![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
All of these people have Newton as their middle name. Having these people at a dis-ambiguation page like this is an analogy to having Joe Biden as one of the entries of a dis-ambiguation page titled Joseph Robinette. We never expect biographical articles to be titled this way, so no one will expect any of these people other than the early 18th century scientist to be at Isaac Newton; he's the only person on this page whose last name is Newton. Georgia guy ( talk) 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 23:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Articles are not categories. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Redirects of list articles to categories are highly discouraged: list articles should take the place of the redirect.(This paragraph has its own shortcut at WP:NOTDUP.) And I agree with the rule here because I can see why it applies to this specific topic. Unlike categories, lists have the advantage that you can put citations in them, and we should definitely encourage that. So I'll go with keep.— S Marshall T/ C 17:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Notability concerns. No independent references, and the article is vaguely promotional. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Clearly does not pass WP:NMUSIC Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Youtuber of unclear notability outside of fanbase/gossip columns Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 18:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
BLP. Only reference is her own, rather outdated website. Maybe notable but needs references. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Check: [2], [3], [4] and [5] Mommmyy ( talk) 04:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No significant coverage and only one role listed on IMDb. SL93 ( talk) 18:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Noting also the copyvio issue. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
No sources. No indication of notability per WP:N. Appears to contain original research ( WP:OR). At best, redirect to Mpondo people, but the connection is tenuous based solely on the text of this article, as this clan offshoot is not really detailed in the Mpondo article. Geoff | Who, me? 17:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn't find significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. MarioGom ( talk) 16:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I am wondering what makes this company notable to be able to have a stand alone article on Wikipedia? Suryabeej ⋠talk⋡ 16:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I did not find any reliable source coverage beyond some passing mentions about awards they organize. MarioGom ( talk) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Chinese businessman. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 15:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted per WP:A7. (non-admin closure) – The Grid ( talk) 13:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Carnahan
Barrettmagic
Talk
15:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 07:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:EVENT and WP:EVENTCRIT this reads like a news story which has not yet proven enough lasting significance to warrant it's own article. If it is connected with the protests it can be added to 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest but I don't see the link being made only that it was in the vicinity. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Unfair to Call it a duplicate article, comparing with a deleted article, which cannot be viewed now. Also, the scope and coverage of this article is much more broader than the deleted article, which had a limited view of the incident with few sources, while this article has many high quality WP:RS sources and addresses the issue in a broader manner. Dhy.rjw ( talk) 06:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This is one of the MOST Horrific MURDER in India in recent times, a brutal lynching and murder of an discriminated and protected class Dalit youth Lakhbir Singh, who was murdered in broad day light by a group of radicals. The page created and then reviewed (& approved) by editor Hughesdarren After the page was reviewed, another User: Venkat TL moves the article to Deletion Draft by giving a very vague reason that Wikipedia is not News, and cannot be used for a single event. There are thousands of Wiki pages on similar single incidents of Rapes, Murders and Lynching, that are widely reported in WP:RS. I present some examples of similar single events (not proven in Court) in India with Wiki pages:
/info/en/?search=2020_Hathras_gang_rape_and_murder /info/en/?search=2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape_and_murder /info/en/?search=Balrampur_gang_rape /info/en/?search=Lakhimpur_Kheri_massacre /info/en/?search=Kerala_snakebite_murder /info/en/?search=2021_Rohini_Court_Shooting
Considering all this, I don't see any logical reason to delete this page, other than to hide a Major Story from Wiki due to malicious intentions. This is a crucial incident widely reported in WP:RS sources in which a person from a protected class "Dalit" has been brutaly lynched and murdered. I hope you can revert this article back and save from deletion. Dhy.rjw (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
*Keep Satisifes
WP:GEOSCOPE
Over 15 Dalit Organizations across the world, demand strict action on the incident
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/15-dalit-outfits-demand-strict-action-against-culprits-of-singhu-border-lynching-325420
Reported by Reuters International https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indian-police-probe-murder-farmers-protest-site-detain-suspect-2021-10-16/
News reported in over 10 different states and regional language media across Asia. https://newsable.asianetnews.com/india/nihang-brutality-at-singhu-border-latest-developments-in-the-murder-case-vpn-r13ros Dhy.rjw ( talk) 22:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
*Keep Satisifes
WP:DEPTH and
WP:PERSISTENCE
The Incident's long term impacts are being discussed in Editorials and Opinions in top national publications, Indian Express , The Hindu and others
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/singhu-border-lynching-skm-7573973/
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/a-murder-most-foul-the-hindu-editorial-on-the-lynching-of-dalit-man-at-the-singhu-border-farmer-protest-site/article37045285.ece
Dhy.rjw (
talk)
22:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
*Keep Satisifes
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
New issues related to incident & it's investigation are getting continued coverage; and
related case being heard in India's Supreme Court, the highest court of the nation
https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/10/india-supreme-court-is-petitioned-to-stop-ongoing-farm-protests-after-lynching-of-dalit-laborer/
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/singhu-border-lynching-3-accused-sent-to-police-remand-2-sits-conducting-probe/article37040110.ece
Dhy.rjw (
talk)
22:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
1. The Incident's long term impacts are being discussed in Editorials and OPINION pieces in top national publications, Indian Express , The Hindu and others https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/singhu-border-lynching-skm-7573973/ https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/a-murder-most-foul-the-hindu-editorial-on-the-lynching-of-dalit-man-at-the-singhu-border-farmer-protest-site/article37045285.ece
2. Event related issues are being heard in India's Supreme Court, where only the MOST IMPORTANT issues are heard. https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/10/india-supreme-court-is-petitioned-to-stop-ongoing-farm-protests-after-lynching-of-dalit-laborer/
3. There is CONTINUED Coverage of the event in print, electronic and social media: https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/haryana/singhu-lynching-3-accused-sent-to-police-remand-2-sits-conducting-probe-325811 https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/singhu-border-lynching-3-accused-sent-to-police-remand-2-sits-conducting-probe/article37040110.ece https://thewire.in/government/singhu-border-lynching-one-more-arrested-two-more-from-nihang-order-surrender — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhy.rjw ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Dhy.rjw ( talk) 06:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/dalit-organisations-approach-supreme-court-commission-demand-extensive-probe-into-singhu-lynching/articleshow/87098517.cms https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/singhu-border-lynching-national-sc-commission-seeks-report-from-haryana-police-101634326560310.html https://www.thehitavada.com/Encyc/2021/10/18/2-SITs-to-investigate-Singhu-border-lynching-case.html TallMegan ( talk) 15:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)TallMegan
This kind of behavior is nothing new. The Nihang's have been known to commit such atrocities [2] however such incidents have remained poorly reported. That is where Wikipedia can provide a better historical record.
Further comment: Venkat TL is zealously deleting any reference to this article and even had me banned as per 3RR rule -- his actions to had this article for deletion is resulting in considerable work by all of us who agree that this article must be published. I think we should report VenkatTL appropriately for vandalism by deletion of important content which can save people's lives. Isn't that Wikipedia's goal ? to make our lives better ? In public interest, this article should be published so no one else falls victim to Nihang extremist Sikhs. Rob108 ( talk) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Rob108
Java McMatter Thanks for the comments, I will assume good faith. However, recently again, my properly sourced additions were reverted by Venkat TL with a two word explanation 'says who?' -- he should look at sources before deleting content. It takes lot of effort to add content and it is frustrating to see the content removed without any reason or specific reference to wikipedia policies. Rob108 ( talk) 03:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)TallMegan
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:DIRECTORY like list with insufficient sourcing to establish either accuracy or notability. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Israel–United Arab Emirates relations. MBisanz talk 14:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This was previously deleted on CSD G11 grounds, but was recreated and now reads nearly identically to what it read at the time it was tagged with db-spam. In the interest of giving the article and its now two-year-out-from-speedy-deletion existence, I'm listing here for community input. TomStar81 ( Talk) 12:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I can't find a keep consensus on the basis of often poor arguments, but there's clearly no consensus to delete or merge. Merger discussion can continue on the talk page. Sandstein 18:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
almost no independent references DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable actor. On further research, can't find reliable sources that talks about this person. GeeJay24 ( talk) 03:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 07:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a very weird one, and I'm not even sure if this is the right venue for this, but couldn't find a better one. Right now this page contains a enormous list of IRC commands, but does not indicate why they are notable, as a list, in any way. On the other hand, its an easy look up, and is linked in multiple places across the wider Wikimedia verse, including Mediawikiwiki (see MediaWiki on IRC#Connecting to IRC), indicating there is a clear need and wish for a page such as this to exist. I therefore think the best solution, considering its, at least in my opinion, a non notable list, but is clearly wanted, would be to move it either into the Wikipedia: namespace, or to transwiki it to meta, which would be my preferred solution. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 11:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
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 11:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The sources mentioned were just about her retrenchment on ABS-CBN and her welcome on Radyo5 92.3 News FM. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 07:34, 03 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 13:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc ( talk) 03:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 23:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Only reference is to its own page. Imcdc ( talk) 03:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NACTOR, Fails
WP:GNG
Barrettmagic
Talk
13:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
why deletion ? this all true info added so please check — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:23C8:3980:C038:A01C:D5C1:BBF2 ( talk) 04:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Heck, most of the article is about the company he founded, not him. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete as a hoax. ✗ plicit 14:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
A lot of the claims in the article are exaggerated so I tagged this as WP:G3 under hoax grounds, which the creator has vehemently denied is the case. If this club does indeed exist and meets WP:GNG, then we can stubify the article and remove all of the unsourced nonsense. A WP:BEFORE search is extremely challenging as all I can find is info relating to Ashton United F.C. and Curzon Ashton F.C..
I am still of the belief that this article needs to go but am taking to AfD to hopefully establish clear consensus from fellow editors on this one. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This article does not indicate significant coverage and looks like its just doing self promotions so, I think it should be deleted or moved to the sand box again.
Barrettmagic
Talk
11:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is a work in progress and should likely either be deleted so that the author is encouraged to rebuild it based on better sources, if they wish, or incubated safely away from mainspace until it is in better shape. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 13:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Article has no sources. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 10:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:G7'd ~ TNT (she/her • talk) 14:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
non notable British writer/Author fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. NarangD ( talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
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 11:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
BLP without any proper references. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
There is simply no reason to have a standalone article about this. Nothing that can't or shouldn't be covered elsewhere. Geschichte ( talk) 09:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
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 11:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Only reference, which doesnt work, seems to be to his church website. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
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 11:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Unclear notability. The organization clearly exists and publishes its own material. However, the material on this page is unsourced, does not really explain the organization or what it does or establish clear notability. Even if the consensus is keep, it would seem wise to reduce this article to a stub based on the few available facts and let it be built back up from the ground up, if and when significant new sources arises. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Without any desire to diminish the trials that the subject of this article went through in their life, their experience is not unique and the only case for the notability of this article appears to be a standalone self-published work. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable musician. Only got attention for his work on the album The Vertical Collection with Jon Hassell. There are no RS in the article: only the two interviews give any biographical informations, and they almost all come from his own month. One of the interviews is done alongside Hassell. The other interview is in a non-notable publication and notes that his work with Hassell as his main contribution to the musical world. The interviewer also says she spoke to Freeman before, for an article on Hassel's work. That article doesn't mention Freeman at all.
Freeman died six month ago, but I didn't find this being reported in any RS. You can only see his death being reported on content farm websites. Mottezen ( talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the nomination this guy really has not made any significant contribution to music. He does not have any awards or anything. Does not pass WP:GNG -- Rrmmll22 ( talk) 02:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep and improve I disagree with both the proposer and the first response above. The history of early electronic music and the people who contributed to it is not very well documented, but the scope of Freeman's contributions shown in the filmography is both impressive and interesting. It is easy for some Wikipedians to say "non-notable" and simply scrapping this on the basis of "I couldn't find any sources so there must be none" for a new article is one of the banes of the Wikipedia. This isn't a vanity article; the subject is dead. The proposer asserts that a publication is "non-notable" but that again is just an assertion. Yes, the article needs more citations. The right thing to do is to flag the article for improvement, not for summery deletion. -- Evertype· ✆ 19:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep and improve per Evertype above. To declare my COI, Peter and I were in a relationship during the last months of his life, and we were friends for longer. I am still absolutely distraught, six months after his death. As a musician and innovator, he kept very much to himself but he had influence far beyond that which appears in public sources. He was a software innovator and was a key contributor to Looperverse, and to software developed by AVID. His influence on Jon's music was significant, and you can hear it in Maarifa Street, to give one example. Not just as a musician but also a co-producer, for which he was credited. His memorial service was a who's-who of musical innovators and people he worked with for years. Elliott Sharp said yesterday that Peter "made electrons sing". There is unreleased music of his that will see the light of day. And so on. I know the rules on WP - I've been here nearly 18 years myself - and know that the measure of a person is more than the sum of the WP:RS you can find via Google. Anyways, I've said too much - Alison ❤ 00:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep and improve as per Evertype, it seems a disservice to a niche topic area and someone who from their discography and collaborations was high profile/prolific in their music genre to just slap a deletion tag on it. His name makes searching efficiently online slightly challenging without doing more serious amounts of due diligence. Smirkybec ( talk) 10:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep and improve as per Evertype and Smirkybec, et al. Niche musicians may not get the kind of traditional coverage that mainstream musicians get but that doesn't diminish their contributions and so we need to broaden our definition of what is a reliable source to accommodate this - in 2021, blogs by notable commentators have to be looked at differently than how we looked at blogs ten years ago. Yes, let's try to improve this piece with more and "better" sources, but deleting it is utterly uncalled for. Tvoz/ talk 21:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable boxer who never won a title as a pro, failing WP:NBOX. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Concerns that the subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in secondary sources were successfully rebutted by the evidence provided by James500. A merge to Road Traffic Act 1988 may still be preferable but that is a decision best settled outside of AFD. Editors can pursue that path through a merge proposal if desired. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 23:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Article on a non-notable statute, sourced entirely to Hansard and text of the statute itself. (And therefore WP:OR.) AFAIK, statutes are subject to the same notability standards as any other topic, and this one fails WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 04:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete: WLFM-LD is set to become WTCL on January 1, and that station already has an article. Just change the title when the time comes. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 22:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in light of new sources. ( non-admin closure) Frank Anchor Talk 11:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Clear fail of
WP:GNG. No rivalry exists between these two teams. This is evidenced by a
simple google search of Saints Vikings rivalry which has few hits, most of which being either
WP:ROUTINE coverage of a game between the two teams or opinion pieces from either New Orleans or Minnesota writers, this is a clear fail of
WP:LOCAL. The Wikipedia article only has one reference that mentions the term “rivalry,” an opinion by a Saints beat writer in a blog that calls itself “a New Orleans Saints community.” The balance of the sources are individual game summaries which do not establish the existence of a rivalry. Further, the article notes the teams met five times in the playoffs. While impressive, that is
WP:OR in establishing a rivalry.
Frank Anchor
Talk
03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I added two additional sources, one of which describes the Saints as a top five rival of the Vikings and other a Minneapolis Star Tribune article discussing the rivalry. These two teams have played many meaningful games in the last 20 years and there has been lots of chirpiness as the article stated. The Packers & Giants currently have a rivalry page and there is certainly no rivalry there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackmar1 ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 13:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
0 sources. Kind regards, JJK2000 ( talk) 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 13:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
0 sources. Kind regards, JJK2000 ( talk) 03:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
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 11:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be a series of science textbooks. Written as an advert. No secondary sources and none found. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 13:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The sole reference does not work. Kind regards, JJK2000 ( talk) 02:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was draftify. Should the film become notable after being released, the content will be available for others to improve and establish notability. Should it fail to garner coverage, it will succumb to WP:CSD#G13. ✗ plicit 11:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable television film, lacks significant independent coverage per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY 2008 02:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2021 SAFF Championship#Final with the option to merge any worthwhile content. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
No need for this separate article, a majority, if not all of the information is located at the main article 2021 SAFF Championship. All other information can be merged. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Noting that the nomination and other arguments for deletion have been withdrawn or changed to neutral. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This fails WP:GNG and is a straightforward violation of WP:NOT (a guide). It's not Wikipedia's place to provide rules for games. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
policy prohibits "how-to style manuals", but it does not cover a mere reproduction of game rules that do not focus on advice how one should play.It seems there's pretty broad consensus that merely being a rule guide (to which MtG is not nearly unique) is not grounds for deletion. MtG is highly notable, and has a complex ruleset—I don't see how it harms the encyclopedia to keep this article. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 04:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Some evidence has been provided that reliable sources have examined the perception of fraudulent claims of virginity, and an article may conceivably be written using those; as most other !votes make clear, though, this article is framed very differently, and runs foul of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in its entirety. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Article is basically original research with elements of WP:ATTACK. PepperBeast (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 11:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Sources are repeating what this person says and/or are unreliable "Kimdir?" sources. A beforehand search results in his articles published on Akşam, the newspaper he works for (a.k.a. not independent). No claims of meeting GNG. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
"A beforehand search results in his articles published on Akşam, the newspaper he works for"? ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
-- Gazeteci Mesut ( talk) 06:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)— Gazeteci Mesut ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Promotional WP:BLP of an ostensible "virtuoso" tuba player that fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. And, in any event, a plausible WP:TNT candidate, given that it mostly consists of an unsourced resume. (Came across this Rex Martin looking for this Rex Martin, who I take it is not the same.) AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 01:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Sources are mostly sites where you can buy their products, nothing significant (plus a few deadlinks). Doesn't pass WP:COMPANY and likely promotional. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I attempted to fix the article and removed a deadlink source and added categories but I agree if the company isn't notable it should be deleted and one secondary source (Cancer Be Glammed) that was cited has absolutely no mention of Medebra on their website. I found this article in the uncategorized articles list but so much of it is hard to understand advertising lingo that I don't understand enough about surgeries to know if is legitimately how the product is used/discussed that I think it should be deleted. This is my first time ever contributing to a deletion discussion though so let me know if I'm wrong in any way. Feralcateater000 ( talk)
The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 19:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This en.wiki article was created as a new account's 11th edit, moved to draft, rejected and then accepted at AfC. A Wikidata item containing promotional content ("AXIA Investments is a registered brand of the most secure and trusted trading online broker in the MENA region. Start Trading with AXIA Investments." [17]) was created around the same time and there also appears to have been a subsequently deleted ar.wiki article. Regarding this en.wiki article, the references do not appear to rise above listings describing the company's product proposition (though strangely one, the ArabInvest posting, prefaces the product listing with strongly negative paragraphs about the firm). Setting out a company's wares is insufficient to demonstrate attained WP:NCORP notability. AllyD ( talk) 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 19:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
None of the sources on the page are independent of the subject or the subject's employers, except the NYT article about his father. I have done a search and could find no independent sources. This is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion, my apologies if I have done anything wrong. Red Fiona ( talk) 16:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Puff page written by his own office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianne Farrar-Hockley ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 11:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A recipient of the Silver Star is far below WP's notability standards. Lettler hello • contribs 00:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
All of these people have Newton as their middle name. Having these people at a dis-ambiguation page like this is an analogy to having Joe Biden as one of the entries of a dis-ambiguation page titled Joseph Robinette. We never expect biographical articles to be titled this way, so no one will expect any of these people other than the early 18th century scientist to be at Isaac Newton; he's the only person on this page whose last name is Newton. Georgia guy ( talk) 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 23:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Articles are not categories. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Redirects of list articles to categories are highly discouraged: list articles should take the place of the redirect.(This paragraph has its own shortcut at WP:NOTDUP.) And I agree with the rule here because I can see why it applies to this specific topic. Unlike categories, lists have the advantage that you can put citations in them, and we should definitely encourage that. So I'll go with keep.— S Marshall T/ C 17:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Notability concerns. No independent references, and the article is vaguely promotional. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Clearly does not pass WP:NMUSIC Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Youtuber of unclear notability outside of fanbase/gossip columns Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 18:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
BLP. Only reference is her own, rather outdated website. Maybe notable but needs references. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Check: [2], [3], [4] and [5] Mommmyy ( talk) 04:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No significant coverage and only one role listed on IMDb. SL93 ( talk) 18:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Noting also the copyvio issue. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
No sources. No indication of notability per WP:N. Appears to contain original research ( WP:OR). At best, redirect to Mpondo people, but the connection is tenuous based solely on the text of this article, as this clan offshoot is not really detailed in the Mpondo article. Geoff | Who, me? 17:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn't find significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. MarioGom ( talk) 16:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I am wondering what makes this company notable to be able to have a stand alone article on Wikipedia? Suryabeej ⋠talk⋡ 16:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I did not find any reliable source coverage beyond some passing mentions about awards they organize. MarioGom ( talk) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Not notable Chinese businessman. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 15:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted per WP:A7. (non-admin closure) – The Grid ( talk) 13:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Carnahan
Barrettmagic
Talk
15:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 07:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:EVENT and WP:EVENTCRIT this reads like a news story which has not yet proven enough lasting significance to warrant it's own article. If it is connected with the protests it can be added to 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest but I don't see the link being made only that it was in the vicinity. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Unfair to Call it a duplicate article, comparing with a deleted article, which cannot be viewed now. Also, the scope and coverage of this article is much more broader than the deleted article, which had a limited view of the incident with few sources, while this article has many high quality WP:RS sources and addresses the issue in a broader manner. Dhy.rjw ( talk) 06:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This is one of the MOST Horrific MURDER in India in recent times, a brutal lynching and murder of an discriminated and protected class Dalit youth Lakhbir Singh, who was murdered in broad day light by a group of radicals. The page created and then reviewed (& approved) by editor Hughesdarren After the page was reviewed, another User: Venkat TL moves the article to Deletion Draft by giving a very vague reason that Wikipedia is not News, and cannot be used for a single event. There are thousands of Wiki pages on similar single incidents of Rapes, Murders and Lynching, that are widely reported in WP:RS. I present some examples of similar single events (not proven in Court) in India with Wiki pages:
/info/en/?search=2020_Hathras_gang_rape_and_murder /info/en/?search=2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape_and_murder /info/en/?search=Balrampur_gang_rape /info/en/?search=Lakhimpur_Kheri_massacre /info/en/?search=Kerala_snakebite_murder /info/en/?search=2021_Rohini_Court_Shooting
Considering all this, I don't see any logical reason to delete this page, other than to hide a Major Story from Wiki due to malicious intentions. This is a crucial incident widely reported in WP:RS sources in which a person from a protected class "Dalit" has been brutaly lynched and murdered. I hope you can revert this article back and save from deletion. Dhy.rjw (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
*Keep Satisifes
WP:GEOSCOPE
Over 15 Dalit Organizations across the world, demand strict action on the incident
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/15-dalit-outfits-demand-strict-action-against-culprits-of-singhu-border-lynching-325420
Reported by Reuters International https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indian-police-probe-murder-farmers-protest-site-detain-suspect-2021-10-16/
News reported in over 10 different states and regional language media across Asia. https://newsable.asianetnews.com/india/nihang-brutality-at-singhu-border-latest-developments-in-the-murder-case-vpn-r13ros Dhy.rjw ( talk) 22:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
*Keep Satisifes
WP:DEPTH and
WP:PERSISTENCE
The Incident's long term impacts are being discussed in Editorials and Opinions in top national publications, Indian Express , The Hindu and others
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/singhu-border-lynching-skm-7573973/
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/a-murder-most-foul-the-hindu-editorial-on-the-lynching-of-dalit-man-at-the-singhu-border-farmer-protest-site/article37045285.ece
Dhy.rjw (
talk)
22:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
*Keep Satisifes
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
New issues related to incident & it's investigation are getting continued coverage; and
related case being heard in India's Supreme Court, the highest court of the nation
https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/10/india-supreme-court-is-petitioned-to-stop-ongoing-farm-protests-after-lynching-of-dalit-laborer/
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/singhu-border-lynching-3-accused-sent-to-police-remand-2-sits-conducting-probe/article37040110.ece
Dhy.rjw (
talk)
22:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
1. The Incident's long term impacts are being discussed in Editorials and OPINION pieces in top national publications, Indian Express , The Hindu and others https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/singhu-border-lynching-skm-7573973/ https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/a-murder-most-foul-the-hindu-editorial-on-the-lynching-of-dalit-man-at-the-singhu-border-farmer-protest-site/article37045285.ece
2. Event related issues are being heard in India's Supreme Court, where only the MOST IMPORTANT issues are heard. https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/10/india-supreme-court-is-petitioned-to-stop-ongoing-farm-protests-after-lynching-of-dalit-laborer/
3. There is CONTINUED Coverage of the event in print, electronic and social media: https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/haryana/singhu-lynching-3-accused-sent-to-police-remand-2-sits-conducting-probe-325811 https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/singhu-border-lynching-3-accused-sent-to-police-remand-2-sits-conducting-probe/article37040110.ece https://thewire.in/government/singhu-border-lynching-one-more-arrested-two-more-from-nihang-order-surrender — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhy.rjw ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Dhy.rjw ( talk) 06:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/dalit-organisations-approach-supreme-court-commission-demand-extensive-probe-into-singhu-lynching/articleshow/87098517.cms https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/singhu-border-lynching-national-sc-commission-seeks-report-from-haryana-police-101634326560310.html https://www.thehitavada.com/Encyc/2021/10/18/2-SITs-to-investigate-Singhu-border-lynching-case.html TallMegan ( talk) 15:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)TallMegan
This kind of behavior is nothing new. The Nihang's have been known to commit such atrocities [2] however such incidents have remained poorly reported. That is where Wikipedia can provide a better historical record.
Further comment: Venkat TL is zealously deleting any reference to this article and even had me banned as per 3RR rule -- his actions to had this article for deletion is resulting in considerable work by all of us who agree that this article must be published. I think we should report VenkatTL appropriately for vandalism by deletion of important content which can save people's lives. Isn't that Wikipedia's goal ? to make our lives better ? In public interest, this article should be published so no one else falls victim to Nihang extremist Sikhs. Rob108 ( talk) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Rob108
Java McMatter Thanks for the comments, I will assume good faith. However, recently again, my properly sourced additions were reverted by Venkat TL with a two word explanation 'says who?' -- he should look at sources before deleting content. It takes lot of effort to add content and it is frustrating to see the content removed without any reason or specific reference to wikipedia policies. Rob108 ( talk) 03:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)TallMegan
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:DIRECTORY like list with insufficient sourcing to establish either accuracy or notability. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge to Israel–United Arab Emirates relations. MBisanz talk 14:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This was previously deleted on CSD G11 grounds, but was recreated and now reads nearly identically to what it read at the time it was tagged with db-spam. In the interest of giving the article and its now two-year-out-from-speedy-deletion existence, I'm listing here for community input. TomStar81 ( Talk) 12:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I can't find a keep consensus on the basis of often poor arguments, but there's clearly no consensus to delete or merge. Merger discussion can continue on the talk page. Sandstein 18:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
almost no independent references DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable actor. On further research, can't find reliable sources that talks about this person. GeeJay24 ( talk) 03:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 07:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a very weird one, and I'm not even sure if this is the right venue for this, but couldn't find a better one. Right now this page contains a enormous list of IRC commands, but does not indicate why they are notable, as a list, in any way. On the other hand, its an easy look up, and is linked in multiple places across the wider Wikimedia verse, including Mediawikiwiki (see MediaWiki on IRC#Connecting to IRC), indicating there is a clear need and wish for a page such as this to exist. I therefore think the best solution, considering its, at least in my opinion, a non notable list, but is clearly wanted, would be to move it either into the Wikipedia: namespace, or to transwiki it to meta, which would be my preferred solution. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 11:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
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 11:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The sources mentioned were just about her retrenchment on ABS-CBN and her welcome on Radyo5 92.3 News FM. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 07:34, 03 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 13:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc ( talk) 03:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 23:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Only reference is to its own page. Imcdc ( talk) 03:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NACTOR, Fails
WP:GNG
Barrettmagic
Talk
13:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
why deletion ? this all true info added so please check — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:23C8:3980:C038:A01C:D5C1:BBF2 ( talk) 04:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Heck, most of the article is about the company he founded, not him. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete as a hoax. ✗ plicit 14:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
A lot of the claims in the article are exaggerated so I tagged this as WP:G3 under hoax grounds, which the creator has vehemently denied is the case. If this club does indeed exist and meets WP:GNG, then we can stubify the article and remove all of the unsourced nonsense. A WP:BEFORE search is extremely challenging as all I can find is info relating to Ashton United F.C. and Curzon Ashton F.C..
I am still of the belief that this article needs to go but am taking to AfD to hopefully establish clear consensus from fellow editors on this one. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This article does not indicate significant coverage and looks like its just doing self promotions so, I think it should be deleted or moved to the sand box again.
Barrettmagic
Talk
11:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is a work in progress and should likely either be deleted so that the author is encouraged to rebuild it based on better sources, if they wish, or incubated safely away from mainspace until it is in better shape. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 13:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Article has no sources. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 10:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:G7'd ~ TNT (she/her • talk) 14:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
non notable British writer/Author fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. NarangD ( talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
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 11:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
BLP without any proper references. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
There is simply no reason to have a standalone article about this. Nothing that can't or shouldn't be covered elsewhere. Geschichte ( talk) 09:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
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 11:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Only reference, which doesnt work, seems to be to his church website. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
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 11:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Unclear notability. The organization clearly exists and publishes its own material. However, the material on this page is unsourced, does not really explain the organization or what it does or establish clear notability. Even if the consensus is keep, it would seem wise to reduce this article to a stub based on the few available facts and let it be built back up from the ground up, if and when significant new sources arises. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Without any desire to diminish the trials that the subject of this article went through in their life, their experience is not unique and the only case for the notability of this article appears to be a standalone self-published work. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable musician. Only got attention for his work on the album The Vertical Collection with Jon Hassell. There are no RS in the article: only the two interviews give any biographical informations, and they almost all come from his own month. One of the interviews is done alongside Hassell. The other interview is in a non-notable publication and notes that his work with Hassell as his main contribution to the musical world. The interviewer also says she spoke to Freeman before, for an article on Hassel's work. That article doesn't mention Freeman at all.
Freeman died six month ago, but I didn't find this being reported in any RS. You can only see his death being reported on content farm websites. Mottezen ( talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the nomination this guy really has not made any significant contribution to music. He does not have any awards or anything. Does not pass WP:GNG -- Rrmmll22 ( talk) 02:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep and improve I disagree with both the proposer and the first response above. The history of early electronic music and the people who contributed to it is not very well documented, but the scope of Freeman's contributions shown in the filmography is both impressive and interesting. It is easy for some Wikipedians to say "non-notable" and simply scrapping this on the basis of "I couldn't find any sources so there must be none" for a new article is one of the banes of the Wikipedia. This isn't a vanity article; the subject is dead. The proposer asserts that a publication is "non-notable" but that again is just an assertion. Yes, the article needs more citations. The right thing to do is to flag the article for improvement, not for summery deletion. -- Evertype· ✆ 19:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep and improve per Evertype above. To declare my COI, Peter and I were in a relationship during the last months of his life, and we were friends for longer. I am still absolutely distraught, six months after his death. As a musician and innovator, he kept very much to himself but he had influence far beyond that which appears in public sources. He was a software innovator and was a key contributor to Looperverse, and to software developed by AVID. His influence on Jon's music was significant, and you can hear it in Maarifa Street, to give one example. Not just as a musician but also a co-producer, for which he was credited. His memorial service was a who's-who of musical innovators and people he worked with for years. Elliott Sharp said yesterday that Peter "made electrons sing". There is unreleased music of his that will see the light of day. And so on. I know the rules on WP - I've been here nearly 18 years myself - and know that the measure of a person is more than the sum of the WP:RS you can find via Google. Anyways, I've said too much - Alison ❤ 00:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep and improve as per Evertype, it seems a disservice to a niche topic area and someone who from their discography and collaborations was high profile/prolific in their music genre to just slap a deletion tag on it. His name makes searching efficiently online slightly challenging without doing more serious amounts of due diligence. Smirkybec ( talk) 10:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep and improve as per Evertype and Smirkybec, et al. Niche musicians may not get the kind of traditional coverage that mainstream musicians get but that doesn't diminish their contributions and so we need to broaden our definition of what is a reliable source to accommodate this - in 2021, blogs by notable commentators have to be looked at differently than how we looked at blogs ten years ago. Yes, let's try to improve this piece with more and "better" sources, but deleting it is utterly uncalled for. Tvoz/ talk 21:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable boxer who never won a title as a pro, failing WP:NBOX. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Concerns that the subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in secondary sources were successfully rebutted by the evidence provided by James500. A merge to Road Traffic Act 1988 may still be preferable but that is a decision best settled outside of AFD. Editors can pursue that path through a merge proposal if desired. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 23:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Article on a non-notable statute, sourced entirely to Hansard and text of the statute itself. (And therefore WP:OR.) AFAIK, statutes are subject to the same notability standards as any other topic, and this one fails WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 04:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete: WLFM-LD is set to become WTCL on January 1, and that station already has an article. Just change the title when the time comes. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 22:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in light of new sources. ( non-admin closure) Frank Anchor Talk 11:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Clear fail of
WP:GNG. No rivalry exists between these two teams. This is evidenced by a
simple google search of Saints Vikings rivalry which has few hits, most of which being either
WP:ROUTINE coverage of a game between the two teams or opinion pieces from either New Orleans or Minnesota writers, this is a clear fail of
WP:LOCAL. The Wikipedia article only has one reference that mentions the term “rivalry,” an opinion by a Saints beat writer in a blog that calls itself “a New Orleans Saints community.” The balance of the sources are individual game summaries which do not establish the existence of a rivalry. Further, the article notes the teams met five times in the playoffs. While impressive, that is
WP:OR in establishing a rivalry.
Frank Anchor
Talk
03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I added two additional sources, one of which describes the Saints as a top five rival of the Vikings and other a Minneapolis Star Tribune article discussing the rivalry. These two teams have played many meaningful games in the last 20 years and there has been lots of chirpiness as the article stated. The Packers & Giants currently have a rivalry page and there is certainly no rivalry there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackmar1 ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 13:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
0 sources. Kind regards, JJK2000 ( talk) 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 13:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
0 sources. Kind regards, JJK2000 ( talk) 03:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
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 11:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be a series of science textbooks. Written as an advert. No secondary sources and none found. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 1000 13:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The sole reference does not work. Kind regards, JJK2000 ( talk) 02:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was draftify. Should the film become notable after being released, the content will be available for others to improve and establish notability. Should it fail to garner coverage, it will succumb to WP:CSD#G13. ✗ plicit 11:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable television film, lacks significant independent coverage per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY 2008 02:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 2021 SAFF Championship#Final with the option to merge any worthwhile content. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
No need for this separate article, a majority, if not all of the information is located at the main article 2021 SAFF Championship. All other information can be merged. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Noting that the nomination and other arguments for deletion have been withdrawn or changed to neutral. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This fails WP:GNG and is a straightforward violation of WP:NOT (a guide). It's not Wikipedia's place to provide rules for games. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
policy prohibits "how-to style manuals", but it does not cover a mere reproduction of game rules that do not focus on advice how one should play.It seems there's pretty broad consensus that merely being a rule guide (to which MtG is not nearly unique) is not grounds for deletion. MtG is highly notable, and has a complex ruleset—I don't see how it harms the encyclopedia to keep this article. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 04:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Some evidence has been provided that reliable sources have examined the perception of fraudulent claims of virginity, and an article may conceivably be written using those; as most other !votes make clear, though, this article is framed very differently, and runs foul of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in its entirety. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Article is basically original research with elements of WP:ATTACK. PepperBeast (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 11:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Sources are repeating what this person says and/or are unreliable "Kimdir?" sources. A beforehand search results in his articles published on Akşam, the newspaper he works for (a.k.a. not independent). No claims of meeting GNG. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
"A beforehand search results in his articles published on Akşam, the newspaper he works for"? ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
-- Gazeteci Mesut ( talk) 06:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)— Gazeteci Mesut ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Promotional WP:BLP of an ostensible "virtuoso" tuba player that fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. And, in any event, a plausible WP:TNT candidate, given that it mostly consists of an unsourced resume. (Came across this Rex Martin looking for this Rex Martin, who I take it is not the same.) AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 01:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Sources are mostly sites where you can buy their products, nothing significant (plus a few deadlinks). Doesn't pass WP:COMPANY and likely promotional. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I attempted to fix the article and removed a deadlink source and added categories but I agree if the company isn't notable it should be deleted and one secondary source (Cancer Be Glammed) that was cited has absolutely no mention of Medebra on their website. I found this article in the uncategorized articles list but so much of it is hard to understand advertising lingo that I don't understand enough about surgeries to know if is legitimately how the product is used/discussed that I think it should be deleted. This is my first time ever contributing to a deletion discussion though so let me know if I'm wrong in any way. Feralcateater000 ( talk)
The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 19:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This en.wiki article was created as a new account's 11th edit, moved to draft, rejected and then accepted at AfC. A Wikidata item containing promotional content ("AXIA Investments is a registered brand of the most secure and trusted trading online broker in the MENA region. Start Trading with AXIA Investments." [17]) was created around the same time and there also appears to have been a subsequently deleted ar.wiki article. Regarding this en.wiki article, the references do not appear to rise above listings describing the company's product proposition (though strangely one, the ArabInvest posting, prefaces the product listing with strongly negative paragraphs about the firm). Setting out a company's wares is insufficient to demonstrate attained WP:NCORP notability. AllyD ( talk) 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 19:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
None of the sources on the page are independent of the subject or the subject's employers, except the NYT article about his father. I have done a search and could find no independent sources. This is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion, my apologies if I have done anything wrong. Red Fiona ( talk) 16:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Puff page written by his own office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianne Farrar-Hockley ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 11:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A recipient of the Silver Star is far below WP's notability standards. Lettler hello • contribs 00:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)