Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 29 October 31 >

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. ✗ plicit 23:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Morgan Sea

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

recent graduate, probably WP:TOOSOON Vexations ( talk) 16:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations ( talk) 16:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saskatchewan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 30 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 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 00:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Indian Society for Training and Development

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

Every reference is either an uncritical interview with them, or a mere mention, or other PR, DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 30 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Behzad Bolour

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

The article includes a few BBC links (not independent) and some YouTube videos. A BEFORE search didn't result in anything other than a passing mention here. Pretty obvious COI/UPE looking from the pictures. Borderline A7/G11. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE and isn't notable in the slightest. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Behzad Bolour is a well-known Iranian journalist and producer in the BBC Persian who has been making movie and programs in BBC organization for two decades, and you can take a look at his page on the BBC's official website.

There is also a famous program made by him called Bolour Banafsh (Purple Crystal) and KOOK (TV series) on the prestigious IMDb site, and you can easily find parts of this program with a search. Behzad Bolour has also won numerous awards, some of which are available on various sites as archives( here). The same YouTube pages that you say belong to BBC Farsi and not every person's video is published on this page. He has also been mentioned in various sites and news agencies, and I will give you some examples below. 1 2 3 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 Behzad Bolour's complete information is mentioned in his Persian Wikipedia, which was made in 2016, and this article has been translated into English from his Persian Wikipedia. FatemehKhalili ( talk) 19:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Mrschimpf, it's not a vote, see WP:!VOTE. The bold text is just a summary, you're not required to use it (though you can, I use it as well). ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 19:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment FK had posted the text without a 'keep' in front, including text that broke the daily AfD log, so I clarified their position since they seem unfamiliar with the AfD process and it read as they wanted to keep. Just trying to keep things tidy. Nate • ( chatter) 19:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes. Some of these are mentions, not significant. There is one interview and others don't seem reliable or independent in the first place. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 19:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

There is a lot to say about him. I put a few by chance at the top. Most of the resources are very old because he has been working professionally for many years. FatemehKhalili ( talk) 19:58, 16 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) 18:59, 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) 23:24, 30 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Information Today

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

Promotional article. Cited only to primary-sourced directory information - no RS coverage. A WP:BEFORE shows no third-party RS coverage of the company that I could find - plenty of uses of the words "information today" and several other companies of the same name. I could be wrong, but it would be need to be shown with clear third-party RS coverage meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. They should be notable per the large claims - but we have nothing to base an article on. Article tagged since 2018 without improvement; no reasonable prospect of organic improvement. PROD removed without addressing issues. David Gerard ( talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 11:42, 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) 23:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Very weak keep. Here are some bits and pieces: [6], [7], [8], doi: 10.1080/00049670.2012.10739073. I'm amused to be here because of this edit I just made, where I found an Information Today publication useful for publishing-related info (not an argument, obvi). AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 17:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • keep We have an interview and an article in an academic publication, which is more than nothing and passes WP:GNG with 2 sources. More sources would be better. In the case of publishers and publications which are themselves WP:Reliable sources used to back other Wikipedia articles with citations, I think we should accept fewer sources than typical even if it means a more bare article. I do not think we quite have a guideline for trade journals like this, but we do have Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) which makes a similar case for academic journals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:46, 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. ✗ plicit 23:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ben Jones (snooker player)

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

Has competed in events that were open to both professionals and amateurs, but this alone does not satisfy WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. These events had amateur qualifying sections, through which a set number of amateurs would qualify to appear in the main draw - from the last 128 onward - of the event, joining the professionals who were seeded to that stage; this is the only claim Ben Jones has to notability, and it's flimsy at best. If we are to agree that he's notable on that basis, we'll need to go about creating articles for every single amateur who's ever qualified to the first round of the Riga Open/Riga Masters, Paul Hunter Classic, or Gibraltar Open snooker tournaments...without putting it too bluntly, Ben from the snooker club might be a great player, but as per our guidelines and - frankly - common sense, an article with his name on it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Montgomery15 ( talk) 22:18, 30 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 merge to Doug Ring. Consensus is that parts but not necessarily all of this article should be merged. Sandstein 08:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

AfDs for this article:
Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though this article may be FA, there is significant concern that it fails to meet notability guidelines, particularly WP:PAGEDECIDE. Doug Ring is notable, the 1948 Australian cricket team is notable, but there is not enough significant coverage to justify a specific article on Doug Ring's performance as part of the 1948 team. The article quite literally says, and I quote, "Ring was not prominent in the team's success." Much of this article is either statistics, or a repeat of what is already included in the article Doug Ring. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

The user in question has an entire featured topic to their name. I fail to see how deletion of one article somehow affects their legacy. If you are wondering where this came from, take a look at Talk:Doug Ring and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1. The decision to nominate a featured article for deletion was not made lightly. Significant concerns have been raised about its notability. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
And I fail to see why the user matters at all. The article isn't worthy of inclusion, and that it was written by a much missed user does not matter even slightly in assessing its notability. 5225C ( talk • contributions) 02:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I sort of suggested this come to AfD as a way of reaching a wider audience than a merge discussion would. I hadn't realised that it had been nominated in 2014 and read that discussion with interest. I am swayed by Sarastro1's comments there (Sarastro1 is rarely around these days). There are clearly sources which exist and Sarastro1 was of the belief, having read them, that there was about enough coverage to justify the article from the POV of whether sources provide enough detail. That's a persuasive argument.
There are other arguments that can be made, and I'm unsure of the best approach to take here, other than that a merge would clearly need to be very, very selective and probably also very limited in scope.
If I'd have realised the 2014 discussion had taken place I'm not sure that I'd have suggested an AfD now fwiw, but there you go. Sorry about that. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 23:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I concur that it isn't a cut and dry situation, even as the nominator I am not 100% certain the article should be deleted. From reading the previous discussion, what struck me is the argument that an encyclopedia should not just be an indiscriminate collection of information. Particularly, I was struck by Calthan's comments in the discussion, some of which I will quote here:
"I've always seen this series of articles as being a failure to condense the subject into an encyclopedia article (or articles). Books focusing on a notable subject would generally be expected to cover the subject in detail, and just because information can be cited to books doesn't mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia article. An essential part of writing an encyclopedia article is selecting the portions of the information available that are important to understanding the topic. This article consists primarily of information such as the score or outcome at different points in different matches. Those are minute details that are not at all essential to understanding the main notable subject of the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Except for the "role" section, this article is all material that encyclopedia editors should have selected to not include in Wikipedia."
There are valid points that were raised by the keep voters, but it is also true that standards on Wikipedia have changed since 2014, and this article deserves reassessment of its notability, or lack thereof. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 23:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It does seem a bit much to have articles on each player in a single test series, however important that series may appear to be (though, I note that there is no mention of the series in Test cricket). And then there is Ring's record in the series (1 test, 9 runs, 1 wicket) which can pretty much be summed up as "didn't do much, did he?" (though he seems to have done a lot better against the county teams). Much though I'd like to say "keep" out of respect for YM who is much missed on wikipedia, merge is probably the right choice. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 00:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was the nominator last time this article was up for deletion, and although the consensus was in favor of keeping it, in the intervening years there has been no further demonstration of notability and consensus can change. St Anselm ( talk) 00:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Doug Ring. ( JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge § Role to Doug Ring, delete. I was initially very convinced that this article should simply be deleted, but following conversation at the FAR I can appreciate that it's a bit more complex than that. The bulk of this article is, as mentioned above, unencyclopedic statistics. The statistics are only really placed in context in the Role section, and even then some of that content appears to be original research. I do not believe that notability is established in the article, I don't see a claim to significance or to importance, and to the contrary the article downplays its own significance. It's debatable as to whether all the almanacs/etc. can be used to establish notability, and maybe for other players they could, but when the lead introduces the subject as unimportant then I don't get why there's an independent article on it.
I do not believe that the previous AfDs (both for this article and the group nomination) were good discussions. A lot of comments were essentially "it's an FA" and a few were a bit kooky in their definitions of notability and Wikipedia's purpose. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep it. To me, this article seems to be a bit of quirk of Wikipedia, a kind of remnant of when the site was a lot less bureaucratic and standards for inclusion were much laxer. If an article of this kind were created today I don't think it'd make a week, let alone pass as an FA. Our standards have changed and in my view its wrong to grandfather in articles which can't be brought up to the current standard. The FAR isn't gaining much traction and it looks as though the article will remain pretty much as it is.
If we're going to accept a collection of stats (and admittedly a pretty big collection) as combining to prove notability, it begs the question of how far we can stretch inclusion guidelines. I don't think this article meets them, and although we might not be a paper encyclopaedia there needs to be a reasonable limit to how far down a rabbit hole we can go. In this case, I think the limit is probably a step up from this, and we should have stopped with Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and Doug Ring. 5225C ( talk • contributions) 02:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC), amended 08:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
"Merge and delete" is not a possible AfD outcome, as it loses the attribution for the merged content. — Kusma ( talk) 13:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
As others have pointed out below, if you keep the redirect you keep the history. For the avoidance of doubt, I will re-word my !vote. 5225C ( talk • contributions) 08:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As the one who originally raised issues with the article here, I was concerned by issues with OR and inappropriate synthesis/editorializing. As it currently stands, the article heavily relies on game summaries and statistics. In my opinion, this signals a lack of notability; game summaries and statistics are common to most professional sporting events and therefore fail to indicate lasting significance. Moreover, when considering the additional sources used in this article, the topic's notability seems to be inferred from the fact that the team as a whole is notable, but notability is not inherited. To put it another way, I am concerned that allowing the article to remain as-is would send the message that articles about an athlete's performance in a single year, season, or comparable time span are inherently notable, which is not a precedent I think we should set. As a comparison, the 1972 Miami Dolphins were a historically successful team like Ring's 1948 team, but that should not imply that articles for Bob Griese with the Miami Dolphins in 1972, Earl Morrall with the Miami Dolphins in 1972, Larry Csonka with the Miami Dolphins in 1972, etc., are notable topics for inclusion on Wikipedia. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 03:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge to Doug Ring This is a contentious subject given that the article is a FA, however it's my view that as wikipedia has moved on there probably isn't a need for this kind of article given the subject's limited participation on the tour. Articles such as this for Don Bradman, Sid Barnes or many other on the tour are perfectly acceptable, but because Doug Ring played such a limited role on the tour in terms of test cricket a merge would be best here. In the FAR it was found that Wisden only had limited coverage on the subject and so GNG was likely to be an issue, but merging is a suitable WP:ATD. However as Blue Square Thing brought up in the FAR on the subject, a lot of the detail in this subject is already included at Doug Ring and if lots were to be merged then the Doug Ring article would become excessive and over detailed. Therefore a selective merge is required, likely to be done by someone from the Cricket WikiProject or with a close interest in the subject. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 10:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with the biography (or keep, I can't comment on the notability much as the topic is very alien to me); do not delete the redirect per m:Keep history and to have a good way to keep the paper trail of the FA nomination etc. Can't see any advantage of hiding the history from non-admins. — Kusma ( talk) 10:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and evaluate the others on their notability. Keeping them around could set a precedent for similar articles about other athletes, which could result in hundreds of extra headaches. Sounder Bruce 10:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. I recall raising my eyebrows when I saw this at TFA. There's far from enough coverage to justify a standalone article here; a combination of prose content that could be covered elsewhere, and statistics that Wikipedia is not a database for. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge to Doug Ring. Do not delete; as a FA this seems like a case where there could be benefit to retaining page history, and given the status and history of this article my guess is that's there's outside links here that would be broken if deleted. With that said, I don't see any notability in this subject. A notable athlete on a notable team, but too much detail for an instance where there isn't significant coverage or a significant role by this player. The others may be salvageable, though. Hog Farm Talk 21:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Per Hog Farm: retaining page history. Femke ( talk) 21:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge selectively. Ring's role in the tour is relatively minor. Coverage of his participation is trivial and mostly appears to be routine match reporting. While he was relatively successful in tour matches outside of the Test series, this is not covered in detail by reliable sources. He is mentioned in passing in Wisden and while he is championed by Bill O'Reilly as a potential Test player, though this appears to be more about O'Reilly criticising Bradman than about Ring. Hack ( talk) 14:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have started working on this, and access to sources is better than the old days because of increased digitisation Grubby Richard ( talk) 18:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (selectively) into Ring's bio and the tour article where the content is not undue in those articles. Although both tour and player are notable, the cross-section is not. There is insufficient material to sustain an independent article without venturing into original synthesis based on statistics, and his role in the tour has not been covered extensively in reliable third-party sources. Nonetheless, the page history should be preserved in case it's useful in the future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 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 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 23:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Yehudit Tamir

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

BLP without working references and no obvious claim to notability. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:45, 30 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. ✗ plicit 23:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ferber, Illinois

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

Another Illinois rail junction sitting in a rural area, with no town. Searching comes up completely dry other than a few rail-related hits. Mangoe ( talk) 21:41, 30 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 speedy keep. Involved close per WP:WDAFD Spinning Spark 13:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Genghis Khan (TV programme)

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

This was rescued from WP:PROD, but I think still merits a debate on its notability - a one-off 50-minute documentary about Genghis Khan from 2005 that I have personally struggled to find secondary coverage of through the haze of the numerous other productions on the same subject. Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:01, 30 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 and salt. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Charlotte Stokely

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

Recreated pornbio that fails the required necessary sourcing required by GNG, N & BLP. Please salt when this is deleted again. This should not have been recreated without a review but the creator is move warring to force this into mainspace so formal activity is required. Spartaz Humbug! 19:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Zaathras: Yes, I am just quoting. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 17:41, 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 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 23:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Jalan Johor Lama

Jalan Johor Lama (  | 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 road. The only reference is about a burst water pipe that doesn't mention the road. SL93 ( talk) 18:45, 30 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 07:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Zenel Hajdini

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

Zenel Hajdini

The subject of this article does not appear to satisfy general notability because he does not have significant coverage by independent secondary sources. Review of sources shows that they do not appear to be independent and secondary. Review of sources also found at least one case where the text appears to be almost the same as the machine translation of the Albanian source.

Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
Pirusti News About the town in which he was born Yes No, could not find mention of subject Yes Yes
Rainca.com Account of his life No Yes Yes No
Tupalla.com Was not able to get machine translation from Albanian No - This is the web site of the town of his birth. Yes
plus-televizion.tv/ About his unit rather than about him Yes Not about the subject Yes No
www.botasot.info/ Passing mention of subject Yes No Probably No

Article was created in article space by originator, then moved back into draft space by User:GPL93, and declined by User:Eternal Shadow and User:Idoghor Melody. Originator then copy-pasted article from draft space to article space. History merge has been requested, but does not mean that it is ready for article space.

The subject very likely is notable, but this draft does not demonstrate notability, as well as having tone problems. Draftification is probably in order, but unilateral draftification would be move-warring. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:58, 30 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 redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof. Sandstein 08:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Bidoof

Bidoof (  | 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 Pokemon that fails WP:GNG, all sources are trivial mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV, and pulled from articles not actually about Bidoof itself. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I take the view that the debate over the coverage from the Kotaku sources is irrelevant. Even though Kotaku have published articles entirely about the character, they seem to be within the context of or related to the "Bidoof Day" promotional event run by Nintendo and the developers, as opposed to a proper observation or analysis about the character's prominence or otherwise . Even the Rickroll video was not made by an uninvolved third party (i.e. fan or critic), but Pokemon company employees. The aforementioned articles provide good info that can be adequately covered within the character's entry in the list article or any other related pages, but are unhelpful in demonstrating whether the topic is notable enough to warrant the presumption of a standalone page because of Wikipedia's strong policy stance against promotionalism. I am otherwise not in favor of the article itself being deleted or salted, though a permanent semi-protection to deter inexperienced editors from un-redirecting it again without good cause may be a reasonable course of action. Haleth ( talk) 10:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
There's a long-standing community consensus at WP:POKEMON. This fails it tremendously. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
That's an essay, while the general notability guideline is of course a guideline. One you can ignore, the other you can not. Dream Focus 18:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
That's fine, sourcing that weak doesn't satisfy the GNG either. The junk scraps you've scrounged up does not constitute significant coverage. But you've got a severe blind spot for that concept, so I won't waste my time arguing further. I believe unbiased, experienced editors will see through this ruse, like they usually do. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the delete and salt opinions above. Note that I actually prefer redirection, but the vindictive opinions above force me to !vote in such a manner since enough admins seem to count noses rather than arguments. To be clear: there's enough RS coverage for this to be a standalone article, even if editorially redirecting to a list makes better sense. Jclemens ( talk) 18:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • What are you talking about? We held a community discussion at the Wikiproject level, got a consensus, and I even waited another week after that to wait to wait and see if there was any last interest in improving it. After a week of silence, I redirected. Someone unilaterally undid the redirect weeks later, so this AFD was created. Everything has been done entirely by the book here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    Is a fictional rodent really the hill you want to die on? Even looking comparatively to other Pokemon, if various legendaries couldn't withstand the notability test would a totally inconsequential random Pokemon do so? I do support fictional things being articles if they are of actual critical importance, but the reception of Bidoof is totally predicated on memes. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 19:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Just a general comment. The subject of a meme is treated like almost every topic on Wikipedia that is covered under WP:GNG. There are undisputably notable memes, and memes which lack that kind of prominence and is adequately covered as a section in another related article. If there are sources which provide WP:SIGCOV of the meme and makes a WP:CCOS for the topic, why would reception prose being "predicated on memes" be an issue? Haleth ( talk) 10:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
To be clear, I have no problem with the redirection, but deleting the content and/or protecting the redirect is punitive, when WP:CCC and Pokemon is an active franchise. Wikipedia:Pokémon test was created in 2005, so if it were an American, it could drive now. Jclemens ( talk) 07:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
That's ridiculous. Salting is standard practice when people repeatedly recreate articles against consensus without improvement. If consensus changes, a simple discussion can remove the protection. Something that forces additional improvement and discussion in situations like this is nothing but a good thing. Your accusation of "vindictiveness" is not only baseless, but probably one of the worst examples of projection I've seen in recent memory, when you end your argument with "even if editorially redirecting to a list makes better sense". Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Naah, I just AGF about the serial recreators better than most. Vindictiveness is a characterization, not an accusation, so please don't take offense: deletion, THEN recreating a redirect, THEN protecting that redirect is vindictive, in that deletion is unnecessary and a protected redirect will suffice. If that's you, (and per how I read this AfD, it is you and one other editor) don't fight the label, but rather reconsider whether you should refactor your input to be less vindictive. Individual Pokémon may gain notability, and when someone argues that a not-yet-notable topic with potential future notability should be deleted, rather than just redirected and the redirect protected, there's something going on besides just minimizing disruption: a value judgment that the editors in question should be prevented from ever working on that topic again without begging an admin or recreating it from scratch. So, feel free to refactor the suggestion for deletion before protection of a redirect if you don't want to be vindictive, or decline to refactor if you prefer to leave the statement as is. Jclemens ( talk) 07:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. Honestly, the reception section is showing literally pulling every possible strand of weak , non-significant coverage (two or three sentence mentions from articles on broader topics) to try to make the character seem notable; this is equivalent to when we had editors using "listicles" to support notability. The only real significant coverage of Bidoof is related to its meme nature, and a merge/direct would allow that information to still be mentioned in the List of Pokemon (as well as over at Rickrolling since I know I added that video there way back). -- Masem ( t) 13:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Draftify - the coverage on the meme barely causes it to pass WP:GNG in my eyes. A rewrite is definitely in need, however. If the article gets redirected, I think some more time in draft space, where it was pulled from, could work if someone really wants this to stay. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 04:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Speaking as someone who pay little attention to the Pokemon IP, the Mudkip one is better established as "culturally significant" when it comes to memes about individual Pokemon due to the coverage it generated, but it looked like the editors who participated in that AfD were not convinced that it helps the parent topic (Mudkip) pass GNG. Haleth ( talk) 00:49, 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) Natg 19 ( talk) 00:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Temujin (disambiguation)

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

Delete per WP:TWODABS. This disambiguation was pointlessly created. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 16:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

It was created for the reason that, despite Temujin obviously referring to Genghis Khan, because of the article on the 80s computer game of the same name, it otherwise becomes necessary to state on the Genghis Khan page that perhaps people actually meant the video game, not the historical conqueror. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep - other than the obvious pragmatism of clearly distinguishing between the name of an incredibly important figure from human history and a computer games, I have now added some other Wikipedia entries that have the same pronunciation, as well as highlighted some other areas of potential confusion. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
See WP:TWODABS, a hatnote can clearly distinguish as well when there is only one page to be disambiguated. A full page isn't necessary. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 07:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • There is nothing there that A) has its own article and B) isn't a partial title match besides the video game. Disambiguation pages are made for navigational purposes, this is just misrepresenting them as an index of related pages. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 07:44, 31 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. Geschichte ( talk) 19:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The Indigo Parallel

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

Probably created as WP:PROMO but is not unambiguous advertising so it is ineligible for speedy deletion. Fails WP:GNG clearly, has no press coverage at all. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 16:49, 30 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. Also created by a Bodiadub sockpuppet. MER-C 16:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Cody Jefferson

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

A businessman ("entrepeneur" in marketing-speak) that does not meet the general notability guideline due to being bereft of coverage from independent sources. A plausible claim to significance (hence escaping the A7 speedy deletion criterion) due to his work for Forbes, and not sufficiently promotional for the G11 speedy deletion criterion (though "personal empowerment, spiritual fulfillment, overcoming adversity and building business with exit in mind" is meaningless to me). Bringing this to AfD to guard against future recreations and because it is a newly-created article and I would expect objection to a proposed deletion. Sdrqaz ( talk) 16:35, 30 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 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 00:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Neat (TV series)

Neat (TV series) (  | 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 television show, not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. Full disclosure, I was the original creator of this, well over a decade ago when we extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television show that verifiably existed at all regardless of its actual sourceability or lack thereof -- but the inclusion standards for TV shows have been considerably tightened up in the past 13 years to rely much more on the quality of the referencing, and I just can't find very much on a ProQuest search to salvage the article with: apart from two "new show debuts" articles in 2004, I otherwise just get glancing namechecks of the show's existence in tangential later coverage of its host making appearances at home design expos, so there just isn't enough coverage about this show to get it over the WP:GNG bar. Bearcat ( talk) 16:29, 30 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 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 00:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Jammer keyboard

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

COI;unnotability Swiss Frank ( talk) 15:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Related discussions: 2021-08 Thummer keyboard (closed as redirect)
-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 7 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 15:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Bruno Sousa (footballer, born March 1996)

Bruno Sousa (footballer, born March 1996) (  | 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 and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 68 minutes spread across two cup matches for Rio Ave. Geschichte ( talk) 14:00, 30 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. ✗ plicit 15:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Buzz Lightyear (disambiguation)

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

None of the entries in this list is known solely as "Buzz Lightyear" alone, and a disambiguation page should not consist of WP:Partial title matches. Ultimately, "Buzz Lightyear" is not ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:27, 30 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Panyd The muffin is not subtle 12:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Petit Tube

Petit Tube (  | 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 a non-notable website. Found a very brief Daze Digital article and one by a website called Tube Filter but that is it. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 11:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator - Managed to find reference and I'm an idiot Panyd The muffin is not subtle 11:59, 30 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. Sandstein 08:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

"And" theory of conservatism

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

Article with bad sources and cleanup templates that haven't been touched. Also looks like low relevance as I couldn't find any good info on it. Perfecnot ( talk) 02:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Perfecnot ( talk) 02:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Perfecnot ( talk) 02:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:30, 30 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. Sandstein 08:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Larry Kawa

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

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill dentist businessman. Edwardx ( talk) 09:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of Peter303x's improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:26, 30 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Organization of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana

Organization of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listing of academics by department in a university faculty. Essentially copied off the university website, no independent sourcing, and just a directory. Mccapra ( talk) 10:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, WP:NOTDIRECTORY Danstronger ( talk) 15:16, 30 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 redirect to Premier Volleyball League. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 00:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Shakey's V-League Notable Records

Shakey's V-League Notable Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and tagged for lack of notability for over 10 years. -- Beland ( talk) 08:28, 30 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Tushar Prakash Rayate

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

WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SIGCOV, All the socalled sources mentioned in the article are paid promotional news articles. Their one company which is their whole work and its paid media coverage(Literally! all the articles are just copy-paste of the same texts) can not be considered for GNG. Nor for being a notable entrepreneur or for being notable educator notability, they are not anything. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 08:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, there are significant reliable sources too which has no disclaimer or any kind of notice shown which states that the content is promotional google source here > [20]. — User:Marathi.Wiki.Editor ( talk) 9:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, After reviewing the article i have seen that the kind of articles which looked like promotional one have already been removed and only the reliable and authenticated sources has given, my view,. this article has no need to delete — User:JarvisLoog ( talk) 9:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — JarvisLoog ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, have gone through the sources as well as some google search and also found that the person on which the article is written has verified presence on social media platform like facebook and in my view facebook doesn't give the verified badge to anyone, gives only to the people who are popular and well known... you can review here [21] — User:Jiolal41 ( talk) 9:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, I have gone through as much as sources i found on web and it states that the person on which the article is written is well known for his work he is doing for the rural areas on his country and has already been featured on many TV programs as well for his contribution towards the society so we should keep this article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivloger ( talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikivloger ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I am in the favor of keeping this article as it does really talks about well known personality and has good sources to confirm the same on web — User:Reviewwikiindia ( talk) 11:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Reviewwikiindia ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: as per above entire discussion. i have reviewed the articles peace by peace and searched for relevant content and information then found that we can keep this article. Wikiforindia( talk) 12:20, 30 October 2021 (IST) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikiforindia ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note for administrator: At least 5 of the accounts above voting to keep have been created recently and have no edits outside of this AfD and userpage. MT Train Talk 07:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note for administrator: according to MT Train i have created account recently but it really doesn't state that I can't contribute to the wikipedia and doesn't proves anything wrong me or any other new user has done. Wikiforindia( talk) 01:06, 30 October 2021 (IST)
  • Note for administrator:, according to Wikipedia guidelines anyone can contribute to Wikipedia whether it would be a new user or old, only matters is the right contribution. i might be new user on wikipedia but i thing i have voted on the basis of the information which was available on internet and cross-verified the sources Aswell. hopefully the administrator will consider new users contribution and this will help to boost the confidence of new users as well it will be a fare trail — User:Reviewwikiindia ( talk) 1:32, 31 October 2021 (IST)
  • Note for administrator:, Strongly agreed with — User:Reviewwikiindia as being new or old user doesn't matter to me either, we are here to make this place more useful and informative for the peoples around from the globe. also the another user — User:Marathi.Wiki.Editor has given google news sources to prove the authenticity [22]. so i do think the article needs to be available on wikipedia — User:Wikivloger ( talk) 1:45, 31 October 2021 (IST) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikivloger ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Additionally, new users might want to go through WP:MEAT and WP:QUACK § Variations. MT Train Talk 09:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note: I just plain removed comments from Jaanvikwiki and Kickystar ( diff). Might as well have less clutter. El_C 10:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

And another by Marathi.Wiki.Editor ( diff). Upgraded semi to WP:ECP. Wow, impressive spammage. El_C 10:36, 31 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 06:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Dilip Chalil

Dilip Chalil (  | 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 notability in the article. A search turns up no in-depth mentions in reliable, independent sources. Consequently, fails WP:NBIO, and also fails to pass WP:NPOL as the subject has not held any office. AryKun ( talk) 05:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete was a good candidate for speedy. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 14:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being a member of a political party's organizing committee is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia irrespective of his sourceability or lack thereof, but the sourcing here is 5/7 primary sources that are not support for notability at all and 2/7 glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that isn't about him. That's not how you get a person over WP:GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 14:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This could well be speedy WP:G11'd. I don't see a notable individual being covered by sources here, and the article feels more like an advertisement about the individual than an encyclopedia entry. Otherwise, the individual clearly fails WP:NPOL and doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC, from my search of sources. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:45, 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 delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 06:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rajive Dhavan

Rajive Dhavan (  | 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 digital marketer. The article relies on interviews, press releases and features on unreliable startup news blogs. There isn't any independent, in-depth coverage on this person in reliable sources. M4DU7 ( talk) 04:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The Hindu article caught my eye but it was only an interview unfortunately. Rest all is more or less paid crap. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 14:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The individual may be very good at digital marketing, but what appears to be digital marketing sources disguised as news doesn't actually make the individual notable. My search for his name similarly comes up without him clearly being notable. I'd recommend that this be deleted, though if anyone can find additional Non-English sources that cover him that might be relevant here, please post them and ping me so I can re-evaluate my !vote. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    Hey Mike, I've seen your comment about the said individual. However, he seems to be doing a lot of notable work. Could you please re-look at your decision to delete his page. RohitMP ( talk) 16:18, 10 June 2022 (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) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 03:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Star ng Pasko

Star ng Pasko (  | 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:NSONG. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 03:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 03:17, 30 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 redirect to Mikey D#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Day of D'Struction

Day of D'Struction (  | 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 and WP:NALBUM. Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Late Than Never: In Memory of Paul C, I hoped the article creator would get the message regarding the total lack of notability of this artist's albums and allow them to be redirected, but no such luck... they persist in restoring them. So here we are again, with an album sourced to the album's liner notes and a couple of WP:PRIMARY promotional interviews from the artist on non-notable YouTube channels, and no better sources can be found. I say this should remain redirected to Mikey D#Discography, but it seems I need to get consensus for this. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree the artist's own article is extremely borderline notable, and I pointed this out to the article creator as well. The artist was a member of a hip hop group in the 1990s who were certainly notable and he featured on a notable album – I know this doesn't make him notable and automatically qualify for his own article per WP:INHERITED, just saying that he does have some background pedigree at least, which makes it possible that there is better information available about him. I was trying to go through these articles one at a time and getting rid of the clearly non-notable ones first. Richard3120 ( talk) 03:03, 30 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 redirect to Mikey D#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Dramacide

Dramacide (  | 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 and WP:NALBUM. Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Late Than Never: In Memory of Paul C, I hoped the article creator would get the message regarding the total lack of notability of this artist's albums and allow them to be redirected, but no such luck... they persist in restoring them. So here we are again, with an album sourced to the album's liner notes and a tweet from the artist, and no better sources can be found. I say this should remain redirected to Mikey D#Discography, but it seems I need to get consensus for this. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:49, 30 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 snow keep. Has now been edited within the last year... Geschichte ( talk) 10:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

East Taihang Glasswalk

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

Hasn't been edited in a year and requires more information to meet wikipedia's general notability guideline The furret lover ( talk) 00:46, 30 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 merge. Geschichte ( talk) 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

List of mayors of Whitchurch–Stouffville

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

Unreferenced list of entirely non-notable mayors of a small town. Whitchurch-Stouffville is not a large enough place that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #2, so it's not a place where we would need to keep an unsourced list of its mayors if absolutely none of them have Wikipedia articles. Bearcat ( talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Even regional chairs don't get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, because they still fall under WP:NPOL #2 as local politicians. So while it certainly might be possible to properly establish the notability of one or more people in this list by fully demonstrating that they have sufficient coverage to pass NPOL criteria, we can't and don't take it as a given in the absence of concrete proof. Bearcat ( talk) 12:33, 26 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) 00:11, 30 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. ✗ plicit 08:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Dan Bowden

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

Kept in 2008 (bundled AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stingy Brimm) on the grounds of his best selling titles on his faculty bio and possible pass of academic notability. However under current standards, I do not see that he's well cited enough to pass that, leaving the GNG. There are interviews, and a number of performance listings but nothing independent, or significant enough. The books may well be best sellers, but I'm unable to verify that independently of his own school Star Mississippi 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:07, 30 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 redirect to Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad. Sandstein 19:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

GSSG Holding

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

There is no substantive coverage of this company in reliable sources. There are only off-hand mentions. The page should be redirected to Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad, the person who runs the company (he too barely meets notability), If there's any content worth keeping, it should be merged with the Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad but there doesn't seem to be any content worth keeping. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it might be reverted to draft if it doesn't meet the notability guideline, however, there are some regional sources as references and it's an old article and old company. In my opinion, deletion sounds rude for this article. Mommmyy ( talk) 19:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or redirect: An article by a briefly-active user who appears to have been connected to the principal of this company [23] and acting under instruction [24]. Neither under the names "The Jersey Group" nor the present name is there evidence that the holding company has attained notability. The holding company is briefly covered on the Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad page so a redirect to there could be an option. AllyD ( talk) 07:25, 30 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 07:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ashwin Alok

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

Autobiography, recently accepted at AfC after being declined 6 times. The article superficially looks factual and neutral, but the sources are anything but: [25]: "This talented mind has completed his graduation in 2016 ...", [26]: "This talented mind's film ‘Namaste’ was shortlisted ...", [27]: "This talented person has already started working more passionately on his dreams and will reach new heights in no time." [28]: "This talented mind has already created a path for himself in the industry and with such movies, he is making a great impression on his audience." I don't think these sources are useable as the basis for an encyclopedia. Vexations ( talk) 10:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 15:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:05, 30 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 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 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Jigarwala (2015 film)

Jigarwala (2015 film) (  | 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 pass GNG, WP:NFO, any inclusionary criteria. Unlikely that full length reviews of this film exist, in print or web. Sources in article and those that exist on the web are directory listings, unreliable and trivial. - hako9 ( talk) 19:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - hako9 ( talk) 19:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 ( talk) 19:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:01, 30 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_October_30&oldid=1054202804"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 29 October 31 >

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. ✗ plicit 23:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Morgan Sea

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

recent graduate, probably WP:TOOSOON Vexations ( talk) 16:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations ( talk) 16:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saskatchewan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 30 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 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 00:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Indian Society for Training and Development

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

Every reference is either an uncritical interview with them, or a mere mention, or other PR, DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 30 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Behzad Bolour

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

The article includes a few BBC links (not independent) and some YouTube videos. A BEFORE search didn't result in anything other than a passing mention here. Pretty obvious COI/UPE looking from the pictures. Borderline A7/G11. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE and isn't notable in the slightest. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Behzad Bolour is a well-known Iranian journalist and producer in the BBC Persian who has been making movie and programs in BBC organization for two decades, and you can take a look at his page on the BBC's official website.

There is also a famous program made by him called Bolour Banafsh (Purple Crystal) and KOOK (TV series) on the prestigious IMDb site, and you can easily find parts of this program with a search. Behzad Bolour has also won numerous awards, some of which are available on various sites as archives( here). The same YouTube pages that you say belong to BBC Farsi and not every person's video is published on this page. He has also been mentioned in various sites and news agencies, and I will give you some examples below. 1 2 3 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 Behzad Bolour's complete information is mentioned in his Persian Wikipedia, which was made in 2016, and this article has been translated into English from his Persian Wikipedia. FatemehKhalili ( talk) 19:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Mrschimpf, it's not a vote, see WP:!VOTE. The bold text is just a summary, you're not required to use it (though you can, I use it as well). ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 19:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment FK had posted the text without a 'keep' in front, including text that broke the daily AfD log, so I clarified their position since they seem unfamiliar with the AfD process and it read as they wanted to keep. Just trying to keep things tidy. Nate • ( chatter) 19:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes. Some of these are mentions, not significant. There is one interview and others don't seem reliable or independent in the first place. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 19:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

There is a lot to say about him. I put a few by chance at the top. Most of the resources are very old because he has been working professionally for many years. FatemehKhalili ( talk) 19:58, 16 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) 18:59, 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) 23:24, 30 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Information Today

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

Promotional article. Cited only to primary-sourced directory information - no RS coverage. A WP:BEFORE shows no third-party RS coverage of the company that I could find - plenty of uses of the words "information today" and several other companies of the same name. I could be wrong, but it would be need to be shown with clear third-party RS coverage meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. They should be notable per the large claims - but we have nothing to base an article on. Article tagged since 2018 without improvement; no reasonable prospect of organic improvement. PROD removed without addressing issues. David Gerard ( talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 11:42, 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) 23:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Very weak keep. Here are some bits and pieces: [6], [7], [8], doi: 10.1080/00049670.2012.10739073. I'm amused to be here because of this edit I just made, where I found an Information Today publication useful for publishing-related info (not an argument, obvi). AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 17:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • keep We have an interview and an article in an academic publication, which is more than nothing and passes WP:GNG with 2 sources. More sources would be better. In the case of publishers and publications which are themselves WP:Reliable sources used to back other Wikipedia articles with citations, I think we should accept fewer sources than typical even if it means a more bare article. I do not think we quite have a guideline for trade journals like this, but we do have Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) which makes a similar case for academic journals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:46, 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. ✗ plicit 23:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ben Jones (snooker player)

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

Has competed in events that were open to both professionals and amateurs, but this alone does not satisfy WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. These events had amateur qualifying sections, through which a set number of amateurs would qualify to appear in the main draw - from the last 128 onward - of the event, joining the professionals who were seeded to that stage; this is the only claim Ben Jones has to notability, and it's flimsy at best. If we are to agree that he's notable on that basis, we'll need to go about creating articles for every single amateur who's ever qualified to the first round of the Riga Open/Riga Masters, Paul Hunter Classic, or Gibraltar Open snooker tournaments...without putting it too bluntly, Ben from the snooker club might be a great player, but as per our guidelines and - frankly - common sense, an article with his name on it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Montgomery15 ( talk) 22:18, 30 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 merge to Doug Ring. Consensus is that parts but not necessarily all of this article should be merged. Sandstein 08:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

AfDs for this article:
Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though this article may be FA, there is significant concern that it fails to meet notability guidelines, particularly WP:PAGEDECIDE. Doug Ring is notable, the 1948 Australian cricket team is notable, but there is not enough significant coverage to justify a specific article on Doug Ring's performance as part of the 1948 team. The article quite literally says, and I quote, "Ring was not prominent in the team's success." Much of this article is either statistics, or a repeat of what is already included in the article Doug Ring. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

The user in question has an entire featured topic to their name. I fail to see how deletion of one article somehow affects their legacy. If you are wondering where this came from, take a look at Talk:Doug Ring and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1. The decision to nominate a featured article for deletion was not made lightly. Significant concerns have been raised about its notability. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
And I fail to see why the user matters at all. The article isn't worthy of inclusion, and that it was written by a much missed user does not matter even slightly in assessing its notability. 5225C ( talk • contributions) 02:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I sort of suggested this come to AfD as a way of reaching a wider audience than a merge discussion would. I hadn't realised that it had been nominated in 2014 and read that discussion with interest. I am swayed by Sarastro1's comments there (Sarastro1 is rarely around these days). There are clearly sources which exist and Sarastro1 was of the belief, having read them, that there was about enough coverage to justify the article from the POV of whether sources provide enough detail. That's a persuasive argument.
There are other arguments that can be made, and I'm unsure of the best approach to take here, other than that a merge would clearly need to be very, very selective and probably also very limited in scope.
If I'd have realised the 2014 discussion had taken place I'm not sure that I'd have suggested an AfD now fwiw, but there you go. Sorry about that. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 23:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I concur that it isn't a cut and dry situation, even as the nominator I am not 100% certain the article should be deleted. From reading the previous discussion, what struck me is the argument that an encyclopedia should not just be an indiscriminate collection of information. Particularly, I was struck by Calthan's comments in the discussion, some of which I will quote here:
"I've always seen this series of articles as being a failure to condense the subject into an encyclopedia article (or articles). Books focusing on a notable subject would generally be expected to cover the subject in detail, and just because information can be cited to books doesn't mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia article. An essential part of writing an encyclopedia article is selecting the portions of the information available that are important to understanding the topic. This article consists primarily of information such as the score or outcome at different points in different matches. Those are minute details that are not at all essential to understanding the main notable subject of the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Except for the "role" section, this article is all material that encyclopedia editors should have selected to not include in Wikipedia."
There are valid points that were raised by the keep voters, but it is also true that standards on Wikipedia have changed since 2014, and this article deserves reassessment of its notability, or lack thereof. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 23:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It does seem a bit much to have articles on each player in a single test series, however important that series may appear to be (though, I note that there is no mention of the series in Test cricket). And then there is Ring's record in the series (1 test, 9 runs, 1 wicket) which can pretty much be summed up as "didn't do much, did he?" (though he seems to have done a lot better against the county teams). Much though I'd like to say "keep" out of respect for YM who is much missed on wikipedia, merge is probably the right choice. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 00:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was the nominator last time this article was up for deletion, and although the consensus was in favor of keeping it, in the intervening years there has been no further demonstration of notability and consensus can change. St Anselm ( talk) 00:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Doug Ring. ( JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge § Role to Doug Ring, delete. I was initially very convinced that this article should simply be deleted, but following conversation at the FAR I can appreciate that it's a bit more complex than that. The bulk of this article is, as mentioned above, unencyclopedic statistics. The statistics are only really placed in context in the Role section, and even then some of that content appears to be original research. I do not believe that notability is established in the article, I don't see a claim to significance or to importance, and to the contrary the article downplays its own significance. It's debatable as to whether all the almanacs/etc. can be used to establish notability, and maybe for other players they could, but when the lead introduces the subject as unimportant then I don't get why there's an independent article on it.
I do not believe that the previous AfDs (both for this article and the group nomination) were good discussions. A lot of comments were essentially "it's an FA" and a few were a bit kooky in their definitions of notability and Wikipedia's purpose. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep it. To me, this article seems to be a bit of quirk of Wikipedia, a kind of remnant of when the site was a lot less bureaucratic and standards for inclusion were much laxer. If an article of this kind were created today I don't think it'd make a week, let alone pass as an FA. Our standards have changed and in my view its wrong to grandfather in articles which can't be brought up to the current standard. The FAR isn't gaining much traction and it looks as though the article will remain pretty much as it is.
If we're going to accept a collection of stats (and admittedly a pretty big collection) as combining to prove notability, it begs the question of how far we can stretch inclusion guidelines. I don't think this article meets them, and although we might not be a paper encyclopaedia there needs to be a reasonable limit to how far down a rabbit hole we can go. In this case, I think the limit is probably a step up from this, and we should have stopped with Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and Doug Ring. 5225C ( talk • contributions) 02:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC), amended 08:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
"Merge and delete" is not a possible AfD outcome, as it loses the attribution for the merged content. — Kusma ( talk) 13:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
As others have pointed out below, if you keep the redirect you keep the history. For the avoidance of doubt, I will re-word my !vote. 5225C ( talk • contributions) 08:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As the one who originally raised issues with the article here, I was concerned by issues with OR and inappropriate synthesis/editorializing. As it currently stands, the article heavily relies on game summaries and statistics. In my opinion, this signals a lack of notability; game summaries and statistics are common to most professional sporting events and therefore fail to indicate lasting significance. Moreover, when considering the additional sources used in this article, the topic's notability seems to be inferred from the fact that the team as a whole is notable, but notability is not inherited. To put it another way, I am concerned that allowing the article to remain as-is would send the message that articles about an athlete's performance in a single year, season, or comparable time span are inherently notable, which is not a precedent I think we should set. As a comparison, the 1972 Miami Dolphins were a historically successful team like Ring's 1948 team, but that should not imply that articles for Bob Griese with the Miami Dolphins in 1972, Earl Morrall with the Miami Dolphins in 1972, Larry Csonka with the Miami Dolphins in 1972, etc., are notable topics for inclusion on Wikipedia. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 03:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge to Doug Ring This is a contentious subject given that the article is a FA, however it's my view that as wikipedia has moved on there probably isn't a need for this kind of article given the subject's limited participation on the tour. Articles such as this for Don Bradman, Sid Barnes or many other on the tour are perfectly acceptable, but because Doug Ring played such a limited role on the tour in terms of test cricket a merge would be best here. In the FAR it was found that Wisden only had limited coverage on the subject and so GNG was likely to be an issue, but merging is a suitable WP:ATD. However as Blue Square Thing brought up in the FAR on the subject, a lot of the detail in this subject is already included at Doug Ring and if lots were to be merged then the Doug Ring article would become excessive and over detailed. Therefore a selective merge is required, likely to be done by someone from the Cricket WikiProject or with a close interest in the subject. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 10:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with the biography (or keep, I can't comment on the notability much as the topic is very alien to me); do not delete the redirect per m:Keep history and to have a good way to keep the paper trail of the FA nomination etc. Can't see any advantage of hiding the history from non-admins. — Kusma ( talk) 10:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and evaluate the others on their notability. Keeping them around could set a precedent for similar articles about other athletes, which could result in hundreds of extra headaches. Sounder Bruce 10:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. I recall raising my eyebrows when I saw this at TFA. There's far from enough coverage to justify a standalone article here; a combination of prose content that could be covered elsewhere, and statistics that Wikipedia is not a database for. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge to Doug Ring. Do not delete; as a FA this seems like a case where there could be benefit to retaining page history, and given the status and history of this article my guess is that's there's outside links here that would be broken if deleted. With that said, I don't see any notability in this subject. A notable athlete on a notable team, but too much detail for an instance where there isn't significant coverage or a significant role by this player. The others may be salvageable, though. Hog Farm Talk 21:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Per Hog Farm: retaining page history. Femke ( talk) 21:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge selectively. Ring's role in the tour is relatively minor. Coverage of his participation is trivial and mostly appears to be routine match reporting. While he was relatively successful in tour matches outside of the Test series, this is not covered in detail by reliable sources. He is mentioned in passing in Wisden and while he is championed by Bill O'Reilly as a potential Test player, though this appears to be more about O'Reilly criticising Bradman than about Ring. Hack ( talk) 14:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have started working on this, and access to sources is better than the old days because of increased digitisation Grubby Richard ( talk) 18:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (selectively) into Ring's bio and the tour article where the content is not undue in those articles. Although both tour and player are notable, the cross-section is not. There is insufficient material to sustain an independent article without venturing into original synthesis based on statistics, and his role in the tour has not been covered extensively in reliable third-party sources. Nonetheless, the page history should be preserved in case it's useful in the future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 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 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 23:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Yehudit Tamir

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

BLP without working references and no obvious claim to notability. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:45, 30 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. ✗ plicit 23:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ferber, Illinois

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

Another Illinois rail junction sitting in a rural area, with no town. Searching comes up completely dry other than a few rail-related hits. Mangoe ( talk) 21:41, 30 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 speedy keep. Involved close per WP:WDAFD Spinning Spark 13:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Genghis Khan (TV programme)

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

This was rescued from WP:PROD, but I think still merits a debate on its notability - a one-off 50-minute documentary about Genghis Khan from 2005 that I have personally struggled to find secondary coverage of through the haze of the numerous other productions on the same subject. Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:01, 30 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 and salt. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Charlotte Stokely

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

Recreated pornbio that fails the required necessary sourcing required by GNG, N & BLP. Please salt when this is deleted again. This should not have been recreated without a review but the creator is move warring to force this into mainspace so formal activity is required. Spartaz Humbug! 19:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Zaathras: Yes, I am just quoting. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 17:41, 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 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 23:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Jalan Johor Lama

Jalan Johor Lama (  | 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 road. The only reference is about a burst water pipe that doesn't mention the road. SL93 ( talk) 18:45, 30 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 07:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Zenel Hajdini

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

Zenel Hajdini

The subject of this article does not appear to satisfy general notability because he does not have significant coverage by independent secondary sources. Review of sources shows that they do not appear to be independent and secondary. Review of sources also found at least one case where the text appears to be almost the same as the machine translation of the Albanian source.

Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
Pirusti News About the town in which he was born Yes No, could not find mention of subject Yes Yes
Rainca.com Account of his life No Yes Yes No
Tupalla.com Was not able to get machine translation from Albanian No - This is the web site of the town of his birth. Yes
plus-televizion.tv/ About his unit rather than about him Yes Not about the subject Yes No
www.botasot.info/ Passing mention of subject Yes No Probably No

Article was created in article space by originator, then moved back into draft space by User:GPL93, and declined by User:Eternal Shadow and User:Idoghor Melody. Originator then copy-pasted article from draft space to article space. History merge has been requested, but does not mean that it is ready for article space.

The subject very likely is notable, but this draft does not demonstrate notability, as well as having tone problems. Draftification is probably in order, but unilateral draftification would be move-warring. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:58, 30 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 redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof. Sandstein 08:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Bidoof

Bidoof (  | 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 Pokemon that fails WP:GNG, all sources are trivial mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV, and pulled from articles not actually about Bidoof itself. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I take the view that the debate over the coverage from the Kotaku sources is irrelevant. Even though Kotaku have published articles entirely about the character, they seem to be within the context of or related to the "Bidoof Day" promotional event run by Nintendo and the developers, as opposed to a proper observation or analysis about the character's prominence or otherwise . Even the Rickroll video was not made by an uninvolved third party (i.e. fan or critic), but Pokemon company employees. The aforementioned articles provide good info that can be adequately covered within the character's entry in the list article or any other related pages, but are unhelpful in demonstrating whether the topic is notable enough to warrant the presumption of a standalone page because of Wikipedia's strong policy stance against promotionalism. I am otherwise not in favor of the article itself being deleted or salted, though a permanent semi-protection to deter inexperienced editors from un-redirecting it again without good cause may be a reasonable course of action. Haleth ( talk) 10:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
There's a long-standing community consensus at WP:POKEMON. This fails it tremendously. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
That's an essay, while the general notability guideline is of course a guideline. One you can ignore, the other you can not. Dream Focus 18:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
That's fine, sourcing that weak doesn't satisfy the GNG either. The junk scraps you've scrounged up does not constitute significant coverage. But you've got a severe blind spot for that concept, so I won't waste my time arguing further. I believe unbiased, experienced editors will see through this ruse, like they usually do. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the delete and salt opinions above. Note that I actually prefer redirection, but the vindictive opinions above force me to !vote in such a manner since enough admins seem to count noses rather than arguments. To be clear: there's enough RS coverage for this to be a standalone article, even if editorially redirecting to a list makes better sense. Jclemens ( talk) 18:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • What are you talking about? We held a community discussion at the Wikiproject level, got a consensus, and I even waited another week after that to wait to wait and see if there was any last interest in improving it. After a week of silence, I redirected. Someone unilaterally undid the redirect weeks later, so this AFD was created. Everything has been done entirely by the book here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    Is a fictional rodent really the hill you want to die on? Even looking comparatively to other Pokemon, if various legendaries couldn't withstand the notability test would a totally inconsequential random Pokemon do so? I do support fictional things being articles if they are of actual critical importance, but the reception of Bidoof is totally predicated on memes. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 19:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Just a general comment. The subject of a meme is treated like almost every topic on Wikipedia that is covered under WP:GNG. There are undisputably notable memes, and memes which lack that kind of prominence and is adequately covered as a section in another related article. If there are sources which provide WP:SIGCOV of the meme and makes a WP:CCOS for the topic, why would reception prose being "predicated on memes" be an issue? Haleth ( talk) 10:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
To be clear, I have no problem with the redirection, but deleting the content and/or protecting the redirect is punitive, when WP:CCC and Pokemon is an active franchise. Wikipedia:Pokémon test was created in 2005, so if it were an American, it could drive now. Jclemens ( talk) 07:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
That's ridiculous. Salting is standard practice when people repeatedly recreate articles against consensus without improvement. If consensus changes, a simple discussion can remove the protection. Something that forces additional improvement and discussion in situations like this is nothing but a good thing. Your accusation of "vindictiveness" is not only baseless, but probably one of the worst examples of projection I've seen in recent memory, when you end your argument with "even if editorially redirecting to a list makes better sense". Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Naah, I just AGF about the serial recreators better than most. Vindictiveness is a characterization, not an accusation, so please don't take offense: deletion, THEN recreating a redirect, THEN protecting that redirect is vindictive, in that deletion is unnecessary and a protected redirect will suffice. If that's you, (and per how I read this AfD, it is you and one other editor) don't fight the label, but rather reconsider whether you should refactor your input to be less vindictive. Individual Pokémon may gain notability, and when someone argues that a not-yet-notable topic with potential future notability should be deleted, rather than just redirected and the redirect protected, there's something going on besides just minimizing disruption: a value judgment that the editors in question should be prevented from ever working on that topic again without begging an admin or recreating it from scratch. So, feel free to refactor the suggestion for deletion before protection of a redirect if you don't want to be vindictive, or decline to refactor if you prefer to leave the statement as is. Jclemens ( talk) 07:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. Honestly, the reception section is showing literally pulling every possible strand of weak , non-significant coverage (two or three sentence mentions from articles on broader topics) to try to make the character seem notable; this is equivalent to when we had editors using "listicles" to support notability. The only real significant coverage of Bidoof is related to its meme nature, and a merge/direct would allow that information to still be mentioned in the List of Pokemon (as well as over at Rickrolling since I know I added that video there way back). -- Masem ( t) 13:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Draftify - the coverage on the meme barely causes it to pass WP:GNG in my eyes. A rewrite is definitely in need, however. If the article gets redirected, I think some more time in draft space, where it was pulled from, could work if someone really wants this to stay. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 04:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Speaking as someone who pay little attention to the Pokemon IP, the Mudkip one is better established as "culturally significant" when it comes to memes about individual Pokemon due to the coverage it generated, but it looked like the editors who participated in that AfD were not convinced that it helps the parent topic (Mudkip) pass GNG. Haleth ( talk) 00:49, 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) Natg 19 ( talk) 00:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Temujin (disambiguation)

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

Delete per WP:TWODABS. This disambiguation was pointlessly created. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 16:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

It was created for the reason that, despite Temujin obviously referring to Genghis Khan, because of the article on the 80s computer game of the same name, it otherwise becomes necessary to state on the Genghis Khan page that perhaps people actually meant the video game, not the historical conqueror. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep - other than the obvious pragmatism of clearly distinguishing between the name of an incredibly important figure from human history and a computer games, I have now added some other Wikipedia entries that have the same pronunciation, as well as highlighted some other areas of potential confusion. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
See WP:TWODABS, a hatnote can clearly distinguish as well when there is only one page to be disambiguated. A full page isn't necessary. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 07:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • There is nothing there that A) has its own article and B) isn't a partial title match besides the video game. Disambiguation pages are made for navigational purposes, this is just misrepresenting them as an index of related pages. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 07:44, 31 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. Geschichte ( talk) 19:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The Indigo Parallel

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

Probably created as WP:PROMO but is not unambiguous advertising so it is ineligible for speedy deletion. Fails WP:GNG clearly, has no press coverage at all. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 16:49, 30 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. Also created by a Bodiadub sockpuppet. MER-C 16:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Cody Jefferson

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

A businessman ("entrepeneur" in marketing-speak) that does not meet the general notability guideline due to being bereft of coverage from independent sources. A plausible claim to significance (hence escaping the A7 speedy deletion criterion) due to his work for Forbes, and not sufficiently promotional for the G11 speedy deletion criterion (though "personal empowerment, spiritual fulfillment, overcoming adversity and building business with exit in mind" is meaningless to me). Bringing this to AfD to guard against future recreations and because it is a newly-created article and I would expect objection to a proposed deletion. Sdrqaz ( talk) 16:35, 30 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 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 00:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Neat (TV series)

Neat (TV series) (  | 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 television show, not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. Full disclosure, I was the original creator of this, well over a decade ago when we extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television show that verifiably existed at all regardless of its actual sourceability or lack thereof -- but the inclusion standards for TV shows have been considerably tightened up in the past 13 years to rely much more on the quality of the referencing, and I just can't find very much on a ProQuest search to salvage the article with: apart from two "new show debuts" articles in 2004, I otherwise just get glancing namechecks of the show's existence in tangential later coverage of its host making appearances at home design expos, so there just isn't enough coverage about this show to get it over the WP:GNG bar. Bearcat ( talk) 16:29, 30 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 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 00:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Jammer keyboard

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

COI;unnotability Swiss Frank ( talk) 15:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Related discussions: 2021-08 Thummer keyboard (closed as redirect)
-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 7 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 15:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Bruno Sousa (footballer, born March 1996)

Bruno Sousa (footballer, born March 1996) (  | 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 and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 68 minutes spread across two cup matches for Rio Ave. Geschichte ( talk) 14:00, 30 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. ✗ plicit 15:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Buzz Lightyear (disambiguation)

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

None of the entries in this list is known solely as "Buzz Lightyear" alone, and a disambiguation page should not consist of WP:Partial title matches. Ultimately, "Buzz Lightyear" is not ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:27, 30 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Panyd The muffin is not subtle 12:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Petit Tube

Petit Tube (  | 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 a non-notable website. Found a very brief Daze Digital article and one by a website called Tube Filter but that is it. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 11:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator - Managed to find reference and I'm an idiot Panyd The muffin is not subtle 11:59, 30 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. Sandstein 08:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

"And" theory of conservatism

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

Article with bad sources and cleanup templates that haven't been touched. Also looks like low relevance as I couldn't find any good info on it. Perfecnot ( talk) 02:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Perfecnot ( talk) 02:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Perfecnot ( talk) 02:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:30, 30 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. Sandstein 08:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Larry Kawa

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

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill dentist businessman. Edwardx ( talk) 09:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of Peter303x's improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:26, 30 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Organization of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana

Organization of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listing of academics by department in a university faculty. Essentially copied off the university website, no independent sourcing, and just a directory. Mccapra ( talk) 10:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, WP:NOTDIRECTORY Danstronger ( talk) 15:16, 30 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 redirect to Premier Volleyball League. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 00:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Shakey's V-League Notable Records

Shakey's V-League Notable Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and tagged for lack of notability for over 10 years. -- Beland ( talk) 08:28, 30 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Tushar Prakash Rayate

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

WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SIGCOV, All the socalled sources mentioned in the article are paid promotional news articles. Their one company which is their whole work and its paid media coverage(Literally! all the articles are just copy-paste of the same texts) can not be considered for GNG. Nor for being a notable entrepreneur or for being notable educator notability, they are not anything. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 08:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, there are significant reliable sources too which has no disclaimer or any kind of notice shown which states that the content is promotional google source here > [20]. — User:Marathi.Wiki.Editor ( talk) 9:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, After reviewing the article i have seen that the kind of articles which looked like promotional one have already been removed and only the reliable and authenticated sources has given, my view,. this article has no need to delete — User:JarvisLoog ( talk) 9:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — JarvisLoog ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, have gone through the sources as well as some google search and also found that the person on which the article is written has verified presence on social media platform like facebook and in my view facebook doesn't give the verified badge to anyone, gives only to the people who are popular and well known... you can review here [21] — User:Jiolal41 ( talk) 9:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, I have gone through as much as sources i found on web and it states that the person on which the article is written is well known for his work he is doing for the rural areas on his country and has already been featured on many TV programs as well for his contribution towards the society so we should keep this article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivloger ( talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikivloger ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I am in the favor of keeping this article as it does really talks about well known personality and has good sources to confirm the same on web — User:Reviewwikiindia ( talk) 11:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Reviewwikiindia ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: as per above entire discussion. i have reviewed the articles peace by peace and searched for relevant content and information then found that we can keep this article. Wikiforindia( talk) 12:20, 30 October 2021 (IST) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikiforindia ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note for administrator: At least 5 of the accounts above voting to keep have been created recently and have no edits outside of this AfD and userpage. MT Train Talk 07:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note for administrator: according to MT Train i have created account recently but it really doesn't state that I can't contribute to the wikipedia and doesn't proves anything wrong me or any other new user has done. Wikiforindia( talk) 01:06, 30 October 2021 (IST)
  • Note for administrator:, according to Wikipedia guidelines anyone can contribute to Wikipedia whether it would be a new user or old, only matters is the right contribution. i might be new user on wikipedia but i thing i have voted on the basis of the information which was available on internet and cross-verified the sources Aswell. hopefully the administrator will consider new users contribution and this will help to boost the confidence of new users as well it will be a fare trail — User:Reviewwikiindia ( talk) 1:32, 31 October 2021 (IST)
  • Note for administrator:, Strongly agreed with — User:Reviewwikiindia as being new or old user doesn't matter to me either, we are here to make this place more useful and informative for the peoples around from the globe. also the another user — User:Marathi.Wiki.Editor has given google news sources to prove the authenticity [22]. so i do think the article needs to be available on wikipedia — User:Wikivloger ( talk) 1:45, 31 October 2021 (IST) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikivloger ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Additionally, new users might want to go through WP:MEAT and WP:QUACK § Variations. MT Train Talk 09:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

information Administrator note: I just plain removed comments from Jaanvikwiki and Kickystar ( diff). Might as well have less clutter. El_C 10:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

And another by Marathi.Wiki.Editor ( diff). Upgraded semi to WP:ECP. Wow, impressive spammage. El_C 10:36, 31 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 06:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Dilip Chalil

Dilip Chalil (  | 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 notability in the article. A search turns up no in-depth mentions in reliable, independent sources. Consequently, fails WP:NBIO, and also fails to pass WP:NPOL as the subject has not held any office. AryKun ( talk) 05:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete was a good candidate for speedy. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 14:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being a member of a political party's organizing committee is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia irrespective of his sourceability or lack thereof, but the sourcing here is 5/7 primary sources that are not support for notability at all and 2/7 glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that isn't about him. That's not how you get a person over WP:GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 14:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This could well be speedy WP:G11'd. I don't see a notable individual being covered by sources here, and the article feels more like an advertisement about the individual than an encyclopedia entry. Otherwise, the individual clearly fails WP:NPOL and doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC, from my search of sources. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:45, 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 delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 06:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rajive Dhavan

Rajive Dhavan (  | 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 digital marketer. The article relies on interviews, press releases and features on unreliable startup news blogs. There isn't any independent, in-depth coverage on this person in reliable sources. M4DU7 ( talk) 04:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The Hindu article caught my eye but it was only an interview unfortunately. Rest all is more or less paid crap. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 14:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The individual may be very good at digital marketing, but what appears to be digital marketing sources disguised as news doesn't actually make the individual notable. My search for his name similarly comes up without him clearly being notable. I'd recommend that this be deleted, though if anyone can find additional Non-English sources that cover him that might be relevant here, please post them and ping me so I can re-evaluate my !vote. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    Hey Mike, I've seen your comment about the said individual. However, he seems to be doing a lot of notable work. Could you please re-look at your decision to delete his page. RohitMP ( talk) 16:18, 10 June 2022 (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) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 03:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Star ng Pasko

Star ng Pasko (  | 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:NSONG. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 03:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 03:17, 30 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 redirect to Mikey D#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Day of D'Struction

Day of D'Struction (  | 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 and WP:NALBUM. Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Late Than Never: In Memory of Paul C, I hoped the article creator would get the message regarding the total lack of notability of this artist's albums and allow them to be redirected, but no such luck... they persist in restoring them. So here we are again, with an album sourced to the album's liner notes and a couple of WP:PRIMARY promotional interviews from the artist on non-notable YouTube channels, and no better sources can be found. I say this should remain redirected to Mikey D#Discography, but it seems I need to get consensus for this. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree the artist's own article is extremely borderline notable, and I pointed this out to the article creator as well. The artist was a member of a hip hop group in the 1990s who were certainly notable and he featured on a notable album – I know this doesn't make him notable and automatically qualify for his own article per WP:INHERITED, just saying that he does have some background pedigree at least, which makes it possible that there is better information available about him. I was trying to go through these articles one at a time and getting rid of the clearly non-notable ones first. Richard3120 ( talk) 03:03, 30 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 redirect to Mikey D#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Dramacide

Dramacide (  | 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 and WP:NALBUM. Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Late Than Never: In Memory of Paul C, I hoped the article creator would get the message regarding the total lack of notability of this artist's albums and allow them to be redirected, but no such luck... they persist in restoring them. So here we are again, with an album sourced to the album's liner notes and a tweet from the artist, and no better sources can be found. I say this should remain redirected to Mikey D#Discography, but it seems I need to get consensus for this. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:49, 30 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 snow keep. Has now been edited within the last year... Geschichte ( talk) 10:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

East Taihang Glasswalk

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

Hasn't been edited in a year and requires more information to meet wikipedia's general notability guideline The furret lover ( talk) 00:46, 30 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 merge. Geschichte ( talk) 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

List of mayors of Whitchurch–Stouffville

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

Unreferenced list of entirely non-notable mayors of a small town. Whitchurch-Stouffville is not a large enough place that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #2, so it's not a place where we would need to keep an unsourced list of its mayors if absolutely none of them have Wikipedia articles. Bearcat ( talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Even regional chairs don't get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, because they still fall under WP:NPOL #2 as local politicians. So while it certainly might be possible to properly establish the notability of one or more people in this list by fully demonstrating that they have sufficient coverage to pass NPOL criteria, we can't and don't take it as a given in the absence of concrete proof. Bearcat ( talk) 12:33, 26 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) 00:11, 30 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. ✗ plicit 08:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Dan Bowden

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

Kept in 2008 (bundled AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stingy Brimm) on the grounds of his best selling titles on his faculty bio and possible pass of academic notability. However under current standards, I do not see that he's well cited enough to pass that, leaving the GNG. There are interviews, and a number of performance listings but nothing independent, or significant enough. The books may well be best sellers, but I'm unable to verify that independently of his own school Star Mississippi 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:07, 30 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 redirect to Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad. Sandstein 19:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

GSSG Holding

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

There is no substantive coverage of this company in reliable sources. There are only off-hand mentions. The page should be redirected to Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad, the person who runs the company (he too barely meets notability), If there's any content worth keeping, it should be merged with the Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad but there doesn't seem to be any content worth keeping. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it might be reverted to draft if it doesn't meet the notability guideline, however, there are some regional sources as references and it's an old article and old company. In my opinion, deletion sounds rude for this article. Mommmyy ( talk) 19:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or redirect: An article by a briefly-active user who appears to have been connected to the principal of this company [23] and acting under instruction [24]. Neither under the names "The Jersey Group" nor the present name is there evidence that the holding company has attained notability. The holding company is briefly covered on the Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad page so a redirect to there could be an option. AllyD ( talk) 07:25, 30 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 07:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ashwin Alok

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

Autobiography, recently accepted at AfC after being declined 6 times. The article superficially looks factual and neutral, but the sources are anything but: [25]: "This talented mind has completed his graduation in 2016 ...", [26]: "This talented mind's film ‘Namaste’ was shortlisted ...", [27]: "This talented person has already started working more passionately on his dreams and will reach new heights in no time." [28]: "This talented mind has already created a path for himself in the industry and with such movies, he is making a great impression on his audience." I don't think these sources are useable as the basis for an encyclopedia. Vexations ( talk) 10:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 15:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:05, 30 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 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 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Jigarwala (2015 film)

Jigarwala (2015 film) (  | 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 pass GNG, WP:NFO, any inclusionary criteria. Unlikely that full length reviews of this film exist, in print or web. Sources in article and those that exist on the web are directory listings, unreliable and trivial. - hako9 ( talk) 19:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - hako9 ( talk) 19:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 ( talk) 19:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:01, 30 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_October_30&oldid=1054202804"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE