What else is he known for exactly? scope_creep Talk 14:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Perfetti Van Melle. Sandstein 17:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Giorgio Perfetti

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source in the article is a shared Forbes profile (not a particularly good source, more like a database entry). I can't find much else, beyond confusion with a similarly named footballer (for ex. this). This is also borderline A7, as being a "billionaire heir" is not a claim to significance, and notability is not inherited from the company they're supposedly a co-owner of. A potential outcome could be redirecting this to the company page.

As to the brother: same issues, and really the only other information is something run-of-the-mill: billionaires buying himself a yacht. Really, that is not the kind of stuff that goes in an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America 1000 11:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ebne Hasan Khan

Ebne Hasan Khan (  | 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 producer. The person is a director of Impress Telefilm. It seems all of work produced by his company listed as his work in the article. I googled in Bangla and English but didn't find any significant coverage. There are some refs in the article but they all are just passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 01:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte ( talk) 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Daintree National Park. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty ( talk) 17:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Noah, Queensland

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

Another Queensland locality with no population and no claim to notability. Fails both WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Mangoe ( talk) 01:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte ( talk) 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

(The locality's redirect needs to be maintained to maintain completeness of the geography of the shire it is in.) Aoziwe ( talk) 12:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While some editors suggest that America's Most Wanted provides the main coverage of this topic and that alone is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, other editors have shown a variety of sources which can be used to demonstrated notability. And it is this later effort which has gained a consensus of participating editors here. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

McKinney homicide

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

Local crime with no lasting impact or coverage. Being featured on America's Most Wanted does not confer notability. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper or newswire service. KidAd • SPEAK 02:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte ( talk) 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Agree with Geschichte. –– FormalDude talk 08:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Mlb96 - thanks for responding. Obviously the guides can be read different ways, but I disagree. In my view, coverage in diverse sources over 10+ years easily makes this WP:LASTING and puts it outside of WP:NOTNEWS. This falls pretty squarely between EVENTCRIT #1 and #2 in my view. I strongly disagree that a metro area with a population and land-area roughly that of Belgium is the "immediate region" in this context: "immediate region" here would be McKinney city or at most Collin County, of which McKinney is the capital - how else are we to interpret "immediate" other than that area that most closely surrounds the location where it happen? Expanding "immediate region" beyond that to include country-sized regions would make events with effects lasting years and reported over a long period of time in many countries automatically fail the guide, which cannot have been the intent of the guide given its emphasis on national-scale coverage. FOARP ( talk) 09:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 16:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary

Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary (  | 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:NORG due to a lack of reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of this institution. ( t · c) buidhe 03:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

_____

I am not clear as to why this would be deleted. This is a seminary that employees people and has a fair number of students. It is located in the real community of Owensboro, KY. It is one of several seminaries using a new format that encourages and often requires their students, training to be pastors, to stay in their local church where they are mentored and trained by their pastors throughout seminary studies. As more resources are found discussing the history of this insitution the content that benefits the article is being added. This is what make me unclear about why the article would be deleted. Kyle.Mullaney ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Kyle.Mullaney Hi, I suggest you read WP:NORG which explains the notability requirements for organizations. In a nutshell, to have a Wikipedia article, the seminary must have independent sources that cover it in depth. It isn't entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists. ( t · c) buidhe 14:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: According to WP:NORG,

    The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.

Under Schools,, the guideline specifies,

All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.

— Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 18:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Bahia Pacifica

Bahia Pacifica (  | 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. Could not find significant coverage. The fact that it's one of the tallest buildings in Panama City does not confer automatic notability. LibStar ( talk) 02:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sanjay Awasthy

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

I was the closing admin for a very recently-closed AfD on Sanjay Awasthy. The consensus of that discussion was to delete the article. However, the previous AfD appears to have taken place in the midst of a political election in India, which Awasthy appears to have won shortly after the prior AfD closed. Therefore, while this is admittedly somewhat unusual, I've decided that the best course of action is to start another procedural AfD to discuss the fate of this article, in light of this new information. My hope is that AfD participants can discuss whether or not the results of this recent election provide sufficient notability for Awasthy to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't have any personal opinion on whether this article should be kept or deleted. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ...Baby One More Time (album)#Release and promotion. This is an unusual situation where even people who are bolding a !vote as keep admit that it does not satisfy our policies or guidelines for notability. This suggests a consensus that this article does not meet our standard for an independent article. Given the late comment that there is existing material in an article that would be of interest to a reader looking for information about this tour, a redirect seems to be an appropriate reading of consensus. Editors could also choose to merge some more information from the article using its history if they wish per our normal editing processes. Note: I had originally relisted this but the last comment came in while I was relisting which provides enough of a consensus, I feel, to support a close rather than a relist because it was already a marginal relist for the reasons explained above. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

L'Oreal Hair Zone Mall Tour

L'Oreal Hair Zone Mall Tour (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:NTOUR, "Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources." This article does not have any sources to show significant media coverage, and hence this concert tour is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Theknine2 ( talk) 11:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm not going to judge this on NTOUR because obviously it wouldn't meet it, but on the basis of an WP:IAR. We've got a great window on the start of Spears's career within this article; well-sourced as to the background and overall, even if many of those are sourced to books. It doesn't feel crufty, nor is there the usual overload of radio station publicity sources or 'teenagers at a mall screaming at a pop star, amirite?' local news aftermath stories these type of articles are usually polluted with. It's a fine article with good sources detailing a small tour that started her rise, and I don't see any reason for deletion. Nate • ( chatter) 00:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There does not seem to be much hope that draftifying would be of any use. Randykitty ( talk) 17:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

GIR (proxy voting)

GIR (proxy voting) (  | 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 seem to have any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify- Wikipedia does not accept promotional content. An article has to be written in neutral point of view and has to meet the notability guidelines too. It has improvement opportunities. So, it can be draftified. Mommmyy ( talk) 18:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 ( talk) 05:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Aside from routine coverage of their SHARE merger in 2020, the references in the article are tending to be items about individual or links to Corporate Knights reports in whose creation they were involved, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Beyond that, searches are finding very little for GIR or SHARE. A company providing services, but fails WP:NCORP. AllyD ( talk) 14:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_3&oldid=1055228620"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE