Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 05 August 07 >

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 keep. ✗ plicit 12:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Meg Johnson (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER; no other Meg Johnsons to add to this page. – DarkGlow • 22:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Margaret has been shortened to lots of things over the years, including Meg, and different usages ni different places. Definitely deserves a listing. There was also an entry that hadn't been added, which I have now done, so it is 3 Megs, and a Megan and Margaret in the see also. 3 valid entries plus 2 valid see alsos is enough to meet the guidelnies - and dabs are cheap. No advantages to readers to deleting this. Boleyn ( talk) 07:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it stands. I would move the actress to a disambiguated title, given the relative obscurity of the subject. BD2412 T 21:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep perfectly valid dab In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, the 3rd entry passes DABMENTION and its possible that this might end up at the base name anyway as a result of the RM so I'd put this discussion on hold anyway, I guess we could put the other 2 uses in a hatnote if we conclude that there is a primary topic though. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ren Keyu

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

Not a notable person. A minor and the only reference in the article is the Guinness Book of World Records. BEFORE search just gives some low quality "Chinese teen breaks world record according to Guinness" coverage. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 2018 sources:
      1. 顾爱刚 (2018-06-26). 杨婷 (ed.). "年龄:11岁 身高：206厘米 这个乐山男孩可能是全球最高小学生" [Age: 11 years old Height: 206 cm This Leshan boy may be the tallest elementary school student in the world]. zh:成都商报. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Xinhua News Agency.

        This is an extensive profile of the subject.

      2. "被同學譏笑像巨人怪物　11歲小六生高2.06米或成全球最高小學生" [Being ridiculed by classmates like a giant monster. An 11-year-old elementary school student with a height of 2.06 meters and could become the tallest elementary school student in the world]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2018-06-26. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
      3. 朱加樟 (2018-06-26). "四川11歲小學生身高2.06米　或成健力士世界紀錄" [An 11-year-old elementary school student in Sichuan is 2.06 meters tall and may become the Guinness World Record holder] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
    2. 2020 sources about the subject's application to the Guinness World Records and subsequently setting the Guinness World Record:
      1. 顾爱刚 (2020-10-19). 郑亚鹏 (ed.). "四川14岁男孩高2米21，申请吉尼斯世界纪录" [A 14-year-old boy from Sichuan is 2.21 m tall and applies for the Guinness World Records]. zh:红星新闻 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.

        This is an extensive profile of the subject.

      2. 顾爱刚 (2020-11-18). 赖柳华 (ed.). "2米21！四川14岁男孩身高创吉尼斯纪录 成都商报 11月18日12:26" [2.21 m! A 14-year-old boy in Sichuan sets a Guinness record for height]. zh:成都商报 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.

        From Google Translate: "Red Star News exclusively reported that Xiaoyu challenged the title of "Tallest Youth (Male)" in the Guinness World Records, which attracted the attention of many netizens at home and abroad. The news once became a hot topic on Weibo that day, with more than 260 million readings, and Douyin videos played hundreds of millions of times."

      3. "只比姚明矮5cm！ 14歲川童2米21 拚青少年金氏紀錄" [Only 5cm shorter than Yao Ming! 14-year-old Sichuan boy 2.21 m fights the youth Jin's record]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2020-10-20. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
      4. 郑直 (2020-10-20). "四川14岁男孩身高2.21米 或超美国吉尼斯纪录保持者" [The 14-year-old boy in Sichuan is 2.21 meters tall and may surpass the Guinness record holder]. The China Press (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
      5. Kingsu-Cheng, Jane (2020-12-11). "Look: World's tallest teenager is a 14-year-old Chinese student". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
      6. Hooper, Ben (2020-11-20). "Chinese teenager breaks Guinness record with 7-foot height". United Press International. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ren Keyu ( Chinese: 小宇) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep meets WP:GNG per the source found by Cunard. Could you please add these source to the article?. Thanks VocalIndia ( talk) 04:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Clint Curtis

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

Perennial candidate fails WP:NPOL. Not notable for making whistleblower complaints either. Reads like a collection of controversies and a collection of stale news blurbs. KidAd • SPEAK 22:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

If " During that same year, Curtis's accusations against Yang were the subject of a series of articles in the Daytona Beach News-Journal" is correct, with other whistleblower coverage, might be notable for that.

  • Delete, per WP:TNT. I don't often make this argument, but this article is an unqualified disaster as a BLP, and if I were writing it I would start completely from scratch. Vanamonde ( Talk) 11:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 23:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Meharab Hasan

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

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that under-19 or under-14 appearances count towards WP:NCRIC. I'm also not seeing enough coverage in searches to indicate a passing of WP:GNG for this sportsperson. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply


  • Delete. As far as I am aware, U## squads do not count for notability for any sport, cricket included. A search on Google only returns statlines and rosters (string: "meharab hasan"), nothing usable for notability. — A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that under-19 or under-14 appearances count towards WP:NCRIC. I'm also not seeing enough coverage in searches to indicate a passing of WP:GNG for this sportsperson. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Under-<age> squads don't help for notability for cricket or for any other sport. — A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Article now claims that he made his List A debut for Prime Bank on 31 May 2021, with a source that doesn't verify this. I checked the scorecard here and I can't see any mention of him. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:

Wikipedia accept division cricketer league? He play division cricket here is name is also showing his score — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanvirnahid565 ( talk • contribs)

If he meets WP:NCRIC then please cite a reliable source. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Please check now this article
It's just a link to his ESPN profile which shows some youth appearances. How is that notable? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Ok sir I am new here so I don’t know how to perfect Wikipedia articles writer I am learning now.

Can you help me to cerate a new Wikipedia page for a Bangladeshi singer

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

John Lucaites

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

Doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 19:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The only citations are primary sources from universities. An article solely or mostly using primary sources does not meet WP:GNG. Capsulecap ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 13:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The "Provost Professor" title doesn't appear to be quite as high a ranking in their system as "Distinguished Professor" or a named chair [1] [2], but it's not to be sneezed at, either. The cases for passing WP:PROF#C1, WP:PROF#C2, and WP:AUTHOR also look solid. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. PROF-C1 based on citation record and NAUTHOR.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As mentioned previously, the only citations are primary sources from universities. The Google Scholar citations are showing average numbers. Either significant contributions are made to demonstrate how their work has contributed to society or it be deleted. ElderZamzam ( talk) 00:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • This is blatantly false. Even if one looks only at the article at the time you made this comment rather than properly performing WP:BEFORE, the Iowa source is from a university but not his employer (not primary), there are two award citations from non-university organizations, and 36 reliable published secondary sources about his books. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Plenty of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, plenty of citations in what I believe to be a moderate citation field for WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 21:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. per WP:NPROF#1, he passes with many highly cited works: 8 works with 100+ citations for a low citation field. -- hroest 18:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 ( talk) 22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Obinitsa Community Centre

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

not notable. Info can be moved to the article Obinitsa Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Not a listed building according to the Estonian Register of Monuments. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 22:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Meherpur Stadium

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

Out of the two references given, one is untranslated and the other is dead. The article also contains a list of teams that have played in the stadium. As none of the football teams listed are notable enough to have articles, the stadium would be unlikely to get any publicity beyond a passing mention from a minor local source. Capsulecap ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Capsulecap ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Capsulecap ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. WP:IABOT can find an archived version of a web page and add the archived version to the reference. I used it on this article. Google Translate can translate a Bengali-language page to English. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 22:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Lopamudra R

Lopamudra R (  | 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 poet, fails WP:BIO. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 19:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 19:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 19:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: There are a stack of awards, all cited, an English-language newspaper article in the Deccan Chronicle and more in non-English sources. Furius ( talk) 11:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Verified all citation link. All are relevant and no link to wiki sites. Refer external link provided for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshb n ( talk • contribs) 05:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone can actually present sources here (right at this discussion) that helps pass WP:Creative. There is an NPOV alert when you read prestigious awards. Awards list (as long as it might be) doesn't grant notability. There is a YUVA PURASKAR from Sahitya Akadmi which is the only relevant award from my perspective here. Unless proper reception of work is not found and we will remain stuck with sources that say such and such award was given, my stand remains with Delete. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 16:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. According to WP:ANYBIO, awards do, in fact, grant notability, but only if they're "well-known and significant." Are any of her awards well-known and significant? None of them link to Wikipedia articles about the award, which isn't encouraging. pburka ( talk) 21:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Wiki pages don't prove notability, so aren't really relevant here Furius ( talk) 19:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Citations are valid. Lopa is a well known writer and a translator in Kerala. She has won awards from Kendra Sahitya Academey and Kerala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishawish ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic
  • Keep - A large number of reliable sources show notability, as do multiple awards, including at least one academic award, per links added above by another editor. The subject easily meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BIO. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 19:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discarding a number of non-policy-oriented !votes above, no consensus currently exists, but I believe there to be potential to form one with another seven days. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Articles crosses notability criteria. (non-admin closure) Sreeram Dilak ( talk) 06:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Philippe Couvreur

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 19:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article reads like a promotional bio writeup than an article which establishes why he is a notable jurist. TH1980 ( talk) 14:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft. There are hints towards potential avenues of notability - a substantial list of publications and teaching at high-level institutions - but a Google Scholar search does not indicate that the subject is well-cited. I would provide an opportunity for improvement, but delete if it is not substantially forthcoming. BD2412 T 21:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Registrar of the International Court of Justice would appear to be a notable enough role. Combined with his publications and academic positions, I think it's enough to cross the notability threshhold. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. GS citation record is tiny and certainly won't pass WP:Prof. Notability will have to be found elsewhere. I do not have a notion of how significant a Registrar is. The Main publications list should be deleted; it's just bloat. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC). reply
  • Keep. Registrar of the International Court of Justice seems important enough to be listed in the WP article and on the court website. It seems Registrar (law) is an important position that is not purely administrative. Remove promotional material and we should be good. -- hroest 18:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 23:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comicraft

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Possible merge/redirect to Richard Starkings? Boleyn ( talk) 19:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG so far as I can tell. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 14:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. I believe the reference by Argento Surfer is good and counts towards establishing notability. There appears to be a number of books which have a profile on this company and although I have to date been unable to get access to the books in question, I believe this company is recognised as notable in its specific field. HighKing ++ 19:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sotai

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

There's simply nothing I can find of this that isn't from A) its inventor/people closely associated with him (so not independent sources), or B) other pseudoscientific alternative medicine promoters (which are not, therefore, reliable sources). I can't find anything about any of the two main names (Hashimoto and Hayashi) cited, either. The few google hits I get seem to be mostly sales website of the books [along with an unrelated Japanese sociologist], while for the second they are entirely unrelated. There doesn't appear to be any potentially valid target where this could be redirected. Therefore, suggest delete. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 ( talk) 19:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can’t find any RIS in either Japanese or English. Mccapra ( talk) 01:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 15:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Beale GAA

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. I am aware that GAA isn't an area I know well though. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years, so hopefully we can get this resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 18:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY, article has been improved significantly since nomination. NemesisAT ( talk) 13:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Hugh F. Blunt

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

I don't think he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No hard evidence of the same has been presented, anyway. There is a long list of "additional sources" that aren't reflected in the text of the article, and I take it with a grain of salt, given that there are almost as many as there are sentences in the article. WP still isn't a memorial, and there is no evidence the subject meets WP:AUTHOR either. (So he purportedly has works still in print. *I* have that much, and I don't qualify for an article either.) Ravenswing 19:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It seems he's more known as Tip O'Neill's childhood priest than as an author. A Google Search returns almost nothing of value, an I can't imagine that the sourced books are anything more than just passing mentions considering most seem to be either bios of O'Neill or lists of Catholic authors. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Worldcat shows he has 2200 library holdings here which is significant, he also has been published by major publishers and received several national awards. I don't see this as a memorial as he died in 1957. There are plenty of reviews referenced in the article so there is a clear pass of WP:GNG. The reviews and other references were added on 1 August after the above votes were made, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider article changes as outlined by Atlantic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Boleyn: Hi, do you think he passes WP:GNG now with the many extra references that have been added to the article? regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

That's a really impressive amount of work, user:Atlantic306. I think I'm convinced. Boleyn ( talk) 19:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 22:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Black Widow (2007 film)

Black Widow (2007 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage from independent sources as necessary for stand-alone articles per WP:GNG, missing any other indication of notability per WP:NFO BOVINEBOY 2008 14:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, one critic review at Rotten Tomatoes (cited in article) and another at Radio Times [ [7]], and TV Guide [ [8]]. Passes WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 15:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for dropping the Radiotimes review. Can you also add the url for the TV Guide review, it looks like you just repeated the Radiotimes one. (Also, I've noticed you do this all the time, but urls should be surrounded by single brackets [] not double brackets [[]].) BOVINEBOY 2008 17:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep re: the sources found by Donaldd23, and this other (albeit lukewarm) review [10]. BuySomeApples ( talk) 20:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • TheMovieScene is a blog and should not be used to indicate notability. BOVINEBOY 2008 22:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Good catch. Lucky there's still 3 other reviews that hold up, otherwise I'd have to change my vote. BuySomeApples ( talk) 05:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep sources scrape by on notability. Artw ( talk) 20:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 18:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

WonderKing Online

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N or find an ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Princess Olga, Duchess of Apulia

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. To try to inform a requested move discussion, I've been trying to find reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There don't appear to be any that provide significant coverage beyond a mere trivial mention. Other than blogs, web forums and stand-alone images, she is only mentioned a few times in society pages or listed in genealogical directories. These do not clearly demonstrate 'significant coverage'. DrKay ( talk) 19:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. DrKay ( talk) 19:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - At the moment, this bio article is going through an RM. But seeing the result at her husband's RM? the result of this bio article's RM is a foregone conclusion. So, not sure whether or not we should keep this bio of a wife of a disputing pretender to the defunct Italian throne. GoodDay ( talk) 17:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ GoodDay: I closed the requested move discussion as no consensus, so feel free to amend your comment as needed. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ( let's chat!) 19:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nomination. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk) 21:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There's a profile in the New York Times here that recounts she has been the online creative director for Christian Louboutin and a filmmaker, illustrator and textile designer. Dujour research editor Samuel Anderson profiled her in that magazine for her work with Louboutin here. She was profiled by Vouge Italia in 2010 here. She was photographed by Helmut Newton for Vanity Fair here. The NYT article is absolutely not a trivial mention, and I think if her work with Louboutin and filmmaking was included, it'd be more than just genealogy. This article should be expanded, not deleted. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Kbabej. Also profiled by Vanity Fair Spain and in the Greek Media [11]. - dwc lr ( talk) 15:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:GNG and BASIC per source found by Kbabej. The article requires improvement. Pls someone expand on this. Cheers 16:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - as I believe that's been the practice for the spouses of pretenders. GoodDay ( talk) 19:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 22:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Charis Drakos

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

Badly sourced BLP with a claim to meeting WP:NFOOTBALL but nothing to support this claim. Playmaker Stats, BeSoccer, WF, Tribuna, Soccerpunter and Football Database all have an entry for him but there are no appearances listed at all, with the exception of BeSoccer, which has an U17 Cyprus appearance, which does not confer notability to the subject.

Searches in Greek on Google and DDG failed to yield a single good source. The best thing that I could find was this Anorthosis blog (translated), which has a couple of sentences about him playing in a pre-season friendly.

Even if this guy does somehow pass NFOOTBALL, his notability is still highly questionable and there is a growing consensus that WP:GNG supersedes NFOOTBALL in such cases anyway. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 23:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Three Wednesdays of January

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

The fact they happened on successive Wednesdays is not in itself notable. It's the individual events that are notable, not the pattern. Any information would be related to the event(s) only. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unclear why this was conceived of as an encyclopedic topic. Reywas92 Talk 20:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is just a fluke, not deserving of an encyclopedia article. Pichpich ( talk) 20:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article doesn't even qualifies for an encyclopaedic article, it doesn't appears to be notable, and is just a fluke. Cheers. Tahaaleem Talk 21:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per everyone above. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per the nomination. TH1980 ( talk) 04:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not an encyclopedic topic. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have never seen anyone call it this; there are no sources that indicate that anyone ever did. Each of the three events already has its own page, there is no need for this. Swd7391 ( talk) 15:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A way to poetically describe the important events in American political life during the January of 2021 as "Three Wednesdays of January" is (1) not a regular encyclopedic subject, OR (2) not a notable WP:WORDISSUBJECT subject. It's just creative wordsmithing. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 15:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • What on earth? No. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Have you tried googling "three wednesdays"? You'd see that it isn't that of a far fetched WP:WORDISSUBJECT. On a one-to-ten scale of independent article viablity I'd say it scores at least 1.8 — Alalch Emis ( talk) 22:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 ( talk) 23:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Jez Mead

Jez Mead (  | 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 appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Duclod Man

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

I am absolutely failing to see how this is notable in any way.


1. Google only gives about ~3,000 results for the Duclod Man. ( [12])


2. No clear evidence of lasting notability or even current notability.


3. The only RS used are the articles by the journalist mentioned in the article. Every single other source is primary, likely unreliable, and written by Duclod Man. wizzito | say hello! 18:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 18:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 18:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The main source is a, unreliable and primary source. A couple of other obviously unreliable sources exist, but nothing that proves this is an actual thing. It's the Walmart version of John Titor. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Why is this being considered for deletion?

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

The result was merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. MBisanz talk 18:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Weasel (DC Comics)

Weasel (DC Comics) (  | 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. Doesn't seem to be any particular significant coverage of the character. TTN ( talk) 18:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 13:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Carmen Bernos de Gasztold

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

Article has some strange sourcing, with one cited source linking to an article on cats rather than on the subject, and another citing an article on the French wikipedia. It's posssible that some vandalism occurred in the article history. Not clear that the subject passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:NAUTHOR. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article lacks adequate sources to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It can sometimes be challenging to find reviews of authors active before the internet era, but in this case reviews of her body of work can be found easily.
    1. Beard, Aaron Bernarr (November 1968). "Carmen Bernos de Gasztold's "Prayers From The Ark" an Approach to Writing Poetry". Elementary English. 45 (7): 968–971. JSTOR  41386433.
    2. Kennedy, X. J. (December 1964). "Review: The Poet in the Playpen". Poetry. 105 (3): 190–193. JSTOR  20590001.
    3. Steisel, Marie-Georgette (March 1964). "French Poetry for Children: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography". The Modern Language Journal. 48 (3): 123–129. JSTOR  321005.
    4. Carlson, Ruth Kearney (October 1969). "The Sunset Is a Pretty Pink Dove—Children's Voices in Poetry". Elementary English. 46 (6): 748–757. JSTOR  41386570.
A superficial literature review also shows that her poems have been widely taught, making them notable per WP:NBOOK#4. Additionally, her poems were translated into English and Spanish (maybe more) and famously set to music by Ivor R. Davies, which certainly suggests notability as an artist. It appears that Prayers from the Ark is her most notable work, so I wouldn't object to moving the article to that title, but it's unnecessary. pburka ( talk) 14:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Pburka Thank you for finding these. I will withdraw the nom shortly. Would you be willing to add these to the article since you have access? 4meter4 ( talk) 14:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ 4meter4:  Done, although anyone with a Google account can access jstor. pburka ( talk) 22:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Erica Diamond

Erica Diamond (  | 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 without multiple, non-trivial independent sources covering the subject in detail. User:Namiba 15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Brunswick-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Content is semi-advertorialized, and not referenced to any significant reliable sourcing to establish notability. Two of the three footnotes here are very short blurbs about her in listicles, not substantive enough to count as WP:GNG-building coverage, and the third is just one of her books metaverifying its own existence in an online bookstore, which is not how you make writers notable either. Notability is not "she did stuff", it's "other people have written and published independent third party content analyzing the significance of the stuff she did". Bearcat ( talk) 17:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: While, as currently referenced, notability is week, a search of news sources does show significant coverage. That suggests that an interested editor could improve the article sufficiently to meet policy and guidelines. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 13:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
—¿philoserf?, can you link to those significant coverage in this discussion?-- User:Namiba 14:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This person clearly exists and is doing a job that requires them to maintain a relatively high profile. However, I can't find references that look independent: there are blog entries and other online content, but nothing that seems substantive enough from independent sources. RomanSpa ( talk) 23:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The sources mentioned are not reliable, fails notability. Aloolkaparatha ( talk) 08:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

System 21

System 21 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has link to notable companies, but isn't notable itself. Possible ATD is merge/redirect, but not sure where to, and don't think it is worth it. Only mention of it on WP is an unref sentence in Geac Computer Corporation. Boleyn ( talk) 15:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Monthly Al Kawsar

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

The sources do not show that the subject is notable. There seem to be large parts that are completely unsourced. Three sources talk about language practices. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 04:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 04:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 04:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 04:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The magazine is not the main topic of the thesis but is briefly mentioned. Bangla Tribune's critical commentary on publication by religious institutes does not call it the most but widely circulated monthly magazine and that is a key difference. The magazine is not the main topic of this opinion piece and does not help its notability. The Banglanews24.com report, written by a guest writer, lists all magazines published by "Qwami scholars". Again the magazine is not the main topic of this article. None of the sources shows that the topic is notable. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 07:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Vinegarymass911. ~ Yahya ( ✉) • 11:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, it is quite a notable monthly in Bangladesh. UserNumber ( talk) 21:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • As evidenced by significant coverage in ...? Magazines have to meet the general notability guideline. They are commonly expected to meet criteria in WP:NMEDIA or WP:NMAG. The thesis handle is not working for me at the moment, but the OP says it mentions the magazine only briefly. The most significant of the remaining cited coverage is a single paragraph in the Bangla Tribune. The Department of Films & Publications, Rokomari.com, and BoiBazar.com are directory-type listings. Banglanews24.com, Daily Naya Diganta, and Shomoyer Alo are editorials (the last two identical) that briefly mention the magazine in a list of magazines. It hasn't won any awards, has a sixteen year history during which no one seems to have written much about it, has not been shown to be regularly cited by reliable sources, and as an Islamic magazine in an overwhelmingly Islamic country, can hardly be said to be representing an undeserved niche market. What is the evidence of notability? -- Worldbruce ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can now access the thesis, which Owais Al Qarni, the author of this article, misrepresented. It only briefly mentions Al Kawsar. The most significant coverage I could find is the single paragraph in the Bangla Tribune. As such, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NMEDIA, or WP:NMAG. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 23:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete brief mentions in reliable sources are not significant coverage in the sense of WP:GNG. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Perry Glasser

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

DOesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 17:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the article is written by the subject himself so I’m going to presume he’s given it his best shot and what we have here is the best sources available. Of the six sources, the first three are deadlinks, the fourth a review on Booklist (not sure how useful that is for notability), the fifth is a Kirkus review, and the sixth confirms the subject is on the staff of the NAR. There are some unsourced claims of prize wins and I just deleted an entire section of unsourced material. For a career spanning nearly forty years this is very scant and does not indicate to me that the subject is notable. Mccapra ( talk) 02:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 22:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Melissa DeRosa

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

"Secretary to the governor" is not a position that comes close to meeting WP:NPOL, even if the governor is controversial. KidAd • SPEAK 16:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, against deletion. Clearly meets criteria. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The position she has is described as the most powerful non-elected office in New York. Massive press coverage. "Secretary to the governor" is NOT a low-level secretarial job, and we shouldn't mix it up with this (which may have happened?). Her job has been described as overseeing the daily government operations for the State on New York. And, she meets WP:General Notability Guidelines: significant coverage, reliable sources, the author is independent on the subject and "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." She has been described as the "spearhead" of the Cuomo sex scandal coverup. Mwinog2777 ( talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
"Spitzer was responsible for appointing his Executive Chamber. These appointments did not require the confirmation of the New York State Senate. Most political advisors report to the Secretary to the Governor of New York, while most policy advisors report to the Director of State Operations, who also answers to the Secretary to the Governor, making that position, in practice, the true Chief of Staff and most powerful position in the Cabinet.[1] The literal Chief of Staff is in charge of the Office of Scheduling and holds no authority over other cabinet officials.[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLo-Watson ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

UNTIL she resigned, Derosa was among the highest paid and most influential appointees in NY’s executive branch. She resigned abruptly about a week ago after the New York Attorney General’s investigative report revealed that she was the center of a political and sexual harassment scandal involving Governor Cuomo. The editor that suggested deletion needs to know that in American federal and state government offices, just as with the secretary of state of the United States, Derosa was not a ‘secretary’ in the sense of somebody who types dictation. she is at the center of a major scandal that resulted in the governor of the fourth largest state in the United States resigning under a cloud and under threat of first impeachment of a NY governor in over 100 years. She belongs in wikipedia with her own listing more than many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.144.113.65 ( talk • contribs) 09:34, August 12, 2021(UTC)

  • Keep As others have said, the term "secretary," in this context, is a significant political position, and recent press coverage has been more than significant to cover WP:GNG Niftysquirrel ( talk) 14:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 18:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Queen Mary (cocktail)

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

I couldn't find any sources that supported this cocktail being a real thing. Sources on the page were either dead or didn't mention the cocktail at all. I would strongly recommend deleting this article. 60clawsand20paws ( talk) 15:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Googling this, I discovered other cocktails also called the "Queen Mary". However, the reference already provided in the article ("Off-Premise Catering Management") seems definitive. I'd like to see a second (definitive - there are plenty of non-definitive ones on mixologists' blogs etc.) reference, but if such a reference can be provided this is surely an easy "keep". RomanSpa ( talk) 16:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • correct the article I find sources for a Queen Mary cocktail. It just isn't a cocktail described here. I prefer that we correct this article. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 07:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • keep A quick search of “Queen mary beer grenadine” on multiple search engines results in multiple hits. Both the 2013 book, “Off-Premise Catering Management”, and the 2020 recipe article by the Distillerie Louis Morand, are credible sources that specifically refer to the “Queen Mary” beer-grenadine cocktail. I also added a “Wayback Machine” archived link for a dead link in the references. This should be a “keep”. Gillespk ( talk) 1:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • separate given that sources have been found to support two cocktails with the same name, should a second page be created that describes the gin cocktail as well? 60clawsand20paws ( talk) 13:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment why not just change the name to “Queen Mary (beer cocktail)”, in order to avoid any confusion with the other cocktail. Gillespk ( talk) 19:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Gillespk I think that makes a lot of sense. Do you know how to do that? 60clawsand20paws ( talk) 14:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
60clawsand20paws done! You can change the name of an article by using the Move function. It has it’s own tab at the top. Gillespk ( talk) 14:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Gillespk Thank you for the tip! 60clawsand20paws ( talk) 15:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 12:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Guillermo Bermúdez

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

Essentially an unverified article as the only source given is a dead link. Not clear if the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NARCHITECT or WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the sourcing clearly does not meet GNG. To justify having an article on an architect, we should have specific mentions of some of the subjects significant works. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I fixed the dead link using InternetArchiveBot, and I looked at the corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia at es:Guillermo Bermúdez. I added some references: books and a catalogue of an exhibition, all published many years after his death. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep After looking through the sources that have been added, I believe the subject is notable. An entire book has been written about his work (La construcción de la intimidad: casas de Guillermo Bermúdez Umaña 1952-1971). This, combined with the obituary in the Colombian newspaper El Tiempo, demonstrates that he meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Two books and two journal articles, all specifically about his work and used as references in the article, together with a major newspaper obituary, make a clear and obvious case for WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Thank you everyone, particularly Eastmain, for finding these sources and updating the article. It's clear he passes WP:SIGCOV. Withdrawing shortly. 4meter4 ( talk) 12:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Rayta

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

the page should be deleted, as it is made up nonsense Venkat TL ( talk) 15:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NEO. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article has two sources, one of which is a newspaper article about arguments on Twitter, and the other of which is a meme posted on Reddit. If there is a topic here worthy of encyclopedic coverage, there ought to be much better sourcing and clearer writing for the benefit of readers outside India who are unfamiliar with the underlying controversy. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Franca Eneide ( talk) 07:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Mirza Babur

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

Unsourced for how long? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – I've found some sources: see [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. While none of them are too substantial individually, they can probably be combined per WP:BASIC to amount to sufficient coverage. Additionally, I don't doubt that more sourcing is out there: the many variants of his name make searching difficult, and offline sources likely contain far more information. (Nineteenth-century Mughal royalty is precisely the sort of topic to which WP:NEXIST should be applied.) But what we already have is sufficient to at least see the outlines of a man who played a noteworthy role in the demise of the Mughal Empire and the rise of English influence over the Indian subcontinent. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but expand. This subject meets WP:GNG per the sources found by User:Extraordinary Writ showing that he has been attended the Royal Court with his brothers. Thanks for your nice works. VocalIndia ( talk) 04:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. All of the sources above at most repeat (sometimes verbatim) the same paragraph-long anecdote about his European affectations and nothing more. If that is all the info we can find on him wouldn't it be better to put it in his father's or another article? The combined coverage exception in BASIC assumes multiple sources are providing different information that can be added up to SIGCOV, but here you could use only the Twilight of the Mughuls ref and lose zero coverage. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Herbert Brunnegger

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

The claims of this article are patently false. There were people born after Brunnegger who served in the German military in World War II, and near the end of World War II there were people being recruited at a younger age than Brunnegger was when the war began. Just to throw out on person I know of who disproves any claim in this article F. Enzio Busche was in the German Army during World War II, starting at age 14, and was 7 years younger than Brunnegger. I suspect there were people younger than Busche in the Germany military of World War II. We should not have articles built around a patently false claim. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone can access the stated sources and confirm they have significant reliable coverage of Brunnegger, since that's an actual possibility. Other then that it looks hoaxy, but I wouldn't G3. casualdejekyll ( talk) 14:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Intothat darkness 14:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I've done a less than ordinary job of updating the page. I could probably be accused of WP:REFBOMBING but I don't have the knowledge or time to do much better. Probably needs a WW2 buff to update this. Not sure how notable he is but his accounts of the war seem to be quoted a lot and he was the subject of an entire article in a local English newspaper in the 80s. I don't think an incorrect claim in a stub is reason for deletion before WP:BEFORE has been done and notability discussed on those merits. I could still be persuaded to change to delete but I think we need the military history people to give this a look over. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Just dumping two more sources here as I’m not spending more time on the article if it is destined for the bin [19] [20]. I suppose another option might be Merge with Le Paradis massacre as there is useful information in this article pertaining to the event. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 06:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete fails WP:BASIC, the main claims of notability (age and massacre) are either unsupported or unreliably supported. Mztourist ( talk) 03:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As far as I can make out he was a NN soldier. Even if he participated in atrocities, he will only be one person out of a signficant number of culprits. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Julie Higginson

Julie Higginson (  | 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 per WP:NACTOR since she does not have multiple significant roles. – DarkGlow • 13:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 ( talk) 13:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Delete based on copyright violation. Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Edacheri Central LP school

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

No evidence of notability. Fram ( talk) 12:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 12:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 12:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A merge, as suggested by Epicgenius, may be the best long term way to incorporate this information, but there is clearly a consensus to keep the content. Mojo Hand ( talk) 17:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Webster Avenue Bridge

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

This is a random bridge over a train line, and is not notable in any way. This is not a major bridge over a river, or one that is architecturally significant. We can't have articles for every bridge over a train line in an encyclopedia. Would this random bridge in my neighborhood also deserve an article? Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 12:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article has abundant references which adequately demonstrate notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Yes it's a small bridge, but it seems to be well referenced. Is there a policy- and guideline-based rationale for deletion? pburka ( talk) 13:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to an appropriate article (e.g. Port Washington Branch) per WP:NBUILD and WP:NOTNEWS. The bridge is not architecturally notable per WP:NBUILD and it's not even a bridge, just an overpass over the Port Washington Branch. Its main claim to fame is that it is being replaced right now. In the "Description" section, the main reference used is a wiki (bridgehunter.com) and the only sources in that section that aren't bridgehunter are used to describe the location of the overpass. That is not enough to demonstrate its notability, as it is very easy to find sources that demonstrate where something is located. The first part of the history section doesn't really give me confidence either as numerous overpasses were built across this line around the same time. Source 6 doesn't mention the overpass at all, only that the line opened, and sources 5 and 7 are primarily about the current bridge rehabilitation.
    That said, the main issue why this bridge appears notable is because of the damage identified in 1979 and the subsequent repairs in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. However, per WP:NOTNEWS, this could adequately be described in another page, like the Port Washington Branch page. Merely needing repairs and spanning a railroad line does not make a bridge unique per WP:MILL. Looking through newspapers.com and ProQuest, most of the search results seem to discuss either repairs, crashes, or traffic reports, which doesn't give me confidence in the subject's notability Epicgenius ( talk) 13:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per policy WP:NOTPAPER, we can have as many articles about bridges as we like. The nomination fails to demonstrate a problem which, unlike the bridge, needs fixing. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and the rationale "We can't have articles for every bridge over a train line in an encyclopedia." just isn't a valid reason for deleting an article. If there are adequate sources to write an article, why not go ahead and write it? NemesisAT ( talk) 21:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 14:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Glowing Corn

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and the band does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 TT me 12:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I couldn't find any sources to show that this band is notable. BuySomeApples ( talk) 02:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ramzi Najjar (author)

Ramzi Najjar (author) (  | 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 an author that doesn't satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Article also seems to have been previously created. Sources are mere PR pieces. Riteboke ( talk) 10:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Riteboke ( talk) 10:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Riteboke ( talk) 10:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Riteboke ( talk) 10:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to anyone looking at this topic please be aware there is a long and confused history involved (see here). There are two Ramzi Najjars, one living and one dead. An article about one got changed into an article about the other, and there was much confusion as to which of the Ramzi Najjars any given source was referring to. Mccapra ( talk) 17:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. There is a lot of coverage to sift through and we have two articles with same history. Maybe redirect to main article where history is present? Nevertheless, AfD is not a place, try WP:3O. 212.236.217.5 ( talk) 13:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete removed 2 press releases (one was a dead link). Amazon and Goodreads are not proper sources, and Google Books is self published source. This leaves the page with not enough news coverage. Peter303x ( talk) 00:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is a lot of information and articles on Author that can be added
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Serb countries and regions

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

This is a POV and Serb nationalist coatrack spin off from History of the Serbs with almost no sources of any merit that actually discuss this idea as a cogent subject. Perfect example of the uses of TNT. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 12:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support An issue-laden WP:COATRACK that should have been deleted a long time ago. Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 19:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - it is indeed an unfortunately framed article, which opens the door to the use of manipulative, anachronistic ideas, burdened with contemporary ideology, ahistorical nomenclature and terminology, using possessive forms of expression and ethnicization where it's highly inappropriate - within the Balkans scope it is like genuinely set for constant disputes.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 19:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - for the reasons previously stated Shadow4ya ( talk) 11:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I do not recall ever seeing other lists of countries claimed by an ethnic group, and I suspect there is a good reason for it. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Aside from the current POV and content of the article (which are not grounds for deletion), I am wondering how the nominator and other delete voters think this topic is substantially different from similar list articles on Jewish, Muslim, Greek, Armenian, Pashtun, Turkic (I could go on) states? Are these all nationalist coatracks? Vladimir.copic ( talk) 06:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Actually, the current POV and content of the article falls into WP:POVFORK which is a WP:DEL-REASON. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Ok ignore my incorrect statement - could someone address the main part of my question? Particularly concerning the topic and not the article as it stands. Most histories of the Serbian people seem to go through the various states that have included Serbs or been a Serbian nation-state. If the article was cleaned up, POV removed, reliable sources included, put in line with History of the Serbs etc, how is it any less notable than the above cited articles? I'm just trying to see what the base level of notability is seeing as there are quite a few articles in this format. Here are some more. To lay my bias on the table: I think 95% of current list articles should be deleted (including most of the ones I cited earlier). Vladimir.copic ( talk) 07:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep accepting that the POV issues need to be fixed and the article better sourced. Rightly or wrongly there are many list articles like this on Wikipedia. A quick look by me produced 23 similar articles all with corresponding pages or sections on the history of those people or nation (see below table). This makes the idea that this article just being a content fork a little hard to swallow. While I think all of these articles are fairly useless, if this is a convention on WP I see no reason why an article on the Serbs should be excluded. This probably just needs WP:CLEANUP unless a larger decision is made on the future of similar pages.
  • Keep As Vladimir has stated before me, we have other similar lists. What we need is more references and sourced material. Soundwaweserb ( talk) 22:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above are essentially WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. We are talking about this list, not the others. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Similar List Articles
History Article List Article
Jewish History List
Muslim History List
Greek History List
Tengrist History List
Armenian History List
Pashtun History List
Turkic History List
Iranian History List
Sunni History List
Shia History List
Kurdish History List
Italian History List
Georgian History List
Belarusian, Russian, Ukranian History List
Hasidic History List
Confucian History List
Hindu History List
Jain History List
Zoroastrian History List
Maratha History List
Rajput History List
Brahmin History List
Albanian History List

Vladimir.copic ( talk) 07:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Listing a number of other ( WP:WHATABOUT), more or less, and in this case probably less, similar examples is never good argument.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 00:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree that in most contexts this is a weak argument but it is important to note how widespread a convention this is and that these types of articles can exist without being WP:POV or WP:COATRACK. At risk of making the same sin I will point to these discussions which came to the same conclusion.. I have already provided a small sample of the reliable sources available on this topic in my above comment which demonstrate it is obviously notable. Remember that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the current POV issues are fixable problems. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

2027 Cricket World Cup

AfDs for this article:
2027 Cricket World Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL applies here.

History of this article:

As of 6 Aug 2021, there is no indication where this competition will take place, what its format will be, and what the lead-up matches for qualification will be. I note that the International Cricket Council's website is silent about this. Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 09:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt. Nothing confirmed about hosts, dates, etc. Just a window in the cricket calendar for a tournament to take place in 2027, and that's it so far. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: WP:CRYSTAL article, per nominator and above comment JW 1961 Talk 11:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and salt due to repeated re-creation. That's definitely repeating other people's arguments, but that's because there's nothing else to say, is there? casualdejekyll ( talk) 15:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL, but don't salt, since it's still a page that may be plausibly notable in the future. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
For info, the 2021 Indian Premier League was salted for multiple re-creations before anything was actually known. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
We should salt it, and it can be unsalted once there's information confirmed about it, so that a decent article can be demonstrably created about it. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. (non-admin closure) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 17:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Chowtime Na!

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

Non-notable television programme; a quick search for references indicates that it fails WP:GNG. Blake Gripling ( talk) 08:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling ( talk) 08:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling ( talk) 08:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete clearly not notable. The only two references in the article, [21] and [22], are not reliable sources. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 11:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete clearly not notable. As per above, references supplied are not reliable sources. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect to the article that the users mentioned above (the third and fourth votes).---- Rdp060707| talk 10:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect. As the program is not notable enough to be given a separate article. -- ERAMnc 19:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sidney P. Brooks

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Was one of the 1007 Tuskegee Airmen, just being in a notable unit doesn't makes it members notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources listed to support are mostly about the squadrons he served in or are blogs and there is minimal reliable information about him apart from a few passing mentions in books about the Tuskegee Airmen. This is one of many pages of Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User and this is becoming like the pages created for every member of Easy Company Mztourist ( talk) 06:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 06:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 06:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 ( talk) 09:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are numerous books about the Tuskegee Airmen and the subject naturally appears in them as one of "the first African American pilots to engage in aerial combat". He also appears in reference works such as The African American National Biography. They therefore pass WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • In order to satisfy #3 of ANYBIO The African American National Biography would have to be the "country's standard national biographical dictionary", so no he doesn't satisfy ANYBIO. Mztourist ( talk) 11:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with the nom, after searching I don't see anything more than passing mentions in reliable sources so it fails GNG. Just being a member of a notable unit, does not mean that notability is inherited. ( t · c) buidhe 10:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and buidhe. Having been in a notable unit or organization doesn't automatically make one notable. Intothat darkness 14:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, largely per the above. There's no real secondary sourcing beyond trivial single-sentence mentions, and the awards don't meet WP:ANYBIO even under the most capacious standards. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete simply having been a member of a famous military unit does not make notable. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 14:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 10:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Robert Dale Rowell

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

Pavlov2 ( talk) 06:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Well, the nomination is pleasingly brief and I've certainly seen less coherent ones. This seems to be the nominator's first visit to AfD so maybe a look at Wikipedia:Deletion process would help. As a non Twinkle user myself, I'm disappointed rather than surprised that it handles null nominations. Thincat ( talk) 08:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Thincat:Sorry for submit a null nomination, I nominate it because the issue "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline" was hanged for a long time. Pavlov2 ( talk) 11:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Oh, I understand. I won't vote because, although I can't see why anyone would write this article, neither can I see it is worth troubling to delete it. Thincat ( talk) 12:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The US justice system executes a depressingly large number of its clients, but at least it does so with copious, open and reliable publicity. This article is badly in need of inline citations; it may not be well-referenced, but it's certainly referencable. Crimes sufficiently awful to lead to execution also stand far enough out of the ordinary to be strongly notable, and are worthy of a historic record. Elemimele ( talk) 11:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No explanation from nominator as to why this article should be deleted. References need inline citations which hopefully someone can do following the result of this AfD. Inexpiable ( talk) 19:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per WP:GNG and Inexpiables rationale. BabbaQ ( talk) 13:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete , with potential for merging some content into an article about Gasolin AG. There's indications below that this has already been done, but if someone needs a userspace copy, let me know. Vanamonde ( Talk) 08:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Bruno Bergner

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

Article lacks quality sources. The first source used in the article which is cited repeatedly cites wikipedia as the main source of its information; basically making wikipedia the source for wikipedia. The second is a dead link whose reliability and quality are uncertain. The other citations are all trivial name drops, some of which don't verify the content they are supposed to be supporting in the article, or dead links of uncertain quality. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing promising, but granted foreign language references may exist outside of my ability to locate. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 07:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: His article on Deutsch Wikipedia has a number of books on him. Also, regarding the dead link: archive.org is our friend lol. It's entirely in German though, no clue what it says. Not !voting for now, just wanted to clarify the source situations. Curbon7 ( talk) 07:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • One of those books is Kürschners Graphiker-Handbuch, which is accessible through the Wikipedia Library (via de Gruyter). The 1967 edition does indeed have an entry on Bergner, but it is just this:
      Bergner, Bruno, Graphiker, Ham -
      burg 13, Badestr, 2,
      Vexations ( talk) 13:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is written in the way that a family member or an art dealer would write about someone. The English article was translated from de.wikipedia, which was written mostly by... drum roll... user Jbergner. I can't find much in the way of sourcing, so it is del*te for the moment. That said, the existence of Bruno-Bergner-Straße in Greiz may tell us something. --- Possibly ☎ 07:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Struck the street info; not the same Bruno Bergner, per below. --- Possibly ☎ 17:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep, The AutoBild Klassik article that @Curbon7 located is a solid account dedicated to Bergner and describing his impact on German society, and he clearly made a society-wide mark. It would be nice if we could find another similar source, but we have to remember that one source a few decades ago is worth about five nowadays, where someone only needs to sneeze, and (if they have a publicist), there will be 5 articles on it the next day. Nevertheless, the street-name is someone else: [23] (article describes a political activist killed in a concentration camp in 1942 and commemorated by the street name in the town of his birth, and probably also worthy of an article). We also need to be careful that we don't delete the article on this chap merely because his son went into the same business, and has put a biography of his dad on his studio's website. It's natural that he should do so, and says nothing about his father's notability - positive or negative. Elemimele ( talk) 11:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment. Elemimele, how would suggest we handle the fact that much of the article is sourced to wikipedia? Not to mention the error in confusing people that you found. There are so many issues here, that it's a nightmare for any editor trying to sort out what's true and what isn't. In my opinion we are just better off deleting this (or at least stubifying it). 4meter4 ( talk) 12:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
4meter4 the AutoBild Klassik article from Curbon7 contains a huge amount of biographical detail and discussion of the importance of his work, at least in respect of the petrol/motoring illustrations. If it's classed as independent and reliable, then it could support most of the article. I can read German and I'm happy to go through screening the article to remove anything not supported. But as I say, it'd be great if there were a second source as I'm not greatly comfortable with single-source articles. I just feel it would be a pity to lose all trace of this chap and his work, when it clearly was influential. Elemimele ( talk) 13:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Elemimele Thank you for being willing to help out. If it's kept, I'd appreciate you taking the time to do that. Perhaps another source(s) will emerge as this discussion continues. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 13:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Elemimele: nice work on decoding the street name. Regarding his work being influential, I am not sure of that. There does seem to be a family-driven campaign to say it is influential, both through the first source (Atelier Klaus Bergner/Aatelier-bergner.de) and the author of the German wiki article (Jbergner). I don't think it is a coincidence that the AutoBild Klassik article quotes his son directly, and is also used in this article ("Some years later his son, Klaus Bergner, shared the opinion that his father probably owed his survival in the prison camp to that talent: "My father probably survived [because] ... he painted the apartments of the Russian officers and, from time to time, produced the odd painting"). It's pretty obviously mostly a family effort to memorialize the father. The painting included in the de and en articles was also uploaded by Jbergner. I do not see a source for personal details like the birth/date of death. There is a lot more evidence here that this is a family memorial page than there is of independent recognition. I'm taking the sourcing with a large grain of salt... --- Possibly ☎ 16:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I think you're right that a lot of information has come from the son's recollections of his father, but not all of it; Sylvia Lott, the journalist who wrote the AutoBild article, had clearly also interviewed his old collaborator, the advertising manager at Gasolin, whom she also quotes. I think we have to distinguish what his son says directly (for example on the website of the current business) from what an independent journalist reports his son as having said. She is allowed to use sources we cannot, and her screening of their information makes them allowable for us. I also think it's inevitable that a lot of information will come from memories of family and friends. So far as his birth and early life is concerned, we've got to consider the context of post-war Germany: life was incredibly chaotic, records patchy, and half the infrastructure bombed. Human memories may be all we have, and we must trust journalists to make of them what they believe. I've put a translation of part of the article, and a summary of the rest, here [24]. I hope it's okay to do this. I'm conscious that the article is copyright, so we can't just put translations willy-nilly on WP. This is purely to help editors assess whether the information is appropriate as a source, and I'll have to request its deletion as soon as this AfD is sorted out. If Bruno Bergner survives deletion, I am, as above, happy to edit to remove information that can't be found screened via Lott and any other sources anyone can find. As regards his significance: my feeling is that if you are the pen behind a massive advertising campaign over more than a decade, whose work would have been familiar to every household in a major country, then you're probably notable. It's like being the person who made up the image of Super Mario, or the cocoa-pops characters; it might be that no one actually knows who you are, but because your creation is so widely known, it's legitimate for an encyclopaedia to take an interest in your existence. We're here to answer those people who ask, one day, "I wonder who it was, who made that thing that I see every day..." (on which, I'm not totally against merging, if there's somewhere to merge to) Elemimele ( talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
It's way too convenient that the son gets interviewed in the article about the father's painting, and another relative uploads images of Bergner's paintings. It's obviously a family memorial. The same Citroen image that appears in the AutoBild article was uploaded to Commons by Jbergner. Finally, if he is a famous graphic designer, why don't we see more examples of his graphic designs when doing an image search? All I see in an image search is material that his family uploaded. Which means that while he may have done widely distributed designs, he wasn't recognized for it. --- Possibly ☎ 19:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Also it might be that no one actually knows who you are, but because your creation is so widely known, it's legitimate for an encyclopaedia to take an interest in your existence.... no, this is fundamentally incorrect. If no one actually knows who you are, you do not get an article. That would be using Wikipedia to create the memorial. We do have an article on Super Mario creator Yōichi Kotabe, because he is well known and has been widely and independently written about. --- Possibly ☎ 19:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I think you're maybe finding coincidences that perhaps aren't really there. The German Wikipedia article, undoubtedly written by a CoI relative, appeared in 2006, while the AutoBild article appeared in 2011, and Bergner died in 1995, so it's not like this is a flurry of memorialisation by the family following his death. Auto Bild isn't the sort of news outlet where you phone one day and ask them to produce an article on your dad. Our own WP describes it as a leading German automobile magazine. And if they chose to write an article about Bergner, it would be decidedly odd if they hadn't sent a journalist to talk to his family. I regard the fact that a leading independent German automobile magazine chose to write two pages on him 16 years after his death as evidence that he is of some notability in at least the German automobile community (a significant sized group). As regards the images, yes, there is one image in common between the German WP article and AutoBild, but the AutoBild article also contains quite a few other images from his work. Thinking from the perspective of Auto Bild, they just wanted some attractive images that their readers might remember with nostalgia; the less effort the better. Much of his work must be under copyright, and probably a copyright whose current ownership is very unclear (it would have been property of Gasolin, passed on to Aral, and goodness only knows where since). I can well imagine they'd use images provided by the family, purely because they're the easiest source. The relevant fact, again, isn't that the image came from family, it's that an independent secondary source thought the image was worth publishing. Elemimele ( talk) 20:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I can't, however, find anything apart from Sylvia Lott's article, and a lot of his leaflets on e-bay (I'm discounting all WP and atelier Bergner sources, obviously), and that bothers me. If we had a second source, I'd happily go for the full keep, but the fact we've only got one is why I was originally a weak-keep. I'm fighting his corner, but I don't have a personal axe to grind on this. Elemimele ( talk) 20:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Signing of on this, but I will add that I have edited and created way more than 1000 articles on artists. There's very little evidence of notability here. No museum collections, no published images outside those sourced by family, no entries in dictionaries of artists, no exhibitions of his graphic work, no awards by learned artistic societies. If you cannot read about the person in more than one source, can't see their work in museums, can't find independently published copies of their work online, well, they're not notable. --- Possibly ☎ 21:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
fair comment! Elemimele ( talk) 22:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • In view of @Possibly's totally reasonable argument, I'm quite prepared to re-think my original weak keep. As a matter of information, I've started a draft on the petrol-station chain for whom Bergner created his advertising work (Gasolin AG), translating the German WP page [25] (my incomplete draft is at [26]). Since it's Bergner's advertising work that's most memorable, and the Gasolin AG petrol concern was enormous (and far more notable) I think it's reasonable for me to merge a little of Bergner's information into the draft, which to my mind clears the way for deletion of Bruno Bergner from English WP if that's the outcome of this AfD (unless miraculously someone finds more solid sources for him). Meanwhile, minor point: the links in the Bergner article to NITAG are linking to an article on a completely different subject. Elemimele ( talk) 12:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The summary of this book says that it discusses Bergner's role as graphic artist in marketing Gasolin AG https://www.zwischengas.com/de/SZ/zubehoer/Gasolin-und-die-Entwicklung-einer-Marke-Buchbesprechung-.html. If Elemimele is looking for a second source, that would seem to be one, but I can't access the book (which is not obviously written by a family member), and without seeing the book I'm also reluctant to do more than make that comment. Sheijiashaojun ( talk) 22:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 18:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Fred Bergdinon

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

Hockey player who played only two professional games, and made no contribution of significance in either one. No sources could be found outside of statistical databases. It's unlikely significant coverage in offline newspapers exists. A marginal pass of WP:NHOCKEY shouldn't supersede WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:SIGCOV in this instance. 4meter4 ( talk) 04:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This article explains the confusion about the player's surname and provides additional biographic detail. I looked for details about his death in 1995, but the online search at the Windsor Star doesn't go back that far. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It would be helpful if someone with access to Boston newspapers of the 1925-1926 season could check for coverage, particularly when he was initially signed for the team and when he received his career-ending (or at least season-ending) injury. The Boston Globe and Boston Herald websites don't have anything, but probably their indexes don't go back that far. The reason WP:NHOCKEY and other topic-specific guidelines exist is that references often exist that are hard to find, particularly for people, organizations and events before the Internet era. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Meets WP:NHOCKEY. NHOCKEY is particularly relevant for older subjects where online sources are not likely to be representative of the sources that were available at the time. Rlendog ( talk) 15:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • With a player that has such a short and insignificant career, I don't think we can rationally or reasonably presume offline sources exist. In fact I would be very surprised if he got any coverage in newspapers of his day or other sports reference works. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm sympathetic to 4meter4's argument, and I've always been uneasy about the one-top-flight-game-no-matter-if-nothing-is-known-about-you=notable premise. Someone with an otherwise utterly unremarkable life, where biographical information is both sparse and disputed, and as far as anyone knows never even played professionally other than those two games? That's a prime candidate for a list article. Since I do have access to early Massachusetts newspapers, I'll take a look after the weekend. Ravenswing 18:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. By the time this subject died (in 1995), the Internet was already in common use. Is any biographical information available from obituaries? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, 0 Newspapers.com hits (under different versions of the first name) and only a nominal meet of the hockey guideline. Geschichte ( talk) 18:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Player played in multiple games in the NHL. Easily passes NHOCKEY. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Firstly, the top-level leagues, such as the NHL in hockey, are such an important level of play that it's incredibly important for us to be as complete and thorough as possible a reference for everybody who was ever there at all. Just merging some players into lists doesn't cut it — List of Boston Bruins players does not offer anywhere to document his birthplace, his birth and death dates or his OHA record. That's precisely why the notability criteria for sportspeople have the "one game in the top leagues = notable" rule in the first place — because it's incredibly important that we have as complete as feasibly possible a record of every single person who ever played for the Boston Bruins at all, rather than picking and choosing and leaving some Bruins in the dust. Does it need better sources, yes — but on that point, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the article also has a redirect to it from the spelling "Fred Bourdginon", which actually has more mainspace links travelling through it than are actually linking directly to the "Bergdinon" spelling — and even "Bourdginon" is a spelling error what I or anybody else with French Canadian ancestry can guarantee was actually on his birth certificate, Bourgdinon. So if you're having trouble finding sources, try the Bourdginon and Bourgdinon spellings as well. (Which I don't think anybody did, because the only thing anybody mentioned above is having tried a couple of variations on his first name.) Bearcat ( talk) 14:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 04:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Everetts Corner, Delaware

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

Our first stop in Kent County is this T intersection, for that is exactly and all it is. That's what all the aerials and topos say, and having looked at every GHit, most of them are real estate listings, and none of the rest have anything of any substance whatsoever to say about this spot. Mangoe ( talk) 04:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete:, as per nom, a meaningless intersection sans notability. Does not meet WP:GEOROAD -- Whiteguru ( talk) 04:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Named intersection fails GEOLAND and GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 20:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Robert Bennett (tennis)

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

Unreferenced article since its creation in 2015. In a WP:BEFORE search I was unable to verify that this person played in the 1942 US Open. It's possible I may have missed something, but it looks like the subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORTS. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

* Keep: As per above, he qualifies by way of participation in the US Open. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 05:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Curbon7; meets WP:NTENNIS on that basis Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - NTENNIS appears to be failed as per below. Not seeing any evidence of WP:GNG, appears to be a non-notable player of the amateur era. If ATD must be considered, then maybe redirect to 1942 U.S. National Championships – Men's Singles Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:NTENNIS says notability comes from competing "in one of the highest-level professional tournaments", with the US Open mentioned as an example. But in 1942 the US Open was an amateur tournament; it did not admit professionals until 1968. See US Open (tennis)#Open era. So I question whether mere participation in 1942 would establish notability. -- RL0919 ( talk) 04:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • RL0919, It seems this came up in a discussion at 9 years ago, but it was inconclusive. This AfD pretty much hinges on whether amateur era US Open would count or not. Someone at WP:WikiProject Tennis may know the answer. Curbon7 ( talk) 04:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. In that case, delete. If we are going to override WP:GNG based on someone losing a single match in an amateur tournament, then there should be an explicit consensus for that as a guideline. The older discussion doesn't show that, and I would not want to rely on the opinion of whoever might happen to reply at a WikiProject talk page on short notice. -- RL0919 ( talk) 11:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Pinging @ Whiteguru: and @ Spiderone: to see if they have further thoughts since their earlier positions were per Curbon7's comment that has since been modified. -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I am pleased that this clarification has taken place, and we find that the US Open was an amateur event and going professional in 1968. I have struck out my earlier decision. RL0919 - thanks for pursuing this. WP:NTENNIS should receive an addendum to make the non-professional era of the US Open evident. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 22:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 04:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Is China an Imperialist Country?

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

Could not find any sources, only places I could purchase the book from as well as answers to the question itself. I believe there may be reliable sources out there but I did not come across any, which is why I would rather discuss this first. However, it appears to just genuinely be a non-notable book which fails WP:GNG. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 03:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 03:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The book is mentioned and cited in this Monthly Review article: https://monthlyreview.org/2021/07/01/china-imperialism-or-semi-periphery/ and here: https://www.red-path.net/analysis/is-china-an-imperialist-country/critical-notes/29-some-critical-comments-on-the-n-b-turner-document, and here as well: https://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/212003 Comradeka ( talk)Comradeka

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 22:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

First Bell

AfDs for this article:
First Bell (  | 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 online education service, fails WP:NPRODUCT. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - contributors here should take note of the nomination, which asserts that the subject is not notable. I disagree in this instance, but statements that support deletion on the basis that this is a "non-notable, promotional article" are unlikely to be taken seriously. For one, articles need not be notable, but they should be about a notable subject. It might sound like an academic distinction but WP:BEFORE is very clear; there are steps A, B, and C before nomination for deletion at D. The question here is whether the subject is notable, not whether or not the article does a good or bad job of presenting the subject. Because bad writing is fixable. Second, the article being promotional (in an encyclopedia that aims not to promote things) is an example of bad writing. And again, bad writing is fixable. What I don't see is any kind of argument as to why the sources outlined above don't establish notability... so unless someone wants to contribute more than flippant non-policy opinion, there hasn't been a single substantive argument for deletion yet. St★lwart 111 02:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources and Stalwart111's explanation. BuySomeApples ( talk) 10:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per others, easily enough sources to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT ( talk) 22:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW, as detailed during deletion by admin Orangemike. Procedural close following deletion. ( non-admin closure) St★lwart 111 10:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Quarantine The Challenges During Quarantine and How to Keep Our Sanity

Quarantine The Challenges During Quarantine and How to Keep Our Sanity (  | 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 book by non-notable author, fails the criteria on WP:NBOOK. funplussmart ( talk) 02:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is just spam. Trying A7 Speedy to see if that gets rid of it faster. --- Possibly ☎ 03:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable. -- Bduke ( talk) 06:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - clearly fails WP:NBOOK; it's listed on Amazon (Amazon will sell anything) but there's no WP:RS whatsoever. Almost definitely created to promote the book. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, per WP:SNOW as detailed during deletion by admin Orangemike. Procedural close following deletion. ( non-admin closure) St★lwart 111 10:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

QueenNoble Dr. Elle Ramirez

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

Author created draft article about the subject which as rejected due to a lack of notability, and this page has not addressed those concerns. funplussmart ( talk) 02:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No indication of notability. A WikiNews entry and an IMDB page does not a notable person make. Helen( 💬 📖) 02:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. You do not get an article here using wiki sources and IMDB. --- Possibly ☎ 03:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Need references that could justify subject's notability. Currently available resources can't be considered to make a person notable. For now it is a delete. DMySon ( talk) 04:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - First, the article does not speak for itself and does not make a case for general notability or any other notability. Second, there do not appear to be any reliable sources. Also, this article contains no more information than the draft that I rejected in the past 48 hours, but the draft has been deleted as G11. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Two of the four sources reference Wikimedia-hosted pages, and the other two are IMDB and Amazon. There is not notability established by these sources. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 06:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - in my searches, I found this press release and nothing else Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No reliable sources. -- Bduke ( talk) 07:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Not really sure how this works, but as there are many actors who are not "notable" but still busy in the filmmaking world, i hardly think singling out this article for deletion is appropriate.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Les Mahoney

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

This article seems very promotional and I don't think this person is notable; a lot of the references cited seem to be unreliable blogs wizzito | say hello! 23:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 23:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 23:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Nominator comment: In particular, a lot of the films he's starred in aren't even notable enough to have pages on WP. wizzito | say hello! 23:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't say this article is very promotional. The awards are mentioned, that's right, but there are also sources available ( [33]). The citation style is horrible and has to be improved - no doubt. I would say as the article is not really up-to-date, it should be updated first and then it's easier to say sth about WP:NACTOR. So far: weak keep. Tec Tom ( talk) 18:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It needs work, but at least one of the sources looks OK to me. I would prefer it be tagged for improvement than deleted outright. Hanjaf1 ( talk) 05:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I've cleaned it up a bit, inlining the citations that weren't dead links. It's still marginal, but there might be newer links out there. Hanjaf1 ( talk) 06:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 01:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. After reviewing his IMDB, it seems like he is best known for acting in and directing non-notable b-movies. KidAd • SPEAK 18:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 22:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Dharam Ablashi

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

After trimming of the overly promotional content, there's not much left that isn't based on sources published by the subject or closely affiliated ones. A search doesn't reveal much further (social media sites, one interview, publications/patents/...). Fails WP:GNG. If the HHV-6 Foundation was notable enough, this could maybe be redirected there. Since that is not the case, there's a clear case for deletion. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 as-coauthor of 19 papers with over 100 cites each, albeit in a highly cited field. I cannot understand why the nominator expected to find anything about a biomedical researcher on social media sites. If he had, would this have improved notability? Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC). reply
    This doesn't absolve him from being covered in secondary, independent sources. If there's nothing in secondary sources, well, then, I beg to differ, WP:NPROF is irrelevant, since there's no justification for basing an article entirely on primary sources, no matter how "well-cited" some of the subject's papers might be. That's also what the criteria says, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." No independent reliable sources = no article. As simple as that. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 12:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    The citation record (that is, the body of citing papers) comprises thousands of independent reliable sources for WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 17:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    A scholar having their works cited by peers in their discipline is run of the mill. The vast majority of citations are not WP:SIGCOV of the author of the paper in question. If there are no independent sources to provide encyclopedic coverage about the article subject (such as biographic details and the like), then that's all very nice, but the article fails WP:V and probably WP:NOR due to being based solely on primary, self-published sources for its content. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    A scholar having citations at this level may not be run of the mill. WP:NPROF is independent of GNG, and explicitly states that it is an alternative. I agree that the article is undersourced and overly based on primary sources, but WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    DINC, yes, but it's not that I didn't try, I just couldn't find non-primary sources, so while NPROF might be independent of GNG ([insert rant about SNGs, and in particular ones like this one which seemingly allow articles written solely on primary sources]), so this would still fail core policies regarding sourcing, and given it's a WP:BLP, we should be more strict about sourcing than just allowing self-published sources. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
NPROF was written explicitly to allow articles on important academics who wouldn't otherwise have the SIGCOV in IRS necessary for GNG. In my opinion the criteria are too permissive (most editors' perceptions of what a "high" citation profile is in any given field are several standard deviations below the actual median, so low-impact scholars slip through all the time), but that's just what we have to work with until more people agitate for change. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I agree with Xxanthippe that the citation record satisfies NPROF-1.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. While the subject is highly cited, on most of the highly-cited work he is middle author on a highly coauthored paper (in a field where order matters). I see several papers with high citations on which he is first/last author, however; and the higher-cited middle author papers do not detract. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He's sufficiently above the average in his field. I looked at the Scopus metrics of the 101 coauthors (with 20+ papers) on his 35 most recent papers. Total citations: average: 7303, median: 3380, Ablashi: 9856. Total papers: avg: 160, med: 96, A: 275. h-index: avg: 36, med: 31, A: 50. Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 652, med: 414, A: 1165. 2nd: avg: 370, med: 235, A: 307. 3rd: avg: 293, med: 207, A: 271. 4th: avg: 247, med: 193, A: 250. 5th: avg: 209, med: 136, A: 247. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • weak Keep. per WP:PROF#1 he passes the bar but as Russ mentioned, he is mainly co-author on important papers. -- hroest 18:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ricardo Papa Street

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

Unnotable city (local) road that fails WP:GEOROAD. The only source used here, [34], does not even mention the road itself, and instead mentions the LRT elevated railway station adjacent to it and "Camp Ricardo Papa" in Taguig). JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 00:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 00:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 01:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Enam Tugbefia

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

Enam Tugbefia

Run-of-the-mill beauty contestant. This article was moved into draft space by User:Onel5969, and was then moved back into article space, so a second move to draft space would be move warring .

This article does not speak for itself and does not explain why the subject satisfies either the general notability guideline or any other notability guideline. The only credible claims of significance are finishing second in a beauty contest, and a controversy over vote-rigging in the beauty contest. The latter seems to be a living person known for one event, which can be covered in an article on the beauty contest, if the beauty contest is itself notable.

The article has been reference-bombed, and it should not be necessary to go through the sources to check on notability. However, reading the references shows that they are mostly about the 2019 beauty contest controversy.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant
1 Modern Ghana Reads like a press release No
2 3news A photo gallery about the beauty contest controversy No.
3 YEN.COM.GH A photo gallery about the beauty contest itself Maybe No
4 3news Same photo gallery as 2 No
5 Ghana Web Same press release as 1 No
6 Ghpage Another press release No
7 Voltaonlinegh About the beauty contest controversy No
8 Ytainment About the beauty contest controversy No
9 News AF Feed News An interview No
10 Pulse.com.gh Same interview as 9 No
11 Ghana News A news story about the beauty contest Yes No. Two sentences.
12 Ghana Celebrities A news story about the beauty contest Maybe No.
13 YEN.COM.GH Another news story about the beauty contest Maybe No
14 Ghpage Yet more coverage of the beauty contest No

This article is really about the beauty contest controversy. Either there should be an article about the beauty contest and the controversy, or there shouldn't; but the subject is clearly noted for one event. It appears that she or her flack are trying to use Wikipedia to advance her career by publicizing the controversy. The three conditions of BLP1E are all met. Either cover the controversy as a controversy, or don't cover it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom; as above, references do not demonstrate notability. Eagleash ( talk) 00:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per the exquisitely thorough presentation by the nom. Onel5969 TT me 02:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Hanging on a rope about one or two miles from Tenuous. Entirely non-notable. scope_creep Talk 13:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Prodege. MBisanz talk 18:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Swagbucks

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

See WP:ADMASQ. Also, insufficient in-depth coverage. Sources present mostly company related routine information and interviews with company execs. Fails CORDPETH, INHERITORG, and ORGIND. The CNET article is about making money from celebrities' websites and mentions the topic only in passing. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from nom. I previously prodded this page [35]. It was de-prodded with the rationale "...Send to AfD" [36]. Hence, I have done so. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There are articles about this in USNews, CNET and Business Insider. These seem like advertorials though and the BI source discloses this. Obviously quid-pro-quo coverage is rife in business but this seems particularly egregious. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 06:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Prodege or Keep While I think the subject meets GNG/NCORP (Above sources and NY Times DailyBreeze MarketWatch 映画.com 6ABC, but could be ad), the article contents are completely about the parent company, so a merger to there seems appropriate to avoid duplication. But if someone wants to do a WP:HEY and improve the article then I'm happy to give this a keep. Jumpytoo Talk 07:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The sources posted above are about the rewards program and not the company itself. And as stated above these are advertorials and they are not too well disguised as articles. They also are testimonial type advertising. There is nothing wrong with that except these are not useful as determinants for notability on Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Merge is possible. And, there is not much about Swagbucks in the article as far as I can tell. I think the first reference should not be merged. So for now I agree with Merge but not Keep unless someone can make a good argument against merging. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 08:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_August_6&oldid=1039198161"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 05 August 07 >

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 keep. ✗ plicit 12:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Meg Johnson (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER; no other Meg Johnsons to add to this page. – DarkGlow • 22:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Margaret has been shortened to lots of things over the years, including Meg, and different usages ni different places. Definitely deserves a listing. There was also an entry that hadn't been added, which I have now done, so it is 3 Megs, and a Megan and Margaret in the see also. 3 valid entries plus 2 valid see alsos is enough to meet the guidelnies - and dabs are cheap. No advantages to readers to deleting this. Boleyn ( talk) 07:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it stands. I would move the actress to a disambiguated title, given the relative obscurity of the subject. BD2412 T 21:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep perfectly valid dab In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, the 3rd entry passes DABMENTION and its possible that this might end up at the base name anyway as a result of the RM so I'd put this discussion on hold anyway, I guess we could put the other 2 uses in a hatnote if we conclude that there is a primary topic though. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ren Keyu

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

Not a notable person. A minor and the only reference in the article is the Guinness Book of World Records. BEFORE search just gives some low quality "Chinese teen breaks world record according to Guinness" coverage. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 2018 sources:
      1. 顾爱刚 (2018-06-26). 杨婷 (ed.). "年龄:11岁 身高：206厘米 这个乐山男孩可能是全球最高小学生" [Age: 11 years old Height: 206 cm This Leshan boy may be the tallest elementary school student in the world]. zh:成都商报. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Xinhua News Agency.

        This is an extensive profile of the subject.

      2. "被同學譏笑像巨人怪物　11歲小六生高2.06米或成全球最高小學生" [Being ridiculed by classmates like a giant monster. An 11-year-old elementary school student with a height of 2.06 meters and could become the tallest elementary school student in the world]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2018-06-26. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
      3. 朱加樟 (2018-06-26). "四川11歲小學生身高2.06米　或成健力士世界紀錄" [An 11-year-old elementary school student in Sichuan is 2.06 meters tall and may become the Guinness World Record holder] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
    2. 2020 sources about the subject's application to the Guinness World Records and subsequently setting the Guinness World Record:
      1. 顾爱刚 (2020-10-19). 郑亚鹏 (ed.). "四川14岁男孩高2米21，申请吉尼斯世界纪录" [A 14-year-old boy from Sichuan is 2.21 m tall and applies for the Guinness World Records]. zh:红星新闻 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.

        This is an extensive profile of the subject.

      2. 顾爱刚 (2020-11-18). 赖柳华 (ed.). "2米21！四川14岁男孩身高创吉尼斯纪录 成都商报 11月18日12:26" [2.21 m! A 14-year-old boy in Sichuan sets a Guinness record for height]. zh:成都商报 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.

        From Google Translate: "Red Star News exclusively reported that Xiaoyu challenged the title of "Tallest Youth (Male)" in the Guinness World Records, which attracted the attention of many netizens at home and abroad. The news once became a hot topic on Weibo that day, with more than 260 million readings, and Douyin videos played hundreds of millions of times."

      3. "只比姚明矮5cm！ 14歲川童2米21 拚青少年金氏紀錄" [Only 5cm shorter than Yao Ming! 14-year-old Sichuan boy 2.21 m fights the youth Jin's record]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2020-10-20. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
      4. 郑直 (2020-10-20). "四川14岁男孩身高2.21米 或超美国吉尼斯纪录保持者" [The 14-year-old boy in Sichuan is 2.21 meters tall and may surpass the Guinness record holder]. The China Press (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
      5. Kingsu-Cheng, Jane (2020-12-11). "Look: World's tallest teenager is a 14-year-old Chinese student". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
      6. Hooper, Ben (2020-11-20). "Chinese teenager breaks Guinness record with 7-foot height". United Press International. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ren Keyu ( Chinese: 小宇) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep meets WP:GNG per the source found by Cunard. Could you please add these source to the article?. Thanks VocalIndia ( talk) 04:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Clint Curtis

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

Perennial candidate fails WP:NPOL. Not notable for making whistleblower complaints either. Reads like a collection of controversies and a collection of stale news blurbs. KidAd • SPEAK 22:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

If " During that same year, Curtis's accusations against Yang were the subject of a series of articles in the Daytona Beach News-Journal" is correct, with other whistleblower coverage, might be notable for that.

  • Delete, per WP:TNT. I don't often make this argument, but this article is an unqualified disaster as a BLP, and if I were writing it I would start completely from scratch. Vanamonde ( Talk) 11:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 23:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Meharab Hasan

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

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that under-19 or under-14 appearances count towards WP:NCRIC. I'm also not seeing enough coverage in searches to indicate a passing of WP:GNG for this sportsperson. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply


  • Delete. As far as I am aware, U## squads do not count for notability for any sport, cricket included. A search on Google only returns statlines and rosters (string: "meharab hasan"), nothing usable for notability. — A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that under-19 or under-14 appearances count towards WP:NCRIC. I'm also not seeing enough coverage in searches to indicate a passing of WP:GNG for this sportsperson. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Under-<age> squads don't help for notability for cricket or for any other sport. — A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Article now claims that he made his List A debut for Prime Bank on 31 May 2021, with a source that doesn't verify this. I checked the scorecard here and I can't see any mention of him. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:

Wikipedia accept division cricketer league? He play division cricket here is name is also showing his score — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanvirnahid565 ( talk • contribs)

If he meets WP:NCRIC then please cite a reliable source. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Please check now this article
It's just a link to his ESPN profile which shows some youth appearances. How is that notable? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Ok sir I am new here so I don’t know how to perfect Wikipedia articles writer I am learning now.

Can you help me to cerate a new Wikipedia page for a Bangladeshi singer

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

John Lucaites

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

Doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 19:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The only citations are primary sources from universities. An article solely or mostly using primary sources does not meet WP:GNG. Capsulecap ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 13:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The "Provost Professor" title doesn't appear to be quite as high a ranking in their system as "Distinguished Professor" or a named chair [1] [2], but it's not to be sneezed at, either. The cases for passing WP:PROF#C1, WP:PROF#C2, and WP:AUTHOR also look solid. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. PROF-C1 based on citation record and NAUTHOR.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As mentioned previously, the only citations are primary sources from universities. The Google Scholar citations are showing average numbers. Either significant contributions are made to demonstrate how their work has contributed to society or it be deleted. ElderZamzam ( talk) 00:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • This is blatantly false. Even if one looks only at the article at the time you made this comment rather than properly performing WP:BEFORE, the Iowa source is from a university but not his employer (not primary), there are two award citations from non-university organizations, and 36 reliable published secondary sources about his books. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Plenty of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, plenty of citations in what I believe to be a moderate citation field for WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 21:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. per WP:NPROF#1, he passes with many highly cited works: 8 works with 100+ citations for a low citation field. -- hroest 18:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 ( talk) 22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Obinitsa Community Centre

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

not notable. Info can be moved to the article Obinitsa Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Not a listed building according to the Estonian Register of Monuments. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 22:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Meherpur Stadium

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

Out of the two references given, one is untranslated and the other is dead. The article also contains a list of teams that have played in the stadium. As none of the football teams listed are notable enough to have articles, the stadium would be unlikely to get any publicity beyond a passing mention from a minor local source. Capsulecap ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Capsulecap ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Capsulecap ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. WP:IABOT can find an archived version of a web page and add the archived version to the reference. I used it on this article. Google Translate can translate a Bengali-language page to English. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 22:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Lopamudra R

Lopamudra R (  | 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 poet, fails WP:BIO. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 19:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 19:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 19:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: There are a stack of awards, all cited, an English-language newspaper article in the Deccan Chronicle and more in non-English sources. Furius ( talk) 11:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Verified all citation link. All are relevant and no link to wiki sites. Refer external link provided for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshb n ( talk • contribs) 05:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone can actually present sources here (right at this discussion) that helps pass WP:Creative. There is an NPOV alert when you read prestigious awards. Awards list (as long as it might be) doesn't grant notability. There is a YUVA PURASKAR from Sahitya Akadmi which is the only relevant award from my perspective here. Unless proper reception of work is not found and we will remain stuck with sources that say such and such award was given, my stand remains with Delete. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 16:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. According to WP:ANYBIO, awards do, in fact, grant notability, but only if they're "well-known and significant." Are any of her awards well-known and significant? None of them link to Wikipedia articles about the award, which isn't encouraging. pburka ( talk) 21:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Wiki pages don't prove notability, so aren't really relevant here Furius ( talk) 19:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Citations are valid. Lopa is a well known writer and a translator in Kerala. She has won awards from Kendra Sahitya Academey and Kerala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishawish ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic
  • Keep - A large number of reliable sources show notability, as do multiple awards, including at least one academic award, per links added above by another editor. The subject easily meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BIO. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 19:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discarding a number of non-policy-oriented !votes above, no consensus currently exists, but I believe there to be potential to form one with another seven days. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Articles crosses notability criteria. (non-admin closure) Sreeram Dilak ( talk) 06:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Philippe Couvreur

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 19:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article reads like a promotional bio writeup than an article which establishes why he is a notable jurist. TH1980 ( talk) 14:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft. There are hints towards potential avenues of notability - a substantial list of publications and teaching at high-level institutions - but a Google Scholar search does not indicate that the subject is well-cited. I would provide an opportunity for improvement, but delete if it is not substantially forthcoming. BD2412 T 21:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Registrar of the International Court of Justice would appear to be a notable enough role. Combined with his publications and academic positions, I think it's enough to cross the notability threshhold. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. GS citation record is tiny and certainly won't pass WP:Prof. Notability will have to be found elsewhere. I do not have a notion of how significant a Registrar is. The Main publications list should be deleted; it's just bloat. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC). reply
  • Keep. Registrar of the International Court of Justice seems important enough to be listed in the WP article and on the court website. It seems Registrar (law) is an important position that is not purely administrative. Remove promotional material and we should be good. -- hroest 18:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 23:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comicraft

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Possible merge/redirect to Richard Starkings? Boleyn ( talk) 19:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG so far as I can tell. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 14:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. I believe the reference by Argento Surfer is good and counts towards establishing notability. There appears to be a number of books which have a profile on this company and although I have to date been unable to get access to the books in question, I believe this company is recognised as notable in its specific field. HighKing ++ 19:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sotai

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

There's simply nothing I can find of this that isn't from A) its inventor/people closely associated with him (so not independent sources), or B) other pseudoscientific alternative medicine promoters (which are not, therefore, reliable sources). I can't find anything about any of the two main names (Hashimoto and Hayashi) cited, either. The few google hits I get seem to be mostly sales website of the books [along with an unrelated Japanese sociologist], while for the second they are entirely unrelated. There doesn't appear to be any potentially valid target where this could be redirected. Therefore, suggest delete. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 ( talk) 19:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can’t find any RIS in either Japanese or English. Mccapra ( talk) 01:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 15:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Beale GAA

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. I am aware that GAA isn't an area I know well though. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years, so hopefully we can get this resolved. Boleyn ( talk) 18:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY, article has been improved significantly since nomination. NemesisAT ( talk) 13:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Hugh F. Blunt

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

I don't think he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No hard evidence of the same has been presented, anyway. There is a long list of "additional sources" that aren't reflected in the text of the article, and I take it with a grain of salt, given that there are almost as many as there are sentences in the article. WP still isn't a memorial, and there is no evidence the subject meets WP:AUTHOR either. (So he purportedly has works still in print. *I* have that much, and I don't qualify for an article either.) Ravenswing 19:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It seems he's more known as Tip O'Neill's childhood priest than as an author. A Google Search returns almost nothing of value, an I can't imagine that the sourced books are anything more than just passing mentions considering most seem to be either bios of O'Neill or lists of Catholic authors. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Worldcat shows he has 2200 library holdings here which is significant, he also has been published by major publishers and received several national awards. I don't see this as a memorial as he died in 1957. There are plenty of reviews referenced in the article so there is a clear pass of WP:GNG. The reviews and other references were added on 1 August after the above votes were made, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider article changes as outlined by Atlantic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Boleyn: Hi, do you think he passes WP:GNG now with the many extra references that have been added to the article? regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

That's a really impressive amount of work, user:Atlantic306. I think I'm convinced. Boleyn ( talk) 19:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 22:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Black Widow (2007 film)

Black Widow (2007 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage from independent sources as necessary for stand-alone articles per WP:GNG, missing any other indication of notability per WP:NFO BOVINEBOY 2008 14:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, one critic review at Rotten Tomatoes (cited in article) and another at Radio Times [ [7]], and TV Guide [ [8]]. Passes WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 15:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for dropping the Radiotimes review. Can you also add the url for the TV Guide review, it looks like you just repeated the Radiotimes one. (Also, I've noticed you do this all the time, but urls should be surrounded by single brackets [] not double brackets [[]].) BOVINEBOY 2008 17:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep re: the sources found by Donaldd23, and this other (albeit lukewarm) review [10]. BuySomeApples ( talk) 20:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • TheMovieScene is a blog and should not be used to indicate notability. BOVINEBOY 2008 22:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Good catch. Lucky there's still 3 other reviews that hold up, otherwise I'd have to change my vote. BuySomeApples ( talk) 05:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep sources scrape by on notability. Artw ( talk) 20:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 18:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

WonderKing Online

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N or find an ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Princess Olga, Duchess of Apulia

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. To try to inform a requested move discussion, I've been trying to find reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There don't appear to be any that provide significant coverage beyond a mere trivial mention. Other than blogs, web forums and stand-alone images, she is only mentioned a few times in society pages or listed in genealogical directories. These do not clearly demonstrate 'significant coverage'. DrKay ( talk) 19:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. DrKay ( talk) 19:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - At the moment, this bio article is going through an RM. But seeing the result at her husband's RM? the result of this bio article's RM is a foregone conclusion. So, not sure whether or not we should keep this bio of a wife of a disputing pretender to the defunct Italian throne. GoodDay ( talk) 17:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ GoodDay: I closed the requested move discussion as no consensus, so feel free to amend your comment as needed. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ( let's chat!) 19:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nomination. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk) 21:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There's a profile in the New York Times here that recounts she has been the online creative director for Christian Louboutin and a filmmaker, illustrator and textile designer. Dujour research editor Samuel Anderson profiled her in that magazine for her work with Louboutin here. She was profiled by Vouge Italia in 2010 here. She was photographed by Helmut Newton for Vanity Fair here. The NYT article is absolutely not a trivial mention, and I think if her work with Louboutin and filmmaking was included, it'd be more than just genealogy. This article should be expanded, not deleted. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Kbabej. Also profiled by Vanity Fair Spain and in the Greek Media [11]. - dwc lr ( talk) 15:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:GNG and BASIC per source found by Kbabej. The article requires improvement. Pls someone expand on this. Cheers 16:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - as I believe that's been the practice for the spouses of pretenders. GoodDay ( talk) 19:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 22:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Charis Drakos

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

Badly sourced BLP with a claim to meeting WP:NFOOTBALL but nothing to support this claim. Playmaker Stats, BeSoccer, WF, Tribuna, Soccerpunter and Football Database all have an entry for him but there are no appearances listed at all, with the exception of BeSoccer, which has an U17 Cyprus appearance, which does not confer notability to the subject.

Searches in Greek on Google and DDG failed to yield a single good source. The best thing that I could find was this Anorthosis blog (translated), which has a couple of sentences about him playing in a pre-season friendly.

Even if this guy does somehow pass NFOOTBALL, his notability is still highly questionable and there is a growing consensus that WP:GNG supersedes NFOOTBALL in such cases anyway. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 23:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Three Wednesdays of January

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

The fact they happened on successive Wednesdays is not in itself notable. It's the individual events that are notable, not the pattern. Any information would be related to the event(s) only. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unclear why this was conceived of as an encyclopedic topic. Reywas92 Talk 20:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is just a fluke, not deserving of an encyclopedia article. Pichpich ( talk) 20:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article doesn't even qualifies for an encyclopaedic article, it doesn't appears to be notable, and is just a fluke. Cheers. Tahaaleem Talk 21:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per everyone above. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per the nomination. TH1980 ( talk) 04:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not an encyclopedic topic. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have never seen anyone call it this; there are no sources that indicate that anyone ever did. Each of the three events already has its own page, there is no need for this. Swd7391 ( talk) 15:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A way to poetically describe the important events in American political life during the January of 2021 as "Three Wednesdays of January" is (1) not a regular encyclopedic subject, OR (2) not a notable WP:WORDISSUBJECT subject. It's just creative wordsmithing. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 15:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • What on earth? No. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Have you tried googling "three wednesdays"? You'd see that it isn't that of a far fetched WP:WORDISSUBJECT. On a one-to-ten scale of independent article viablity I'd say it scores at least 1.8 — Alalch Emis ( talk) 22:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 ( talk) 23:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Jez Mead

Jez Mead (  | 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 appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Duclod Man

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

I am absolutely failing to see how this is notable in any way.


1. Google only gives about ~3,000 results for the Duclod Man. ( [12])


2. No clear evidence of lasting notability or even current notability.


3. The only RS used are the articles by the journalist mentioned in the article. Every single other source is primary, likely unreliable, and written by Duclod Man. wizzito | say hello! 18:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 18:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 18:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The main source is a, unreliable and primary source. A couple of other obviously unreliable sources exist, but nothing that proves this is an actual thing. It's the Walmart version of John Titor. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Why is this being considered for deletion?

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

The result was merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. MBisanz talk 18:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Weasel (DC Comics)

Weasel (DC Comics) (  | 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. Doesn't seem to be any particular significant coverage of the character. TTN ( talk) 18:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 13:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Carmen Bernos de Gasztold

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

Article has some strange sourcing, with one cited source linking to an article on cats rather than on the subject, and another citing an article on the French wikipedia. It's posssible that some vandalism occurred in the article history. Not clear that the subject passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:NAUTHOR. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article lacks adequate sources to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It can sometimes be challenging to find reviews of authors active before the internet era, but in this case reviews of her body of work can be found easily.
    1. Beard, Aaron Bernarr (November 1968). "Carmen Bernos de Gasztold's "Prayers From The Ark" an Approach to Writing Poetry". Elementary English. 45 (7): 968–971. JSTOR  41386433.
    2. Kennedy, X. J. (December 1964). "Review: The Poet in the Playpen". Poetry. 105 (3): 190–193. JSTOR  20590001.
    3. Steisel, Marie-Georgette (March 1964). "French Poetry for Children: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography". The Modern Language Journal. 48 (3): 123–129. JSTOR  321005.
    4. Carlson, Ruth Kearney (October 1969). "The Sunset Is a Pretty Pink Dove—Children's Voices in Poetry". Elementary English. 46 (6): 748–757. JSTOR  41386570.
A superficial literature review also shows that her poems have been widely taught, making them notable per WP:NBOOK#4. Additionally, her poems were translated into English and Spanish (maybe more) and famously set to music by Ivor R. Davies, which certainly suggests notability as an artist. It appears that Prayers from the Ark is her most notable work, so I wouldn't object to moving the article to that title, but it's unnecessary. pburka ( talk) 14:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Pburka Thank you for finding these. I will withdraw the nom shortly. Would you be willing to add these to the article since you have access? 4meter4 ( talk) 14:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ 4meter4:  Done, although anyone with a Google account can access jstor. pburka ( talk) 22:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Erica Diamond

Erica Diamond (  | 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 without multiple, non-trivial independent sources covering the subject in detail. User:Namiba 15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Brunswick-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Content is semi-advertorialized, and not referenced to any significant reliable sourcing to establish notability. Two of the three footnotes here are very short blurbs about her in listicles, not substantive enough to count as WP:GNG-building coverage, and the third is just one of her books metaverifying its own existence in an online bookstore, which is not how you make writers notable either. Notability is not "she did stuff", it's "other people have written and published independent third party content analyzing the significance of the stuff she did". Bearcat ( talk) 17:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: While, as currently referenced, notability is week, a search of news sources does show significant coverage. That suggests that an interested editor could improve the article sufficiently to meet policy and guidelines. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 13:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
—¿philoserf?, can you link to those significant coverage in this discussion?-- User:Namiba 14:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This person clearly exists and is doing a job that requires them to maintain a relatively high profile. However, I can't find references that look independent: there are blog entries and other online content, but nothing that seems substantive enough from independent sources. RomanSpa ( talk) 23:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The sources mentioned are not reliable, fails notability. Aloolkaparatha ( talk) 08:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

System 21

System 21 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has link to notable companies, but isn't notable itself. Possible ATD is merge/redirect, but not sure where to, and don't think it is worth it. Only mention of it on WP is an unref sentence in Geac Computer Corporation. Boleyn ( talk) 15:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Monthly Al Kawsar

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

The sources do not show that the subject is notable. There seem to be large parts that are completely unsourced. Three sources talk about language practices. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 04:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 04:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 04:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 04:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The magazine is not the main topic of the thesis but is briefly mentioned. Bangla Tribune's critical commentary on publication by religious institutes does not call it the most but widely circulated monthly magazine and that is a key difference. The magazine is not the main topic of this opinion piece and does not help its notability. The Banglanews24.com report, written by a guest writer, lists all magazines published by "Qwami scholars". Again the magazine is not the main topic of this article. None of the sources shows that the topic is notable. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 07:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Vinegarymass911. ~ Yahya ( ✉) • 11:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, it is quite a notable monthly in Bangladesh. UserNumber ( talk) 21:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • As evidenced by significant coverage in ...? Magazines have to meet the general notability guideline. They are commonly expected to meet criteria in WP:NMEDIA or WP:NMAG. The thesis handle is not working for me at the moment, but the OP says it mentions the magazine only briefly. The most significant of the remaining cited coverage is a single paragraph in the Bangla Tribune. The Department of Films & Publications, Rokomari.com, and BoiBazar.com are directory-type listings. Banglanews24.com, Daily Naya Diganta, and Shomoyer Alo are editorials (the last two identical) that briefly mention the magazine in a list of magazines. It hasn't won any awards, has a sixteen year history during which no one seems to have written much about it, has not been shown to be regularly cited by reliable sources, and as an Islamic magazine in an overwhelmingly Islamic country, can hardly be said to be representing an undeserved niche market. What is the evidence of notability? -- Worldbruce ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can now access the thesis, which Owais Al Qarni, the author of this article, misrepresented. It only briefly mentions Al Kawsar. The most significant coverage I could find is the single paragraph in the Bangla Tribune. As such, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NMEDIA, or WP:NMAG. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 23:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete brief mentions in reliable sources are not significant coverage in the sense of WP:GNG. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Perry Glasser

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

DOesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 17:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the article is written by the subject himself so I’m going to presume he’s given it his best shot and what we have here is the best sources available. Of the six sources, the first three are deadlinks, the fourth a review on Booklist (not sure how useful that is for notability), the fifth is a Kirkus review, and the sixth confirms the subject is on the staff of the NAR. There are some unsourced claims of prize wins and I just deleted an entire section of unsourced material. For a career spanning nearly forty years this is very scant and does not indicate to me that the subject is notable. Mccapra ( talk) 02:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 22:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Melissa DeRosa

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

"Secretary to the governor" is not a position that comes close to meeting WP:NPOL, even if the governor is controversial. KidAd • SPEAK 16:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, against deletion. Clearly meets criteria. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The position she has is described as the most powerful non-elected office in New York. Massive press coverage. "Secretary to the governor" is NOT a low-level secretarial job, and we shouldn't mix it up with this (which may have happened?). Her job has been described as overseeing the daily government operations for the State on New York. And, she meets WP:General Notability Guidelines: significant coverage, reliable sources, the author is independent on the subject and "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." She has been described as the "spearhead" of the Cuomo sex scandal coverup. Mwinog2777 ( talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
"Spitzer was responsible for appointing his Executive Chamber. These appointments did not require the confirmation of the New York State Senate. Most political advisors report to the Secretary to the Governor of New York, while most policy advisors report to the Director of State Operations, who also answers to the Secretary to the Governor, making that position, in practice, the true Chief of Staff and most powerful position in the Cabinet.[1] The literal Chief of Staff is in charge of the Office of Scheduling and holds no authority over other cabinet officials.[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLo-Watson ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

UNTIL she resigned, Derosa was among the highest paid and most influential appointees in NY’s executive branch. She resigned abruptly about a week ago after the New York Attorney General’s investigative report revealed that she was the center of a political and sexual harassment scandal involving Governor Cuomo. The editor that suggested deletion needs to know that in American federal and state government offices, just as with the secretary of state of the United States, Derosa was not a ‘secretary’ in the sense of somebody who types dictation. she is at the center of a major scandal that resulted in the governor of the fourth largest state in the United States resigning under a cloud and under threat of first impeachment of a NY governor in over 100 years. She belongs in wikipedia with her own listing more than many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.144.113.65 ( talk • contribs) 09:34, August 12, 2021(UTC)

  • Keep As others have said, the term "secretary," in this context, is a significant political position, and recent press coverage has been more than significant to cover WP:GNG Niftysquirrel ( talk) 14:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 18:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Queen Mary (cocktail)

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

I couldn't find any sources that supported this cocktail being a real thing. Sources on the page were either dead or didn't mention the cocktail at all. I would strongly recommend deleting this article. 60clawsand20paws ( talk) 15:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Googling this, I discovered other cocktails also called the "Queen Mary". However, the reference already provided in the article ("Off-Premise Catering Management") seems definitive. I'd like to see a second (definitive - there are plenty of non-definitive ones on mixologists' blogs etc.) reference, but if such a reference can be provided this is surely an easy "keep". RomanSpa ( talk) 16:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • correct the article I find sources for a Queen Mary cocktail. It just isn't a cocktail described here. I prefer that we correct this article. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 07:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • keep A quick search of “Queen mary beer grenadine” on multiple search engines results in multiple hits. Both the 2013 book, “Off-Premise Catering Management”, and the 2020 recipe article by the Distillerie Louis Morand, are credible sources that specifically refer to the “Queen Mary” beer-grenadine cocktail. I also added a “Wayback Machine” archived link for a dead link in the references. This should be a “keep”. Gillespk ( talk) 1:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • separate given that sources have been found to support two cocktails with the same name, should a second page be created that describes the gin cocktail as well? 60clawsand20paws ( talk) 13:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment why not just change the name to “Queen Mary (beer cocktail)”, in order to avoid any confusion with the other cocktail. Gillespk ( talk) 19:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Gillespk I think that makes a lot of sense. Do you know how to do that? 60clawsand20paws ( talk) 14:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
60clawsand20paws done! You can change the name of an article by using the Move function. It has it’s own tab at the top. Gillespk ( talk) 14:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Gillespk Thank you for the tip! 60clawsand20paws ( talk) 15:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 12:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Guillermo Bermúdez

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

Essentially an unverified article as the only source given is a dead link. Not clear if the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NARCHITECT or WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the sourcing clearly does not meet GNG. To justify having an article on an architect, we should have specific mentions of some of the subjects significant works. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I fixed the dead link using InternetArchiveBot, and I looked at the corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia at es:Guillermo Bermúdez. I added some references: books and a catalogue of an exhibition, all published many years after his death. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep After looking through the sources that have been added, I believe the subject is notable. An entire book has been written about his work (La construcción de la intimidad: casas de Guillermo Bermúdez Umaña 1952-1971). This, combined with the obituary in the Colombian newspaper El Tiempo, demonstrates that he meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Two books and two journal articles, all specifically about his work and used as references in the article, together with a major newspaper obituary, make a clear and obvious case for WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Thank you everyone, particularly Eastmain, for finding these sources and updating the article. It's clear he passes WP:SIGCOV. Withdrawing shortly. 4meter4 ( talk) 12:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Rayta

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

the page should be deleted, as it is made up nonsense Venkat TL ( talk) 15:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NEO. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article has two sources, one of which is a newspaper article about arguments on Twitter, and the other of which is a meme posted on Reddit. If there is a topic here worthy of encyclopedic coverage, there ought to be much better sourcing and clearer writing for the benefit of readers outside India who are unfamiliar with the underlying controversy. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Franca Eneide ( talk) 07:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Mirza Babur

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

Unsourced for how long? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – I've found some sources: see [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. While none of them are too substantial individually, they can probably be combined per WP:BASIC to amount to sufficient coverage. Additionally, I don't doubt that more sourcing is out there: the many variants of his name make searching difficult, and offline sources likely contain far more information. (Nineteenth-century Mughal royalty is precisely the sort of topic to which WP:NEXIST should be applied.) But what we already have is sufficient to at least see the outlines of a man who played a noteworthy role in the demise of the Mughal Empire and the rise of English influence over the Indian subcontinent. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but expand. This subject meets WP:GNG per the sources found by User:Extraordinary Writ showing that he has been attended the Royal Court with his brothers. Thanks for your nice works. VocalIndia ( talk) 04:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. All of the sources above at most repeat (sometimes verbatim) the same paragraph-long anecdote about his European affectations and nothing more. If that is all the info we can find on him wouldn't it be better to put it in his father's or another article? The combined coverage exception in BASIC assumes multiple sources are providing different information that can be added up to SIGCOV, but here you could use only the Twilight of the Mughuls ref and lose zero coverage. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Herbert Brunnegger

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

The claims of this article are patently false. There were people born after Brunnegger who served in the German military in World War II, and near the end of World War II there were people being recruited at a younger age than Brunnegger was when the war began. Just to throw out on person I know of who disproves any claim in this article F. Enzio Busche was in the German Army during World War II, starting at age 14, and was 7 years younger than Brunnegger. I suspect there were people younger than Busche in the Germany military of World War II. We should not have articles built around a patently false claim. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone can access the stated sources and confirm they have significant reliable coverage of Brunnegger, since that's an actual possibility. Other then that it looks hoaxy, but I wouldn't G3. casualdejekyll ( talk) 14:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Intothat darkness 14:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I've done a less than ordinary job of updating the page. I could probably be accused of WP:REFBOMBING but I don't have the knowledge or time to do much better. Probably needs a WW2 buff to update this. Not sure how notable he is but his accounts of the war seem to be quoted a lot and he was the subject of an entire article in a local English newspaper in the 80s. I don't think an incorrect claim in a stub is reason for deletion before WP:BEFORE has been done and notability discussed on those merits. I could still be persuaded to change to delete but I think we need the military history people to give this a look over. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Just dumping two more sources here as I’m not spending more time on the article if it is destined for the bin [19] [20]. I suppose another option might be Merge with Le Paradis massacre as there is useful information in this article pertaining to the event. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 06:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete fails WP:BASIC, the main claims of notability (age and massacre) are either unsupported or unreliably supported. Mztourist ( talk) 03:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As far as I can make out he was a NN soldier. Even if he participated in atrocities, he will only be one person out of a signficant number of culprits. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Julie Higginson

Julie Higginson (  | 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 per WP:NACTOR since she does not have multiple significant roles. – DarkGlow • 13:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 ( talk) 13:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Delete based on copyright violation. Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Edacheri Central LP school

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

No evidence of notability. Fram ( talk) 12:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 12:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 12:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A merge, as suggested by Epicgenius, may be the best long term way to incorporate this information, but there is clearly a consensus to keep the content. Mojo Hand ( talk) 17:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Webster Avenue Bridge

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

This is a random bridge over a train line, and is not notable in any way. This is not a major bridge over a river, or one that is architecturally significant. We can't have articles for every bridge over a train line in an encyclopedia. Would this random bridge in my neighborhood also deserve an article? Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 12:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article has abundant references which adequately demonstrate notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Yes it's a small bridge, but it seems to be well referenced. Is there a policy- and guideline-based rationale for deletion? pburka ( talk) 13:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to an appropriate article (e.g. Port Washington Branch) per WP:NBUILD and WP:NOTNEWS. The bridge is not architecturally notable per WP:NBUILD and it's not even a bridge, just an overpass over the Port Washington Branch. Its main claim to fame is that it is being replaced right now. In the "Description" section, the main reference used is a wiki (bridgehunter.com) and the only sources in that section that aren't bridgehunter are used to describe the location of the overpass. That is not enough to demonstrate its notability, as it is very easy to find sources that demonstrate where something is located. The first part of the history section doesn't really give me confidence either as numerous overpasses were built across this line around the same time. Source 6 doesn't mention the overpass at all, only that the line opened, and sources 5 and 7 are primarily about the current bridge rehabilitation.
    That said, the main issue why this bridge appears notable is because of the damage identified in 1979 and the subsequent repairs in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. However, per WP:NOTNEWS, this could adequately be described in another page, like the Port Washington Branch page. Merely needing repairs and spanning a railroad line does not make a bridge unique per WP:MILL. Looking through newspapers.com and ProQuest, most of the search results seem to discuss either repairs, crashes, or traffic reports, which doesn't give me confidence in the subject's notability Epicgenius ( talk) 13:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per policy WP:NOTPAPER, we can have as many articles about bridges as we like. The nomination fails to demonstrate a problem which, unlike the bridge, needs fixing. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and the rationale "We can't have articles for every bridge over a train line in an encyclopedia." just isn't a valid reason for deleting an article. If there are adequate sources to write an article, why not go ahead and write it? NemesisAT ( talk) 21:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 14:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Glowing Corn

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and the band does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 TT me 12:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I couldn't find any sources to show that this band is notable. BuySomeApples ( talk) 02:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ramzi Najjar (author)

Ramzi Najjar (author) (  | 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 an author that doesn't satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Article also seems to have been previously created. Sources are mere PR pieces. Riteboke ( talk) 10:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Riteboke ( talk) 10:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Riteboke ( talk) 10:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Riteboke ( talk) 10:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to anyone looking at this topic please be aware there is a long and confused history involved (see here). There are two Ramzi Najjars, one living and one dead. An article about one got changed into an article about the other, and there was much confusion as to which of the Ramzi Najjars any given source was referring to. Mccapra ( talk) 17:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. There is a lot of coverage to sift through and we have two articles with same history. Maybe redirect to main article where history is present? Nevertheless, AfD is not a place, try WP:3O. 212.236.217.5 ( talk) 13:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete removed 2 press releases (one was a dead link). Amazon and Goodreads are not proper sources, and Google Books is self published source. This leaves the page with not enough news coverage. Peter303x ( talk) 00:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is a lot of information and articles on Author that can be added
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Serb countries and regions

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

This is a POV and Serb nationalist coatrack spin off from History of the Serbs with almost no sources of any merit that actually discuss this idea as a cogent subject. Perfect example of the uses of TNT. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 12:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support An issue-laden WP:COATRACK that should have been deleted a long time ago. Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 19:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - it is indeed an unfortunately framed article, which opens the door to the use of manipulative, anachronistic ideas, burdened with contemporary ideology, ahistorical nomenclature and terminology, using possessive forms of expression and ethnicization where it's highly inappropriate - within the Balkans scope it is like genuinely set for constant disputes.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 19:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - for the reasons previously stated Shadow4ya ( talk) 11:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I do not recall ever seeing other lists of countries claimed by an ethnic group, and I suspect there is a good reason for it. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Aside from the current POV and content of the article (which are not grounds for deletion), I am wondering how the nominator and other delete voters think this topic is substantially different from similar list articles on Jewish, Muslim, Greek, Armenian, Pashtun, Turkic (I could go on) states? Are these all nationalist coatracks? Vladimir.copic ( talk) 06:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Actually, the current POV and content of the article falls into WP:POVFORK which is a WP:DEL-REASON. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Ok ignore my incorrect statement - could someone address the main part of my question? Particularly concerning the topic and not the article as it stands. Most histories of the Serbian people seem to go through the various states that have included Serbs or been a Serbian nation-state. If the article was cleaned up, POV removed, reliable sources included, put in line with History of the Serbs etc, how is it any less notable than the above cited articles? I'm just trying to see what the base level of notability is seeing as there are quite a few articles in this format. Here are some more. To lay my bias on the table: I think 95% of current list articles should be deleted (including most of the ones I cited earlier). Vladimir.copic ( talk) 07:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep accepting that the POV issues need to be fixed and the article better sourced. Rightly or wrongly there are many list articles like this on Wikipedia. A quick look by me produced 23 similar articles all with corresponding pages or sections on the history of those people or nation (see below table). This makes the idea that this article just being a content fork a little hard to swallow. While I think all of these articles are fairly useless, if this is a convention on WP I see no reason why an article on the Serbs should be excluded. This probably just needs WP:CLEANUP unless a larger decision is made on the future of similar pages.
  • Keep As Vladimir has stated before me, we have other similar lists. What we need is more references and sourced material. Soundwaweserb ( talk) 22:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above are essentially WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. We are talking about this list, not the others. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Similar List Articles
History Article List Article
Jewish History List
Muslim History List
Greek History List
Tengrist History List
Armenian History List
Pashtun History List
Turkic History List
Iranian History List
Sunni History List
Shia History List
Kurdish History List
Italian History List
Georgian History List
Belarusian, Russian, Ukranian History List
Hasidic History List
Confucian History List
Hindu History List
Jain History List
Zoroastrian History List
Maratha History List
Rajput History List
Brahmin History List
Albanian History List

Vladimir.copic ( talk) 07:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Listing a number of other ( WP:WHATABOUT), more or less, and in this case probably less, similar examples is never good argument.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 00:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree that in most contexts this is a weak argument but it is important to note how widespread a convention this is and that these types of articles can exist without being WP:POV or WP:COATRACK. At risk of making the same sin I will point to these discussions which came to the same conclusion.. I have already provided a small sample of the reliable sources available on this topic in my above comment which demonstrate it is obviously notable. Remember that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the current POV issues are fixable problems. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

2027 Cricket World Cup

AfDs for this article:
2027 Cricket World Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL applies here.

History of this article:

As of 6 Aug 2021, there is no indication where this competition will take place, what its format will be, and what the lead-up matches for qualification will be. I note that the International Cricket Council's website is silent about this. Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 09:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt. Nothing confirmed about hosts, dates, etc. Just a window in the cricket calendar for a tournament to take place in 2027, and that's it so far. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: WP:CRYSTAL article, per nominator and above comment JW 1961 Talk 11:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and salt due to repeated re-creation. That's definitely repeating other people's arguments, but that's because there's nothing else to say, is there? casualdejekyll ( talk) 15:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL, but don't salt, since it's still a page that may be plausibly notable in the future. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
For info, the 2021 Indian Premier League was salted for multiple re-creations before anything was actually known. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
We should salt it, and it can be unsalted once there's information confirmed about it, so that a decent article can be demonstrably created about it. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. (non-admin closure) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 17:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Chowtime Na!

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

Non-notable television programme; a quick search for references indicates that it fails WP:GNG. Blake Gripling ( talk) 08:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling ( talk) 08:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling ( talk) 08:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete clearly not notable. The only two references in the article, [21] and [22], are not reliable sources. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 11:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete clearly not notable. As per above, references supplied are not reliable sources. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect to the article that the users mentioned above (the third and fourth votes).---- Rdp060707| talk 10:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect. As the program is not notable enough to be given a separate article. -- ERAMnc 19:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sidney P. Brooks

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Was one of the 1007 Tuskegee Airmen, just being in a notable unit doesn't makes it members notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources listed to support are mostly about the squadrons he served in or are blogs and there is minimal reliable information about him apart from a few passing mentions in books about the Tuskegee Airmen. This is one of many pages of Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User and this is becoming like the pages created for every member of Easy Company Mztourist ( talk) 06:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 06:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 06:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 ( talk) 09:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are numerous books about the Tuskegee Airmen and the subject naturally appears in them as one of "the first African American pilots to engage in aerial combat". He also appears in reference works such as The African American National Biography. They therefore pass WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • In order to satisfy #3 of ANYBIO The African American National Biography would have to be the "country's standard national biographical dictionary", so no he doesn't satisfy ANYBIO. Mztourist ( talk) 11:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with the nom, after searching I don't see anything more than passing mentions in reliable sources so it fails GNG. Just being a member of a notable unit, does not mean that notability is inherited. ( t · c) buidhe 10:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and buidhe. Having been in a notable unit or organization doesn't automatically make one notable. Intothat darkness 14:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, largely per the above. There's no real secondary sourcing beyond trivial single-sentence mentions, and the awards don't meet WP:ANYBIO even under the most capacious standards. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete simply having been a member of a famous military unit does not make notable. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 14:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 10:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Robert Dale Rowell

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

Pavlov2 ( talk) 06:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Well, the nomination is pleasingly brief and I've certainly seen less coherent ones. This seems to be the nominator's first visit to AfD so maybe a look at Wikipedia:Deletion process would help. As a non Twinkle user myself, I'm disappointed rather than surprised that it handles null nominations. Thincat ( talk) 08:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Thincat:Sorry for submit a null nomination, I nominate it because the issue "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline" was hanged for a long time. Pavlov2 ( talk) 11:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Oh, I understand. I won't vote because, although I can't see why anyone would write this article, neither can I see it is worth troubling to delete it. Thincat ( talk) 12:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The US justice system executes a depressingly large number of its clients, but at least it does so with copious, open and reliable publicity. This article is badly in need of inline citations; it may not be well-referenced, but it's certainly referencable. Crimes sufficiently awful to lead to execution also stand far enough out of the ordinary to be strongly notable, and are worthy of a historic record. Elemimele ( talk) 11:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No explanation from nominator as to why this article should be deleted. References need inline citations which hopefully someone can do following the result of this AfD. Inexpiable ( talk) 19:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per WP:GNG and Inexpiables rationale. BabbaQ ( talk) 13:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete , with potential for merging some content into an article about Gasolin AG. There's indications below that this has already been done, but if someone needs a userspace copy, let me know. Vanamonde ( Talk) 08:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Bruno Bergner

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

Article lacks quality sources. The first source used in the article which is cited repeatedly cites wikipedia as the main source of its information; basically making wikipedia the source for wikipedia. The second is a dead link whose reliability and quality are uncertain. The other citations are all trivial name drops, some of which don't verify the content they are supposed to be supporting in the article, or dead links of uncertain quality. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing promising, but granted foreign language references may exist outside of my ability to locate. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 07:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: His article on Deutsch Wikipedia has a number of books on him. Also, regarding the dead link: archive.org is our friend lol. It's entirely in German though, no clue what it says. Not !voting for now, just wanted to clarify the source situations. Curbon7 ( talk) 07:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • One of those books is Kürschners Graphiker-Handbuch, which is accessible through the Wikipedia Library (via de Gruyter). The 1967 edition does indeed have an entry on Bergner, but it is just this:
      Bergner, Bruno, Graphiker, Ham -
      burg 13, Badestr, 2,
      Vexations ( talk) 13:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is written in the way that a family member or an art dealer would write about someone. The English article was translated from de.wikipedia, which was written mostly by... drum roll... user Jbergner. I can't find much in the way of sourcing, so it is del*te for the moment. That said, the existence of Bruno-Bergner-Straße in Greiz may tell us something. --- Possibly ☎ 07:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Struck the street info; not the same Bruno Bergner, per below. --- Possibly ☎ 17:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep, The AutoBild Klassik article that @Curbon7 located is a solid account dedicated to Bergner and describing his impact on German society, and he clearly made a society-wide mark. It would be nice if we could find another similar source, but we have to remember that one source a few decades ago is worth about five nowadays, where someone only needs to sneeze, and (if they have a publicist), there will be 5 articles on it the next day. Nevertheless, the street-name is someone else: [23] (article describes a political activist killed in a concentration camp in 1942 and commemorated by the street name in the town of his birth, and probably also worthy of an article). We also need to be careful that we don't delete the article on this chap merely because his son went into the same business, and has put a biography of his dad on his studio's website. It's natural that he should do so, and says nothing about his father's notability - positive or negative. Elemimele ( talk) 11:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment. Elemimele, how would suggest we handle the fact that much of the article is sourced to wikipedia? Not to mention the error in confusing people that you found. There are so many issues here, that it's a nightmare for any editor trying to sort out what's true and what isn't. In my opinion we are just better off deleting this (or at least stubifying it). 4meter4 ( talk) 12:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
4meter4 the AutoBild Klassik article from Curbon7 contains a huge amount of biographical detail and discussion of the importance of his work, at least in respect of the petrol/motoring illustrations. If it's classed as independent and reliable, then it could support most of the article. I can read German and I'm happy to go through screening the article to remove anything not supported. But as I say, it'd be great if there were a second source as I'm not greatly comfortable with single-source articles. I just feel it would be a pity to lose all trace of this chap and his work, when it clearly was influential. Elemimele ( talk) 13:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Elemimele Thank you for being willing to help out. If it's kept, I'd appreciate you taking the time to do that. Perhaps another source(s) will emerge as this discussion continues. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 13:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Elemimele: nice work on decoding the street name. Regarding his work being influential, I am not sure of that. There does seem to be a family-driven campaign to say it is influential, both through the first source (Atelier Klaus Bergner/Aatelier-bergner.de) and the author of the German wiki article (Jbergner). I don't think it is a coincidence that the AutoBild Klassik article quotes his son directly, and is also used in this article ("Some years later his son, Klaus Bergner, shared the opinion that his father probably owed his survival in the prison camp to that talent: "My father probably survived [because] ... he painted the apartments of the Russian officers and, from time to time, produced the odd painting"). It's pretty obviously mostly a family effort to memorialize the father. The painting included in the de and en articles was also uploaded by Jbergner. I do not see a source for personal details like the birth/date of death. There is a lot more evidence here that this is a family memorial page than there is of independent recognition. I'm taking the sourcing with a large grain of salt... --- Possibly ☎ 16:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I think you're right that a lot of information has come from the son's recollections of his father, but not all of it; Sylvia Lott, the journalist who wrote the AutoBild article, had clearly also interviewed his old collaborator, the advertising manager at Gasolin, whom she also quotes. I think we have to distinguish what his son says directly (for example on the website of the current business) from what an independent journalist reports his son as having said. She is allowed to use sources we cannot, and her screening of their information makes them allowable for us. I also think it's inevitable that a lot of information will come from memories of family and friends. So far as his birth and early life is concerned, we've got to consider the context of post-war Germany: life was incredibly chaotic, records patchy, and half the infrastructure bombed. Human memories may be all we have, and we must trust journalists to make of them what they believe. I've put a translation of part of the article, and a summary of the rest, here [24]. I hope it's okay to do this. I'm conscious that the article is copyright, so we can't just put translations willy-nilly on WP. This is purely to help editors assess whether the information is appropriate as a source, and I'll have to request its deletion as soon as this AfD is sorted out. If Bruno Bergner survives deletion, I am, as above, happy to edit to remove information that can't be found screened via Lott and any other sources anyone can find. As regards his significance: my feeling is that if you are the pen behind a massive advertising campaign over more than a decade, whose work would have been familiar to every household in a major country, then you're probably notable. It's like being the person who made up the image of Super Mario, or the cocoa-pops characters; it might be that no one actually knows who you are, but because your creation is so widely known, it's legitimate for an encyclopaedia to take an interest in your existence. We're here to answer those people who ask, one day, "I wonder who it was, who made that thing that I see every day..." (on which, I'm not totally against merging, if there's somewhere to merge to) Elemimele ( talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
It's way too convenient that the son gets interviewed in the article about the father's painting, and another relative uploads images of Bergner's paintings. It's obviously a family memorial. The same Citroen image that appears in the AutoBild article was uploaded to Commons by Jbergner. Finally, if he is a famous graphic designer, why don't we see more examples of his graphic designs when doing an image search? All I see in an image search is material that his family uploaded. Which means that while he may have done widely distributed designs, he wasn't recognized for it. --- Possibly ☎ 19:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Also it might be that no one actually knows who you are, but because your creation is so widely known, it's legitimate for an encyclopaedia to take an interest in your existence.... no, this is fundamentally incorrect. If no one actually knows who you are, you do not get an article. That would be using Wikipedia to create the memorial. We do have an article on Super Mario creator Yōichi Kotabe, because he is well known and has been widely and independently written about. --- Possibly ☎ 19:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I think you're maybe finding coincidences that perhaps aren't really there. The German Wikipedia article, undoubtedly written by a CoI relative, appeared in 2006, while the AutoBild article appeared in 2011, and Bergner died in 1995, so it's not like this is a flurry of memorialisation by the family following his death. Auto Bild isn't the sort of news outlet where you phone one day and ask them to produce an article on your dad. Our own WP describes it as a leading German automobile magazine. And if they chose to write an article about Bergner, it would be decidedly odd if they hadn't sent a journalist to talk to his family. I regard the fact that a leading independent German automobile magazine chose to write two pages on him 16 years after his death as evidence that he is of some notability in at least the German automobile community (a significant sized group). As regards the images, yes, there is one image in common between the German WP article and AutoBild, but the AutoBild article also contains quite a few other images from his work. Thinking from the perspective of Auto Bild, they just wanted some attractive images that their readers might remember with nostalgia; the less effort the better. Much of his work must be under copyright, and probably a copyright whose current ownership is very unclear (it would have been property of Gasolin, passed on to Aral, and goodness only knows where since). I can well imagine they'd use images provided by the family, purely because they're the easiest source. The relevant fact, again, isn't that the image came from family, it's that an independent secondary source thought the image was worth publishing. Elemimele ( talk) 20:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I can't, however, find anything apart from Sylvia Lott's article, and a lot of his leaflets on e-bay (I'm discounting all WP and atelier Bergner sources, obviously), and that bothers me. If we had a second source, I'd happily go for the full keep, but the fact we've only got one is why I was originally a weak-keep. I'm fighting his corner, but I don't have a personal axe to grind on this. Elemimele ( talk) 20:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Signing of on this, but I will add that I have edited and created way more than 1000 articles on artists. There's very little evidence of notability here. No museum collections, no published images outside those sourced by family, no entries in dictionaries of artists, no exhibitions of his graphic work, no awards by learned artistic societies. If you cannot read about the person in more than one source, can't see their work in museums, can't find independently published copies of their work online, well, they're not notable. --- Possibly ☎ 21:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
fair comment! Elemimele ( talk) 22:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • In view of @Possibly's totally reasonable argument, I'm quite prepared to re-think my original weak keep. As a matter of information, I've started a draft on the petrol-station chain for whom Bergner created his advertising work (Gasolin AG), translating the German WP page [25] (my incomplete draft is at [26]). Since it's Bergner's advertising work that's most memorable, and the Gasolin AG petrol concern was enormous (and far more notable) I think it's reasonable for me to merge a little of Bergner's information into the draft, which to my mind clears the way for deletion of Bruno Bergner from English WP if that's the outcome of this AfD (unless miraculously someone finds more solid sources for him). Meanwhile, minor point: the links in the Bergner article to NITAG are linking to an article on a completely different subject. Elemimele ( talk) 12:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The summary of this book says that it discusses Bergner's role as graphic artist in marketing Gasolin AG https://www.zwischengas.com/de/SZ/zubehoer/Gasolin-und-die-Entwicklung-einer-Marke-Buchbesprechung-.html. If Elemimele is looking for a second source, that would seem to be one, but I can't access the book (which is not obviously written by a family member), and without seeing the book I'm also reluctant to do more than make that comment. Sheijiashaojun ( talk) 22:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 18:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Fred Bergdinon

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

Hockey player who played only two professional games, and made no contribution of significance in either one. No sources could be found outside of statistical databases. It's unlikely significant coverage in offline newspapers exists. A marginal pass of WP:NHOCKEY shouldn't supersede WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:SIGCOV in this instance. 4meter4 ( talk) 04:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This article explains the confusion about the player's surname and provides additional biographic detail. I looked for details about his death in 1995, but the online search at the Windsor Star doesn't go back that far. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It would be helpful if someone with access to Boston newspapers of the 1925-1926 season could check for coverage, particularly when he was initially signed for the team and when he received his career-ending (or at least season-ending) injury. The Boston Globe and Boston Herald websites don't have anything, but probably their indexes don't go back that far. The reason WP:NHOCKEY and other topic-specific guidelines exist is that references often exist that are hard to find, particularly for people, organizations and events before the Internet era. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Meets WP:NHOCKEY. NHOCKEY is particularly relevant for older subjects where online sources are not likely to be representative of the sources that were available at the time. Rlendog ( talk) 15:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • With a player that has such a short and insignificant career, I don't think we can rationally or reasonably presume offline sources exist. In fact I would be very surprised if he got any coverage in newspapers of his day or other sports reference works. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm sympathetic to 4meter4's argument, and I've always been uneasy about the one-top-flight-game-no-matter-if-nothing-is-known-about-you=notable premise. Someone with an otherwise utterly unremarkable life, where biographical information is both sparse and disputed, and as far as anyone knows never even played professionally other than those two games? That's a prime candidate for a list article. Since I do have access to early Massachusetts newspapers, I'll take a look after the weekend. Ravenswing 18:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. By the time this subject died (in 1995), the Internet was already in common use. Is any biographical information available from obituaries? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, 0 Newspapers.com hits (under different versions of the first name) and only a nominal meet of the hockey guideline. Geschichte ( talk) 18:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Player played in multiple games in the NHL. Easily passes NHOCKEY. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Firstly, the top-level leagues, such as the NHL in hockey, are such an important level of play that it's incredibly important for us to be as complete and thorough as possible a reference for everybody who was ever there at all. Just merging some players into lists doesn't cut it — List of Boston Bruins players does not offer anywhere to document his birthplace, his birth and death dates or his OHA record. That's precisely why the notability criteria for sportspeople have the "one game in the top leagues = notable" rule in the first place — because it's incredibly important that we have as complete as feasibly possible a record of every single person who ever played for the Boston Bruins at all, rather than picking and choosing and leaving some Bruins in the dust. Does it need better sources, yes — but on that point, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the article also has a redirect to it from the spelling "Fred Bourdginon", which actually has more mainspace links travelling through it than are actually linking directly to the "Bergdinon" spelling — and even "Bourdginon" is a spelling error what I or anybody else with French Canadian ancestry can guarantee was actually on his birth certificate, Bourgdinon. So if you're having trouble finding sources, try the Bourdginon and Bourgdinon spellings as well. (Which I don't think anybody did, because the only thing anybody mentioned above is having tried a couple of variations on his first name.) Bearcat ( talk) 14:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 04:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Everetts Corner, Delaware

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

Our first stop in Kent County is this T intersection, for that is exactly and all it is. That's what all the aerials and topos say, and having looked at every GHit, most of them are real estate listings, and none of the rest have anything of any substance whatsoever to say about this spot. Mangoe ( talk) 04:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete:, as per nom, a meaningless intersection sans notability. Does not meet WP:GEOROAD -- Whiteguru ( talk) 04:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Named intersection fails GEOLAND and GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 20:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Robert Bennett (tennis)

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

Unreferenced article since its creation in 2015. In a WP:BEFORE search I was unable to verify that this person played in the 1942 US Open. It's possible I may have missed something, but it looks like the subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORTS. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

* Keep: As per above, he qualifies by way of participation in the US Open. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 05:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Curbon7; meets WP:NTENNIS on that basis Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - NTENNIS appears to be failed as per below. Not seeing any evidence of WP:GNG, appears to be a non-notable player of the amateur era. If ATD must be considered, then maybe redirect to 1942 U.S. National Championships – Men's Singles Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:NTENNIS says notability comes from competing "in one of the highest-level professional tournaments", with the US Open mentioned as an example. But in 1942 the US Open was an amateur tournament; it did not admit professionals until 1968. See US Open (tennis)#Open era. So I question whether mere participation in 1942 would establish notability. -- RL0919 ( talk) 04:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • RL0919, It seems this came up in a discussion at 9 years ago, but it was inconclusive. This AfD pretty much hinges on whether amateur era US Open would count or not. Someone at WP:WikiProject Tennis may know the answer. Curbon7 ( talk) 04:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. In that case, delete. If we are going to override WP:GNG based on someone losing a single match in an amateur tournament, then there should be an explicit consensus for that as a guideline. The older discussion doesn't show that, and I would not want to rely on the opinion of whoever might happen to reply at a WikiProject talk page on short notice. -- RL0919 ( talk) 11:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Pinging @ Whiteguru: and @ Spiderone: to see if they have further thoughts since their earlier positions were per Curbon7's comment that has since been modified. -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I am pleased that this clarification has taken place, and we find that the US Open was an amateur event and going professional in 1968. I have struck out my earlier decision. RL0919 - thanks for pursuing this. WP:NTENNIS should receive an addendum to make the non-professional era of the US Open evident. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 22:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 04:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Is China an Imperialist Country?

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

Could not find any sources, only places I could purchase the book from as well as answers to the question itself. I believe there may be reliable sources out there but I did not come across any, which is why I would rather discuss this first. However, it appears to just genuinely be a non-notable book which fails WP:GNG. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 03:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 03:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The book is mentioned and cited in this Monthly Review article: https://monthlyreview.org/2021/07/01/china-imperialism-or-semi-periphery/ and here: https://www.red-path.net/analysis/is-china-an-imperialist-country/critical-notes/29-some-critical-comments-on-the-n-b-turner-document, and here as well: https://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/212003 Comradeka ( talk)Comradeka

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 22:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

First Bell

AfDs for this article:
First Bell (  | 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 online education service, fails WP:NPRODUCT. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - contributors here should take note of the nomination, which asserts that the subject is not notable. I disagree in this instance, but statements that support deletion on the basis that this is a "non-notable, promotional article" are unlikely to be taken seriously. For one, articles need not be notable, but they should be about a notable subject. It might sound like an academic distinction but WP:BEFORE is very clear; there are steps A, B, and C before nomination for deletion at D. The question here is whether the subject is notable, not whether or not the article does a good or bad job of presenting the subject. Because bad writing is fixable. Second, the article being promotional (in an encyclopedia that aims not to promote things) is an example of bad writing. And again, bad writing is fixable. What I don't see is any kind of argument as to why the sources outlined above don't establish notability... so unless someone wants to contribute more than flippant non-policy opinion, there hasn't been a single substantive argument for deletion yet. St★lwart 111 02:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources and Stalwart111's explanation. BuySomeApples ( talk) 10:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per others, easily enough sources to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT ( talk) 22:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW, as detailed during deletion by admin Orangemike. Procedural close following deletion. ( non-admin closure) St★lwart 111 10:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Quarantine The Challenges During Quarantine and How to Keep Our Sanity

Quarantine The Challenges During Quarantine and How to Keep Our Sanity (  | 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 book by non-notable author, fails the criteria on WP:NBOOK. funplussmart ( talk) 02:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is just spam. Trying A7 Speedy to see if that gets rid of it faster. --- Possibly ☎ 03:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable. -- Bduke ( talk) 06:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - clearly fails WP:NBOOK; it's listed on Amazon (Amazon will sell anything) but there's no WP:RS whatsoever. Almost definitely created to promote the book. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, per WP:SNOW as detailed during deletion by admin Orangemike. Procedural close following deletion. ( non-admin closure) St★lwart 111 10:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

QueenNoble Dr. Elle Ramirez

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

Author created draft article about the subject which as rejected due to a lack of notability, and this page has not addressed those concerns. funplussmart ( talk) 02:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No indication of notability. A WikiNews entry and an IMDB page does not a notable person make. Helen( 💬 📖) 02:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. You do not get an article here using wiki sources and IMDB. --- Possibly ☎ 03:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Need references that could justify subject's notability. Currently available resources can't be considered to make a person notable. For now it is a delete. DMySon ( talk) 04:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - First, the article does not speak for itself and does not make a case for general notability or any other notability. Second, there do not appear to be any reliable sources. Also, this article contains no more information than the draft that I rejected in the past 48 hours, but the draft has been deleted as G11. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Two of the four sources reference Wikimedia-hosted pages, and the other two are IMDB and Amazon. There is not notability established by these sources. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 06:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - in my searches, I found this press release and nothing else Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No reliable sources. -- Bduke ( talk) 07:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Not really sure how this works, but as there are many actors who are not "notable" but still busy in the filmmaking world, i hardly think singling out this article for deletion is appropriate.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Les Mahoney

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

This article seems very promotional and I don't think this person is notable; a lot of the references cited seem to be unreliable blogs wizzito | say hello! 23:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 23:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 23:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Nominator comment: In particular, a lot of the films he's starred in aren't even notable enough to have pages on WP. wizzito | say hello! 23:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't say this article is very promotional. The awards are mentioned, that's right, but there are also sources available ( [33]). The citation style is horrible and has to be improved - no doubt. I would say as the article is not really up-to-date, it should be updated first and then it's easier to say sth about WP:NACTOR. So far: weak keep. Tec Tom ( talk) 18:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It needs work, but at least one of the sources looks OK to me. I would prefer it be tagged for improvement than deleted outright. Hanjaf1 ( talk) 05:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I've cleaned it up a bit, inlining the citations that weren't dead links. It's still marginal, but there might be newer links out there. Hanjaf1 ( talk) 06:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 01:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. After reviewing his IMDB, it seems like he is best known for acting in and directing non-notable b-movies. KidAd • SPEAK 18:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 22:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Dharam Ablashi

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

After trimming of the overly promotional content, there's not much left that isn't based on sources published by the subject or closely affiliated ones. A search doesn't reveal much further (social media sites, one interview, publications/patents/...). Fails WP:GNG. If the HHV-6 Foundation was notable enough, this could maybe be redirected there. Since that is not the case, there's a clear case for deletion. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 as-coauthor of 19 papers with over 100 cites each, albeit in a highly cited field. I cannot understand why the nominator expected to find anything about a biomedical researcher on social media sites. If he had, would this have improved notability? Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC). reply
    This doesn't absolve him from being covered in secondary, independent sources. If there's nothing in secondary sources, well, then, I beg to differ, WP:NPROF is irrelevant, since there's no justification for basing an article entirely on primary sources, no matter how "well-cited" some of the subject's papers might be. That's also what the criteria says, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." No independent reliable sources = no article. As simple as that. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 12:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    The citation record (that is, the body of citing papers) comprises thousands of independent reliable sources for WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 17:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    A scholar having their works cited by peers in their discipline is run of the mill. The vast majority of citations are not WP:SIGCOV of the author of the paper in question. If there are no independent sources to provide encyclopedic coverage about the article subject (such as biographic details and the like), then that's all very nice, but the article fails WP:V and probably WP:NOR due to being based solely on primary, self-published sources for its content. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    A scholar having citations at this level may not be run of the mill. WP:NPROF is independent of GNG, and explicitly states that it is an alternative. I agree that the article is undersourced and overly based on primary sources, but WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    DINC, yes, but it's not that I didn't try, I just couldn't find non-primary sources, so while NPROF might be independent of GNG ([insert rant about SNGs, and in particular ones like this one which seemingly allow articles written solely on primary sources]), so this would still fail core policies regarding sourcing, and given it's a WP:BLP, we should be more strict about sourcing than just allowing self-published sources. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
NPROF was written explicitly to allow articles on important academics who wouldn't otherwise have the SIGCOV in IRS necessary for GNG. In my opinion the criteria are too permissive (most editors' perceptions of what a "high" citation profile is in any given field are several standard deviations below the actual median, so low-impact scholars slip through all the time), but that's just what we have to work with until more people agitate for change. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I agree with Xxanthippe that the citation record satisfies NPROF-1.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. While the subject is highly cited, on most of the highly-cited work he is middle author on a highly coauthored paper (in a field where order matters). I see several papers with high citations on which he is first/last author, however; and the higher-cited middle author papers do not detract. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He's sufficiently above the average in his field. I looked at the Scopus metrics of the 101 coauthors (with 20+ papers) on his 35 most recent papers. Total citations: average: 7303, median: 3380, Ablashi: 9856. Total papers: avg: 160, med: 96, A: 275. h-index: avg: 36, med: 31, A: 50. Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 652, med: 414, A: 1165. 2nd: avg: 370, med: 235, A: 307. 3rd: avg: 293, med: 207, A: 271. 4th: avg: 247, med: 193, A: 250. 5th: avg: 209, med: 136, A: 247. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • weak Keep. per WP:PROF#1 he passes the bar but as Russ mentioned, he is mainly co-author on important papers. -- hroest 18:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ricardo Papa Street

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

Unnotable city (local) road that fails WP:GEOROAD. The only source used here, [34], does not even mention the road itself, and instead mentions the LRT elevated railway station adjacent to it and "Camp Ricardo Papa" in Taguig). JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 00:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 00:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 01:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Enam Tugbefia

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

Enam Tugbefia

Run-of-the-mill beauty contestant. This article was moved into draft space by User:Onel5969, and was then moved back into article space, so a second move to draft space would be move warring .

This article does not speak for itself and does not explain why the subject satisfies either the general notability guideline or any other notability guideline. The only credible claims of significance are finishing second in a beauty contest, and a controversy over vote-rigging in the beauty contest. The latter seems to be a living person known for one event, which can be covered in an article on the beauty contest, if the beauty contest is itself notable.

The article has been reference-bombed, and it should not be necessary to go through the sources to check on notability. However, reading the references shows that they are mostly about the 2019 beauty contest controversy.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant
1 Modern Ghana Reads like a press release No
2 3news A photo gallery about the beauty contest controversy No.
3 YEN.COM.GH A photo gallery about the beauty contest itself Maybe No
4 3news Same photo gallery as 2 No
5 Ghana Web Same press release as 1 No
6 Ghpage Another press release No
7 Voltaonlinegh About the beauty contest controversy No
8 Ytainment About the beauty contest controversy No
9 News AF Feed News An interview No
10 Pulse.com.gh Same interview as 9 No
11 Ghana News A news story about the beauty contest Yes No. Two sentences.
12 Ghana Celebrities A news story about the beauty contest Maybe No.
13 YEN.COM.GH Another news story about the beauty contest Maybe No
14 Ghpage Yet more coverage of the beauty contest No

This article is really about the beauty contest controversy. Either there should be an article about the beauty contest and the controversy, or there shouldn't; but the subject is clearly noted for one event. It appears that she or her flack are trying to use Wikipedia to advance her career by publicizing the controversy. The three conditions of BLP1E are all met. Either cover the controversy as a controversy, or don't cover it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom; as above, references do not demonstrate notability. Eagleash ( talk) 00:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per the exquisitely thorough presentation by the nom. Onel5969 TT me 02:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Hanging on a rope about one or two miles from Tenuous. Entirely non-notable. scope_creep Talk 13:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Prodege. MBisanz talk 18:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Swagbucks

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

See WP:ADMASQ. Also, insufficient in-depth coverage. Sources present mostly company related routine information and interviews with company execs. Fails CORDPETH, INHERITORG, and ORGIND. The CNET article is about making money from celebrities' websites and mentions the topic only in passing. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from nom. I previously prodded this page [35]. It was de-prodded with the rationale "...Send to AfD" [36]. Hence, I have done so. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There are articles about this in USNews, CNET and Business Insider. These seem like advertorials though and the BI source discloses this. Obviously quid-pro-quo coverage is rife in business but this seems particularly egregious. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 06:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Prodege or Keep While I think the subject meets GNG/NCORP (Above sources and NY Times DailyBreeze MarketWatch 映画.com 6ABC, but could be ad), the article contents are completely about the parent company, so a merger to there seems appropriate to avoid duplication. But if someone wants to do a WP:HEY and improve the article then I'm happy to give this a keep. Jumpytoo Talk 07:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The sources posted above are about the rewards program and not the company itself. And as stated above these are advertorials and they are not too well disguised as articles. They also are testimonial type advertising. There is nothing wrong with that except these are not useful as determinants for notability on Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Merge is possible. And, there is not much about Swagbucks in the article as far as I can tell. I think the first reference should not be merged. So for now I agree with Merge but not Keep unless someone can make a good argument against merging. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 08:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_August_6&oldid=1039198161"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE