Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< August 03	August 05 >

Guide to deletion

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 merge to District 9. Daniel (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alive in Joburg

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge to District 9. All sources I can find about this film are talking about how it is the basis of District 9. I cannot find any critical reception, production details, or impact beyond this in reliable sources. BOVINEBOY2008 11:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge or Keep due to the notability of the Director, Producers, Music Composers and Actors in the film. TapticInfo (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with District 9. It seems like this just a sizzler reel for D9 (which is still cool!)
Merge with District 9: per above Kolma8 (talk) 17:53, 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 redirect to Media24. Daniel (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honey (TV channel)

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

Promotional article on a new TV channel on one satellite provider with no coverage beyond that. A redirect to DStv was reverted; I expect the result would be to restore that redirect rather than a pure deletion. I'm not entirely sure of the relationship between DStv and Media24, if there is a relationship it seems none of the references are independent. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is/was a common shareholding between Media24 and DSTV via Naspers. Park3r (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Locally well known, owned by DSTV (Multichoise). TapticInfo (talk) 18:58, 4 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) 23:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Media24 as network's owner. The WP:PROMO tone of this article is completely unacceptable as a copyvio of [1], and just redirecting to a carriage partner without context is highly discouraged as that provider can remove the channel just as fast and orphan the article. TapticInfo, just because a network is 'locally known' doesn't give it automatically global notability with press release sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 02:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Madd Felon

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

Non notable rapper. I couldn’t find any reliable sources that support the claims mentioned in the article. Fails WP:GNG and WP: NMUSIC. Xclusivzik (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This could've been A7 speedied. There is no indication that this subject is anywhere near a notable musician, and no reliable sources seem to exist. Curbon7 (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per above. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find even one secondary source except [2], it doesn't contain even close to enough information for the article, and I don't even know if it could be used as a source. Dege31 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete GNG fail. Probable UPE as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 11 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 Marvel Comics characters: S. Daniel (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S'ym

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

Fails WP:GNG. There doesn't appear to be any particular coverage. TTN (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Boz. Not enough in-depth real world coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, now evidence of notability outside the fictional comic world he is from (all references are to the comic books). WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there doesn't seem to be any secondary sources significantly covering the subject. The content is all OR and the suggested redirection target is blank on the relevant entry, so a merge is unnecessary. Avilich (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of American people convicted of drug offenses

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

Does not appear to meet WP:LISTN - i.e. while “people who are convicted of drug offences” in the abstract is widely covered in sources, there does not appear to be any coverage relating to this list specifically as a set of people. Furthermore, this list is extremely problematic from a BLP standpoint in its present form given that it is largely unsourced. firefly ( t · c ) 20:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 20:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 20:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 20:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: This list violates our policies regarding attack pages. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Speedy delete, I believe there are typically over a million drug offense arrests per year in the US, many of which will lead to a conviction, so this list will be either the size of the telephone directory of a decent-sized country, or it will be a selective list including only the names of those who some WP editor has decided to 'Name and shame'. It is of no encyclopaedic value, and unless its accuracy is incredibly carefully scrutinised, it will malign the innocent (especially those with common names). It goes against the spirit of WP and is an extremely ill-advised list. Elemimele (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST. More restricted lists are probably okay, e.g. celebrities, athletes, but not the whole kit and kaboodle. Doesn't qualify for G10 speedy deletion IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Grotesquely inappropriate and unwise. Gildir (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and definitely don't Speedy Delete per Clarityfiend's rationale; however, at the same time, rename to List of notable Americans convicted of drug offenses, and do significant clean-up so that most of the page is cited with reliable sources. The topic of notable people getting convicted for drugs is the main topic of sources from Complex mag, Business Insider, Cine-tale, and NealDavisLaw, which meets LISTN for this reason: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Additionally, stating that the article was meant as an "attack page" not only is not in the spirit of WP:AGF, but is also unlikely given that it was created by a user who created this article in January 2021 and is very experienced, having made several contributions to this website since 2014 [3] (User:Prisencolin), plus the fact that in the article's first state it at least had properly-formatted cites, if not for every person claimed to be convicted of drugs. Also, to address Elemimele's concern of potentially having to list a million offenders, most of them wouldn't have to be listed if we made a criteria (as we do other list articles) determining which person is notable enough to be listed. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. All four of your lists are of celebrities. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um.... yeah, celebrities are notable individuals. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - But not all (or even most) notable people are celebrities. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems this slipped through NPP since the tagging script automatically reviews an article unless you untick a tiny little box. This article is such a WP:BLP violation. Curbon7 (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article ripe with BLP violations, I'm amazed it has lasted this long. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:BLP. An unwieldy topic. Ajf773 (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of an endless number of indiscriminate lists and articles that seem to have been created to boost edit counts. This is an easy open-and-close case. BOTTO_(T•C) 17:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of today not very useful.BabbaQ (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nomination, and the fact this violates Wikipedia's policy about attack pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TH1980 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it matters very much if this was meant as an WP:Attack page or not—it's still inevitably going to come across as an attempt to name and shame to anyone visiting the page, which is a terrible look for Wikipedia. I take rather a strict view of WP:BLP when it comes to crime—we must of course abide by WP:BLPCRIME with regards to waiting for convictions, but we must also make sure that we only mention that living people have been convicted of crimes when it is actually relevant and to do so in WP:PROPORTION to that relevance. A list consisting entirely of drug convictions is rather dubious from that perspective and WP:DELREASON#9 (Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons) may apply even if WP:G10 doesn't. At any rate, WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies since this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE; it might be possible to create lists with more restricted scopes as suggested by Clarityfiend, but those would of course be different lists altogether rather than different versions of this one. And since the WP:BLP concerns are so strong, I think that before any such lists are created it should be demonstrated that WP:LISTCRITERIA can be outlined such that the lists meet WP:LISTN and serve a valid WP:LISTPURPOSE while being compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. TompaDompa (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd expect this list to be hopelessly broad, even if properly sourced and restricted to notable individuals. The corresponding Category:American people convicted of drug offenses and its subcategories jointly contain 350 articles, not including this list. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:09, 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pujitha Devaraju

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

Non notable actor and model who fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR/WP:ENT as they are yet to feature in significant roles they have featured in or won any prestigious awards. All sources used in the article are unreliable and a google before search predominantly turns up user generated sources. They also lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of NACTOR and lacks independent coverage to meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom, article is devoid of coverage in independent, reliable sources. A BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything that would help ~~him~~ her pass WP:GNG either. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:18, 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brent M. Longnecker

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

Article recently restored after PROD about a business person who does not seem to have enough coverage to meet the criteria for WP:ANYBIO. I can't find anything that seems to help in establishing notability. I have reverted a large addition of promotional CV style edits. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We agree for the removal of the CV style editing. We will review the policy and suggest edits/changes to be made instead. Hope this is sufficient to remove the pending deletion of the page - if not, please let me know what else is needed. Thank you! Maxandmyleigh (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant promotion, and the provided sources that are not mere name drops are blatant PR or churnalism. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable as neither a writer not a businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plonk (Usenet)

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

This belongs in a dictionary. There are no usable sources that treat this word as anything more than a dictionary term. None of the used sources look reliable, either. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the reasons given. Lovely word, but not a topic for a wikipedia article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:47, 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.

I would like to have a copy of the article content. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.35.186.159 (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and salt due to repeated re-creation. RL0919 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Rahmani Manesh

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

Previously deleted article that was created by a globally locked account. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR, no debate there. Only unreliable websites when searching in Persian. Some of the results are extremely poor. Sekans claims that his career started in 1977 despite being born in 2005! Loxblog is almost definitely a self-written vanity hoax blog. Somebody has spent an awful lot of time creating blogs and social media accounts for this person but he clearly fails WP:GNG. Time would be better spent trying to get into the acting profession in an honest way. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Not seeing suitable sources coming up. I can't seem to find a block for the creator, but regardless - this may even fit CSD A7. Also telling is that when I searched other language wiki's it would seem every single occurrence of this page has been deleted at one point or another (or at least I assume it has, my browser doesn't seem to want to translate today): [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] ASUKITE 22:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, actually. That will explain why the initial creator User:Mohammadhosseinrr4 was globally locked. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: It's possible the accounts could be connected, I have no idea if there is an SPI done on Mohammadhosseinrr4 to see if it's related too User:Alirezashahsavandi. Govvy (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy I think that they are the same person. My thoughts are here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohammadhosseinrr4. As a non-admin, I can't see Mohammad's deleted edits so I don't know how similar the content was or anything about any of the other deleted articles that Mohammad made. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NACTOR,. GermanKity (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT (WP:A7) I prodded this and it was deleted in the log, saw it got recreated and sent to AfD. Same assessment as the last time. Govvy (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT probably an WP:A7. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is way past time that A-Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror and B-that Wikipedia removed all biographies of living people lacking reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and obviously SALT. It's all been said above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:57, 11 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) 21:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bholowalia

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

No indication of notability, not suitable as a disambig since no article titles contain this name. Unsourced since creation, nothing substantive about the name found on a search. Ineligible for PROD due to a de-PROD in 2012. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll settle for just one notable Bholowalia: if you can give me just one, I'll be in favour of retaining this as a "surname page". But if you can't provide one notable Bholowalia then I fear I must plump for Delete. Let's note that this article can always be re-created later, when needed. RomanSpa (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as stated above. The topic itself does not meet GNG and seemingly no notable people with the surname. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:25, 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paraskevas Choutris

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as has only played in the 2nd tier of Cypriot football, confirmed by FlashScore as well as the cited Soccerway source. No particularly detailed coverage found in a Greek language search. I've translated the two most promising ones Kerkida and Larnaka but I don't think that this is enough to pass WP:GNG as none of the coverage found would allow us to build a reasonable article on this living person. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per A7. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dru Forbes

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

Potentially fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG; none of the cited sources show significant coverage and I was unable to find anything better myself in my searches. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like Materialscientist just speedy deleted it as A7. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent object store

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

Redundant content fork Screenmutt (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page contains significant overlap with Object storage which contains better and more detailed information. Were this page to be expanded, then additional pages would need to be written for each type of object store (e.g. persistent, ephemeral, in-memory, etc.). These discussions are better left in Object storage Screenmutt (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The connection to the proposed target hasn't been shown to be direct enough to justify a redirect. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Todito.com

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

After 15 years this article still has no references to show its notability. As it is an extinct business, I don't think that it has notability. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no sources and nothing found (though several unrelated web properties have "Todito" in their name), not even enough to support a redirect to the claimed operator Grupo Salinas. (I did find a press release which verifies this isn't a hoax but nothing more.) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Todito.com's relationship with TV Azteca (which is owned by Grupo Salinas) seems to be well-documented - e.g. some English-language publications, [13] (Ad Age) and [14] (Variety), and obviously more Spanish-language: [15] ("TV Azteca will assume control of the web portal Todito.com", El País) and [16] ("TV Azteca examines purchase of 50% of todito.com", Produ). No comment on overall notability though. Aranya (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many references in published books: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=todito.com Moreover, the subject is used as a reference in several books, like this one: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=N9Yk-gHb694C Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:44, 20 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)} 14:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has found some coverage in the books. With reliable sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Will not argue against a merge or redirect (ATD and WP:FAILN) to Grupo Salinas. "Some coverage" (mainly trade field type and press releases) does not translate to notability for a stand alone article. Being defunct is not a great argument except that sourcing (presented here but not on the article) was not enough then and certainly fails "contemporary" notability standards since there is no "grandfather clause". One of the books listed above includes "The tie in with Azteca has given Todito.com an impressive promotional advantage". Notability is not inherited and Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off, GNG is not the applicable guideline - companies/organizations fall under WP:NCORP. Second, the article has no references. Somebody above points to a generic google book search The vague mentions-in-passing and "coverage in books" reasons falls well short of NCORP requirements. For example, the book mentioned above is called "Joven.com: Internet in the popular neighborhoods of Cochabamba" and says nothing about the company (the name is mentioned in a footnote, that's it). WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content" (defined in WP:ORGIND. None of the references I can find/see meet the criteria. They are either mentions-in-passing or standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - in other words, everything published all originates from within the company's echo chamber. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP, CORPDEPTH, ORGIND due to lack of significant and/or independent sourcing as demonstrated by other contributors above. Also, I don't think this qualifies as a redirect because the company no longer exists and there is nothing about it that is worth covering. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grupo Salinas: Changed my vote as I believe there's no way in expanding the article. Since it had a relationship with Grupo Salinas, it's best to cover it in the History section of the target article as a valid WP:ATD. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of regular users of amphetamine

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

I really do not think this is an appropriate topic for a standalone list - insofar as I can tell, we don't have similar lists for alcohol, marijuana, or cocaine just to name a few, nor would we categorize people by their use of substances. None of these people are notable for drug use, and the criteria of "regular user" is totally subjective. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm at a loss to see what value this list has. I can understand why we have lists of prime ministers, of species of bacteria, and of people who studied at a particular school, because these lists are helpful to users in identifying commonalities between the members of the lists, and in identifying obvious outliers, but it seems to me that the variety of users of amphetamines is potentially so large, and the commonalities (other than that of drug use) likely so indecipherable, that it is impossible for this list to provide any useful content for our readers. I'm abstaining from expressing a view on the future of this article until I've seen what other people have to say about this page, whether positive or negative. RomanSpa (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I picked the wrong week to !vote delete - Humor aside, too indiscriminate of a list. --MuZemike 17:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was a bit conflicted about this nomination given that most of the arguments for deletion fell into the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFF (comment from ♠PMC♠ about similar articles not existing for other addictive substance) and WP:NOTUSEFUL (the claims about commonalities between drug users being so indecipherable the article would be useful). However, I couldn't find any sources about or non-trivially discussing notable people using drugs, which makes me !vote Delete for being an potentially WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. If this article is to be kept, it should be a list of people notable for using drugs, with a criteria of how to determine that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as likely to operate as an attack-page list. Similar to list of convicted drug users also nominated AfD. This list even starts with a note that it is incomplete. On what basis is someone unfortunate enough to be included or excluded? Are those included selected because a WP editor wants to name-and-shame for drug use? That's not the role of an encyclopaedia. Elemimele (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am !voting Delete too, but I'm not seeing how the list is an attack page, plus it is generally not a good idea to assume an article was made for malicious purposes. This article is the creator (L3pr3(h^un2014, and man would I not choose a username like that)'s first and only contribution, and the creator started the page as a short list with citations properly formatted and a lead as neutral as those of other articles [17], which makes me think the creator had encyclopedic intentions but may have not been fully aware of why the list wouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia. Stating an editor would want to "name-and-shame" a person not only doesn't follow the principle of WP:AGF, but also is an unlikely accusation given that they cited sources stating they were users of the drug. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: I'm sorry, maybe I didn't put that well, and I'm open to the idea that I'm completely wrong! I certainly didn't want to accuse any individual editor, or those who have populated the list so far, of using it as an attack page. I was more worried that if someone in the future found themselves unwillingly in a scandal because of an amphetamine addiction, it would be all too easy for an ill-willed person to use this list as a way to draw attention to, and publicize their problem. Although I assume good faith of editors where possible, I think we have to be open to the idea that some people, generally from outside the WP community, may attempt to use WP for the wrong purposes (and that's why we have a helpful team of admins). I felt, perhaps wrongly, that this list was particularly liable to becoming a target of that sort of mis-use from outside. I would have less concern about the list were I certain that it could remain a reliable historical record of those notable people who've battled addiction, but even then, it runs the risk of focussing too much attention on that aspect of their life without the balancing information of everything else they did. Though of course these people have their main articles for that. Elemimele (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the clarification. From what I've seen, you've just gotten started contributing to the site this year, and are new it, so I'll let you know this. These are hugely valid concerns, and user contributions for publicity (WP:ADVERTISEMENT) or personal attack reasons is an all-too unfortunate reality on here. However, you must keep in mind that (most of the time) we keep or delete articles based on a subject's coverage and notability, not whether another user will use it for bad intentions. Issues of balance, aka WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and attack potential are separate issues of cleanup and user behavior, not AFD issues, although there are exceptions where articles are deleted not only for being not notable but also for obviously (emphasis on obviously) being attack pages. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Grotesquely inappropriate and unwise. Gildir (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an incredibly stupid list that probably can't be sourced without a violation of a patient's privacy, and if even if they're dead, it's just unseemly to categorize people like this. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as this seems to be a borderline meet of WP:LISTN - you can quite easily find lists of celebrities who have taken meth. The reliability of these sources is iffy which is why this is only a weak keep, but this does seem to be a reasonable topic to have a list on. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an example list in what is generally considered a reliable source. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's not conflate methamphetamine and amphetamine. TompaDompa (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh true, that's a silly oversight on my part. I guess I didn't really expect a list for the non-meth amphetamine since well, what is the point of that? On the other hand, given that it's medication, I wouldn't expect the reaction that this has gotten so... whatever. Probably doesn't meet LISTN after all. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were a category, I'd say it's WP:NONDEFINING. The same kind of logic applies here – the list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and should be deleted per WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia). I can elaborate on that if anybody wants me to, but it seems that we are (mostly) on the same page here. I'll also note that while only one person currently on this list is still alive, the very concept of the list is a WP:BLP nightmare. TompaDompa (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the type of thing that borders on non-defining. Since this can apply at any time in a person's life it is not at all defining in the overall scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weather and climate

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

We already have the articles weather and climate, which both explain the difference with the other. No need for duplicate information. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The difference between climate and weather is mentioned on both Climate and Weather. Perhaps if there was a longer discussion of the difference and the societal confusion of the two, this page could be useful. But even that is better placed under climate change debates. GhtheANg (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both of those articles do cover their relationship, and this page doesn't provide anything of use to the reader. Reywas92^Talk 19:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Breen (pastor)

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

Reliable Sources and Notability GhtheANg (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recommended for deletion on the BLP Talk Board. The sources which are relied upon for Notability are sourced from the subject or organizations directly affiliated with him. Sources that are independent of the subject only mention him briefly, failing to meet the standard of "significant coverage". Additionally, the page's neutrality is disputed. Screenmutt (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF #1. The claim in the article that Breen "pioneered missional communities as a ministry model" is in fact true, as shown by this source. StAnselm (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a particular reason you're applying the academic standards? His writing and work is non-academic. Screenmutt (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Google Scholar shows that his books have had a lot of citations. I see in the article that he "began working on his Ph.D" - so at least adjacent to academic work. St Anselm (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination by a now-blocked WP:SPA and WP:SOCK. --MuZemike 17:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as this discussion was started by a sockpuppet, and nobody else has supported deletion. I haven't checked for notability, so this is without prejudice to any further discussion started by an editor in good standing. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frogfoot (South Africa)

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. Which pretty much sums up the references in this article. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 3 reputable sources from different well know news outlets are provided including IOL (Independent Online) and MyBroadband and News24 as well as multiple ISPs websites. News24,IOL, mybroadband, George Herald. TapticInfo (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure you read the reasons for deletion above. We're not looking for mentions or "press release" reporting or advertorials which appear in "reputable sources". We need the *content* to meet a standard too. Looking at the links you've provided:
  - News24 (which is the same article as this on netwerk24) is entirely based on a company announcement (even says it in the first sentence). But even if you missed that, there's more than a few other obvious signs. For example the article has no accredited/named "journalist" which is often the case when the information/article was provided from an external source. Also, the photo is "supplied". But more than anything else (even the promotional language and obvious sales talk), the last sentence encourages readers to check out to see if "your area is part of the Frogfoot FTTH network". This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND

- - - Comment - News24 owns Netwerk24, it’s just a translated article in Afrikaans. TapticInfo (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - IOL reference is also entire based on an announcement/press release. It even says it - the announcement was made by the Head of Sales and Marketing. The "journalist" is listed as "supplied". THere is also nothing *about the company* in this article. So fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  - mybroadband reference also has a big clue in the article text where it says "MyBroadband spoke to Frogfoot head of sales" who provided a list of all the rollout areas. There's nothing in the article that wasn't provided by the company or their execs so also fails WP:ORGIND.
  - Georgeherald reference helpfully marks the article as an advertorial. So fails WP:ORGIND.

If you find anything you believe meets NCORP, post it here and we can take a look. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The ISP sources that TapticInfo refers to are purely promotional, as are the George Herald and News24. Not every company is notable and this one is not. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly they are not an ISP, Frogfoot is an infrastructure provider to over 100,000 customers nation wide. The notability is base on the fact that frogfoot is a well known brand locally and that the article is not written in an advertisement way rather to inform who they are. TapticInfo (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply From WP:ORGCRIT, notability for an organisation requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". While the references you've supplied mention the subject they are either linked to the subject by being regurgitated press releases or advertorials. They do not supply "significant coverage". A mention is not significant coverage. Saying that the company is extending its network to George is not significant coverage. Providing lists of the packages offered it advertising, not significant coverage. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references do not contain enough independent content and are either directly or indirectly based on the company's own marketing, fails WP:ORGIND and ultimately WP:NCORP. I completely agree with HighKing's analysis of the sources offered. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 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. Daniel (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Wills

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

This is one of the oldest cases I have seen of running afoul of the not news guidelines. The entire coverage is from the local paper over two months in 1952, and baiscally deals with a divorce proceeding that was abandoned. This is not the level of coverage we would need to show someone is notable, and we have elsewhere agreed that the titles she won a few years before that that we lack even direct coverage of are not in and of themselves enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no reason at all to think the 1992 book is by the same person, and pretty much everything else that shows up in searches seems to be false positives, many of them even where "wills" is a verb just after "Jean" and not part of a name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only claim to notability is as winner of a local beauty pageant (Southern California) and some police blotter news stories. The children's author of the same name appears to be British. pburka (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one source, not enough to establish notability, and it doesn't look like other sources exist. casualdejekyll (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newspaper coverage for getting arrested (but not convicted) in a family dispute is nowhere near enough to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stale news clipping. What an odd relic! KidAd • SPEAK 22:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Patently obviously non-notable. Gildir (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sega AM1. ✗plicit 14:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makoto Uchida (game developer)

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

There don't appear to be enough reliable third-party sources that cover this person in depth. Previous nominations brought up some interviews that were posted on his employers website or bundled with Sega products. In the 15(!) years since the first nomination, no third-party sources have been added. I have eventually found one third-party source, which I've since added, but wp:notability people calls for multiple of such sources. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sega AM1, and I’ll add a bit about his being a part of AM1/WOW there and maybe a sentence of him later taking the position in Shanghai. Seems like a valid WP:ATD-R given a large part of his game development was with AM1 and its predecessor groups such as Team Shinobi. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sega AM1 per Red Phoenix as a WP:ATD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Too short to warrant own article. 90.252.172.138 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Thanks, all, for citing references below that establish that the list topic is notable (even though this is not reflected in the list article itself). Sandstein 08:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of first women mayors in the United States

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

This fails WP:NLIST. It cites no source that discusses "first women mayors" as a group or topic, as opposed to the individual elections, which are of mainly local interest. In other words, the article does not establish why "first women mayors" is a topic more worthy of a list than "first male mayors", "first left-handed mayors" or any number of other possible characteristics of mayors. Sandstein 12:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a list article, so one wouldn't expect a lot of introductory text. A google search for "gender bias in united states mayors" produces a lot of hits, both in primary research articles and some secondary newspaper stuff, about gender bias in local administration, whether it's harder for women to reach positions of power in local politics, and related issues. I would expect readers interested in feminism to be interested in tracing the acceptance of female local politicians across the US, and that is the value of this list. It's pure speculation on my part, but I think referencable, even if not currently referenced. I am not an expert on feminism, so I'm not 'voting' as such, but I don't think this list is as arbitrary as first left-handed mayors or any other characteristic. It is a list based on a characteristic that is recognised to be subject to discrimination (and is therefore, in the UK, legally protected, one of a fairly small list of protected characteristics); I would feel the same about a list of first disabled mayors. Elemimele (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gender bias in US politics is certainly a notable topic, and a lot has been written about it. But that's not the same as the topic of "first female mayors". To ensure that our coverage remains focused and verifiable, our notability guidelines require that all topics we cover as separate articles or lists have, as such, been covered in some depth in reliable sources. So, if somebody finds a book with a title like "Female Mayors in the US: A History", the list can stay; otherwise, it can't. Sandstein 13:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Women mayors is certainly a notable topic, as evidenced by this list at the Center for American Women and Politics. There are also many, many news articles about first women mayors of various cities or states (and speculation about who will be the first in major cities like New York): [18][19][20][21]. WP:NLIST says that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists." I'm satisfied that this cross-categorization is encyclopedic and notable. pburka (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and not just because this list is cited along with other related research in a report titled How Far Yet to Go? commissioned by the ACLU Foundation of Georgia. In 2017, The World Organization of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), in an article titled, Women mayors are ready to stand up and be counted, in a campaign with UN Women, called on the United Nations Statistical Commission "to develop global indicators to track the proportion of elected women at local level." The authors are first women mayors in their municipalities, and their advocacy for data collection includes, "We can only achieve equality if we know where we are now and can measure our progress." Also, 2019 research from the Institute for Research on Public Policy titled Only a fifth of Canadian mayors are women reviews news coverage and data about mayors (and first female mayors) in Canada, which further supports notability of the topic as a group or set. There is also at least one recent AfD discussion I recall with WP:SECONDARY coverage about the significance of a first woman mayor in the United States. Additional keywords that may help find additional sources include Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Voting Rights Act of 1965, but I believe sufficient sources exist to support notability per WP:NLIST. Beccaynr (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC) And there are books, including a book discussing the first woman mayor in the United States, as well as the challenge generally of running for office while denied the right to vote: Women and Politics: A Quest for Political Equality in an Age of Economic Inequality, a textbook discussing the historical increase in women mayors at p. 315: State and Local Government, and what appears to be a table at p. 121 of Women Municipal Officials in Women's Changing Role. Beccaynr (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Also, here is another first female mayor AfD (US), although I seem to be the only one who mentioned this WP:SECONDARY coverage in the discussion, and a first female mayor AfD (Canada), which offer further support for the notability of the topic 'first female mayors.' Beccaynr (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are folders full of discussions about first women mayors (to borrow a phrase); a list of those discussions is entirely appropriate. FWIW, so would a list (likely, mostly men) of the first mayors of cities, towns etc. in the US since this is an indication of local (democratic) governance. Then again, 15 minutes on Google Books finds, a list of: Female Mayors of Mid-Size Cities That Are Not Capitals.^[1] and Table 9.1: First Female Mayors of Cities with more than 150,000 residents (p. 238) ... there's a whole chapter on the topic.

References

^ Weatherford, Doris (20 January 2012). Women in American Politics: History and Milestones. SAGE. p. 247. ISBN 978-1-60871-007-2.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Dasilva

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

Non-notable biography, with interview sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.

They have recently shared Wikipedia article link on Twitter. Possibly UPE or COI. See tweet link. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per TheBirdsShedTears Non notable entrepreneur who fails to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Furthermore they fall under WP:1E. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Leo is one of my BBNaija faves but he doesn't meet GNG or ENT just yet. Princess of Ara_(talk) 07:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to show how subject meets WP:ENT. -Xclusivzik (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:39, 11 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 collectible card games. Daniel (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generals Order

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Removing China from the list, since this is a primarily a Singapore topic. There are other game(s) in China with the same name, but I don't think they are the same. – robertsky (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am not finding English language references. References that were there were broken or self-referential. —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep found two sources about the game which support the assertion that the game is used in educational settings: https://web.archive.org/web/20120705041351/http://www.zbcomma.sg:80/friday/pages/09tup38.html and http://edublitz.com/go/GO_Inter-schools_Writeup.pdf. and also https://www.edublitz.com/sg/generals-order-3/ coupled with the pdf suggest that the game is still actively played till this day at least in school settings. – robertsky (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

addition sources (probable until I go down to the library to check the newspaper archives):

将军令纸上将军号令天下联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao) 22 April 2009
《将军令》开发人：寓教于乐的游戏联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao) 22 April 2009
《将军令》1岁了邀你来比赛联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao) 22 April 2009
《将军令》纸牌游戏令中学生积极学华文联合早报 (Lianhe Zaobao) 22 April 2009 – robertsky (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above four articles occupied one full page in that day's publication of Zaobao's pullout zbComma. The first went in depth into the rules and how to play the game, an interview with a student playing the game. The second was a brief interview with the game developer and that they were going into Hong Kong and Taiwan market (which they did in 2010 going into Hong Kong). The third was a short notice of an upcoming competition with a link to the game's website. The fourth is a short introduction to the articles in zbComma in the main Zaobao publication. zbComma is a pullout that is printed only for students in school and at selected retail outlets, mainly at Buzz convenient stores located at bus interchanges, bus stops, and train stations. – robertsky (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Robertsky: can you link those sources, and tell us which meets WP:SIGCOV? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, I will need to head down to the national library and have a look as it is only accessible in through their network. Over the weekend maybe. – robertsky (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can wait. To keep you from going there twice, I recommend scanning them. What we need to see is that those articles contained SIGCOV, i.e., non-trivial (and independent) mentions of this game. If all they have is a one-sentence mention that this game existed, it won't suffice to save this article. PS. That said, Google translate of the titles you cited above does suggest some coverage. Are you sure this newspaper doesn't have online version we could access now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Piotrus, oh, i intend to copy them out. they had a site revamp 4-5 years ago. a lot of the old articles have been removed. if there are any traces, the best bet would be in archive.org, but searching through there is a pain. – robertsky (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a shame. Any chance you could find 'old links' somewhere and test them in the archive? I tried a few searches but not reading/speaking Chinese I really can't help much here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Piotrus, I am downloading the entire archive through wayback-machine-downloader since 3 days ago, only 60% done. I doubt I can grep the archive in time. In any case, I am updating the above refs with a brief summary. – robertsky (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I appreciate your dedication. I am sure we can put this discussion on hold for a week or so at the very least to give you time to get to those articles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. In the current form, notability is unclear, but I am open to reviewing more sources. The above links just confirms it exists, and being used as an educational aid is IMHO not enough to be notable. I've added a link to BGG ([22]), which doesn't contain links to any reliable coverage. Note that the BGG's translated title is Generals' Order, but actually, I don't see a single reliable source for this game's name in English? Also, no Chinese Wikipedia link is worrisome, if this was a major phenomena in Singapore I'd expect it would have a Chinese entry by now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Piotrus, the number of Singapore based editors on enwiki is already small, let alone zhwiki. There are multi-term government ministers who still do not have a page on zhwiki despite the high profile and sustained coverage they have over the last decade or so. – robertsky (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's sad but we don't keep articles because of pity or systemic bias or whatever. They need to meet our criteria such as WP:GNG (with a special nod to WP:SIGCOV which still hasn't been shown). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning keep given where the sources appear to come from, but I'm not having any luck with automated translations, so I can't see what the content of those sources are. If someone could ping me when we get new sources, or a reasonable sense of what is in each article, I'll look again. Hobit (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of collectible card games. While not reaching WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV yet, a redirect is probably a good compromise. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I did not comment, is that I could not make up my mind, based on the evidence and my lack of experience. So there seems to be no consensus. So is this the solid compromise? Slimy asparagus (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Provisionally redirect to List of collectible card games per Justanothersgwikieditor, unless the Zaobao sources above can demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and the article can be suitably rewritten with those sources to avoid relying on the game's own website. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of collectible card games. We just need to carry over any useful references to that page. Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:15, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Dein

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

A strong COI/Paid concern, created by a sock. This was kept at the previous AfD four years ago but, frankly, we got it weak consensus. Have over 20 million followers across social media does not make someone notable. Recently Wikipedia has been deprecated WP:ENTERTAINER#2 (Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.) I don't think he passes WP:BASIC because most of sources are paid news and gossip coverage and from short tabloid news. Doing a WP:Before gave me BBC article that reported he has 20m followers across all social media platforms, not a WP:SIGCOV. Don't forget to look Talk:Julius Dein. VocalIndia (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a little notability here but it is not enough for a BLP. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't appears to be notable, there aren't enough sources on this individual. Cheers. Tahaaleem ^Talk 15:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are weak and not reliable. The forbes articles are paid for and written by contributors. A strong COI/Paid concern, created by a sock too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.21.168 (talk) 03:37, 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 12:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Brooksbank

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

Non notable business people. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few one-line mentions of his name in articles about his son (who is married to a member of the royal family), but nothing that could fairly be described as the significant coverage required by WP:BASIC. The only significant coverage is about his contracting and recovering from COVID, which seems to be very WP:BLP1E to me. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first reference is a mention of him in an article about his son, the second calls him "Princess Eugenie's father-in-law" (which shows that it's about the family of Princess Eugenie which is, thus, more notable than him in the article), the third is a mention on him on a list, the fourth atricle is also about about son, and the fifth is about Princess Eugenies and Jack Brooksbank worrying for him (at least mostly). MatEditzWiki — ^Talk!/_Contribs! 12:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bad faith article, undisclosed paid-for spam. Was moved into mainspace two weeks ago by CastiglioneCastiglione, whom I blocked for likely UPE spamming, the article was deleted via PROD, then immediately recreated by Ingaberg (now also blocked for UPE spamming). Does not deserve to be considered for inclusion on its merits. MER-C 17:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – adding my !vote toward a possible SNOW close per MER-C and the arguments laid out above. Not to mention that this is borderline A7 anyway... oh, so you're a businessman from a wealthy British family, how quaint... AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable person. I have read about him so want to look up in some offline sources. I will get back within a day. 2A02:C7E:1060:6D00:8DA9:F8AC:EF14:3B53 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Stonecipher

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

Three sort of sources on him are available online: company/website profiles, blog entries/primary sources, and RS where he subject is mentioned in passing. None of it passes WP:GNG Mottezen (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic User:Billy Hathorn WP:REFBOMB without even a clear assertion of notability, much less substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 15:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought we had freed ourselves from the plague that was Billy Hathorn created articles, but I guess I was wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True Lives

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

Non-notable reality TV show from 2005. Searches on Google, Gnews, and Gscholar have been fruitless. The title brings up a lot of false positives, but adding words such as "reality TV" or the name of the producer or production company failed to help find anything. Besides WP mirrors, and the IMDB link already in the article, I only got one hit for a TV Guide listing. The article is Unsourced Since December 2006 and I can see why. Estheim (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mainly because the article and sources never tell us where the program aired, so this could be just a pilot project nobody picked up, thrown onto a dead YouTube channel, or aired on a network without publicity. Looking at the two 'actors' named on IMDb who were regulars on Emmanuelle and films featured on Showtime/Cinemax After Dark (aka softcore cable porn), this could've just been a film in that same vein with no WP:N to speak of. Nate • (chatter) 03:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:03, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Gupta (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable individual - lacks sigcov from reliable third party sources. KH-1 (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads a lot like either a resume or a deliberately promotional article. Tube·of·Light 06:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable person. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional article, no notability.SUN EYE 1 06:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and some content such as the list of movies he marketed have no citations. Peter303x (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting GNG or any SNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, obvious sock/meatpuppetry. This is a bad faith article that does not deserve to be considered on its merits. MER-C 08:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marketing notable films doesn't help cross notability. Fails WP:GNG. List of these films should also be inspected. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:22, 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 redirect to List of kings of Uvea#Third Takumasiva Dynasty. Sandstein 06:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasi Kulimoetoke I

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

Google search shows no reliable sources at all, and searching specifically for books in Google shows no major mentions at all. Tube·of·Light 05:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tube·of·Light 05:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Tube·of·Light 05:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of kings of Uvea#Third Takumasiva Dynasty. My WP:BEFORE search turned up no WP:Significant coverage at all, the best I got was this which lists the reign as lasting from November 1924 to December 1928. There may be offline sources. At any rate, this is a plausible search term, so a redirect seems reasonable to me. There is nothing to merge, however; all the information here is already there. There are Wikipedia articles in two other languages: fr:Tomasi Kulimoetoke Ier and to:Tomasi Kulimoetoke I; these contain no further information than what little we already have here (at least I think so – the machine translation from Tongan I got was absolutely atrocious). TompaDompa (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Soccer Club

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

Non notable football club. Lacks sigcov. Poppified ^talk 05:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 05:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 05:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 05:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poppified, there are quite a few references cited in the article itself. Is it your suggestion that none of them provide significant coverage of the subject? I clicked on a couple and a cursory skim through them suggests there's plenty there. Is there some reason this detailed analysis, for example, shouldn't be considered? This is an in-depth interview with the club's CEO on the YouTube channel of a mainstream commercial radio program (generally considered WP:RS). There are also articles like this one. These are not passing mentions of the club, they are in-depth analysis of its history, plans, and efforts to join the KPL. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: Hello , Both these sources maybe giving coverage but I don't think so these are from a reliable sources. YouTube video about the program I don't think it's part of a mainstream radio channel. Nextly they only played KPL which is an ameature tournament not an extablished tournament.Thanks Poppified ^talk 11:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where they have played and whether or not they are professional is unrelated to WP:GNG, though the article asserts they are a professional team and multiple other teams in the league are professional teams also. And yeah, its the official YouTube channel of a commercial radio show with an FM frequency; that's enough for me. Besides which, I just picked a few sources at random and found WP:GNG. So I'd need to be convinced they aren't significant coverage, and that all of the others should be ignored. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: I think I ended up making a false decision on taking this to articles for deletion. I think it is better to take the request back.Thanks Poppified ^talk 11:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw the nomination, but now that there is another delete !vote from GiantSnowman it probably can't be closed as speedy keep. I have tagged GS in case our discussion and your withdrawal is sufficient for him to amend his !vote. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: I think after we got different votes here let's wait for others to give their opinion. I think my withdrawal will be childish if I withdraw this discussion right now.ThanksPoppified ^talk 05:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible. It's also unlikely to be speedy-keep closed with a valid deletion !vote in place, even if you were to withdraw the nomination. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I an unwilling to change my !vote and the discussion cannot be speedy closed with valid delete !votes, sorry. Giant Snowman 17:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not convinced there is enough significant coverage of the club itself to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 11:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the sources linked are reliable in my opinion, and it is notable. Swd7391 (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kerala Premier League is not a semi-professional or a amateur league. All the clubs playing here are professional to full league coverage and the winner of KPL qualifies for I-League 2nd Division. It is the only state football league in Kerala and some notable clubs including Kerala Blasters and Gokulam Kerala FC plays in this league. The sources mentioned in the article for LUCA SC are reliable. Indian Football Fan 2018 (talk)
Keep: All the sources mentioned are reliable and KPL is a semi professional league in which winners are nominated to ileague 2nd divsion. Moreover players in these teams are registered in AIFF player registration process. Unlike amateur league, teams are not required to register their players.(User talk:MalabarGun)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Sandstein 06:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suigō Prefectural Natural Park

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

~~Google search shows Wikipedia mirrors, a Government source confirming existence, and a few blog-like sources. Tube·of·Light 05:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Update - Seeing the newly added sources, I believe that the article's subject is notable enough (though these sources should've been added when the article was created to avoid giving the impression of it being a "non-notable subject"). I believe that the article can be kept. Can an uninvolved editor please close the discussion? Tube·of·Light 02:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tube·of·Light 05:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tube·of·Light 05:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no opinion for now. This comment is just to make participants aware that per a previous AfD for a regional park (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bull Run Regional Park), there was no consensus surrounding whether the correct criteria for natural parks is WP:GEOLAND (which would lead this to be a keep) or WP:GEOFEAT (which would likely lead this to be a delete). It would be very good if we could establish a consensus here, as it would then be the basis for a formal criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This park has been established in accordance with Chapter III of the 1957 Natural Parks Law [ja] (translation here), enacted by the Japanese National Diet, which makes provision for National Parks, Quasi-National Parks, and Prefectural Natural Parks, and attempts to reconcile the competing demands of environmental protection and anthropocentric usufruct. That, for nigh on seventy years, over 60 square kilometres (23 sq mi) has been effectively taken out of circulation is no mean feat, not that size is everything - 100 sqm, if there are endemic biota, would presumably be enough; not sure about local green spaces with some swings and a park bench, but the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism has given it an English name here and it's mentioned by Encyclopaedia Britannica here; there's obviously a host of offline documentation (including presumably policy papers and newspaper coverage from the !950s; there is much less fixity with the Japanese internet - if we're establishing principles, good luck with similar attempts at protection in some countries), but immediately one can find online Mie Prefecture here, here, and here, the Ministry of the Environment here, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism here, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry here, the city of Kuwana here, the town of Kisosaki here, less RS stuff such as Kotobank here and Tsuritenki here, as well as more academic journal articles here, and here. In general if wiki policy means z-list hoofers of spherical objects, reality TV appearers, and cartoon voice-overers known to a couple of HuffPost media influencers are fit for inclusion but protected areas are not, good luck to us/presumably IAR would apply, as this is may be more worthy of inclusion and note, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny how you "expanded the article a little" by more than tripling the article's length. Seriously though, I believe that the article can be kept now (though you should've added those sources before itself to avoid giving the impression that there was no other source with information about the park). Tube·of·Light 02:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe the above discussion on a regional park or the distinction between Geoland and Geofeat is relevant here, and it would be hard to make a formal criterion due to the wide variation around the world of levels of administration and importance of types of parks; at the least there's no automatic notability. In that discussion I may have said to delete, but this park is over ten times larger, is designated and operated at the prefectural rather than local level, and has major natural features rather than a campsite and playground. User:Maculosae tegmine lyncis's expansion is very nice though I can't read the Japanese sources. Reywas92^Talk 16:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Castañeda

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a bit of a weirder situation that happens with the way we handle minor league baseball player articles. In 2011, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federico Castañeda merged this to a list of KC Royals minor league baseball players. However, the content was unmerged later, when the subject no longer fit the scope of that target. It's now a separate article.

Subject fails WP:NBASE, having only played in the minors and the Mexican. The article is also out of date - the team listed in the lead that he plays for according to baseball reference he hasn't played for since 2017, and according to baseball-reference he's been out of baseball since 2018. While I don't read Spanish well, a WP:BEFORE isn't turning up a WP:GNG pass. Hog Farm _Talk 04:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual with low likelihood of becoming notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Strickel

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

Per WP:BIO, subjects should have significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. After a thorough search, I have not found such sources. ~~David Strickel is a self-proclaimed "medium" who claims to be in touch with a supernatural force called "Tya" for "trust your abundance."~~

description of all available sources, which are not independent, not reliable, and almost entirely self-published.

The references currently cited in the article include: a paid advertisement in an online javascript-based spiritualist magazine [23], a radio interview from a cruise sponsored by that magazine that I don't think actually occurred [24], and links to his podcast episodes from this same magazine and his own podcast [25] [26] [27] and book by the same name [28].

All of these are WP:PRIMARY and not independent of the subject, because he paid for them. The only possibly secondary sources available are an interview from SpiritualBiz magazine [29] (which bills itself as "A magazine for Spiritual Entrepreneurs"), this podcast interview from a fellow medium/spiritualist [30], and this listicle "24 books about Spirituality that are actually worth reading" from fupping.com.

Fupping.com has this on their about page: "Fupping aims to revolutionise the industry by putting the power to create back in the hands of you, the readers. We very much live by the mantra that if someone wants to write about it, then someone wants to read it. That is why we don’t provide guidance on the lists or recommendations you write, go crazy and write about what you love."

The article failed AfC twice for these same issues. It has been essentially untouched since it was finally accepted in August 2019. It was written and has been edited by basically one user, who likely has a COI: Liveatthesummit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

That's it. That's the AfD. If this article doesn't deserve deletion, then I'm honestly not sure what would. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC) (edited 09:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as doesn't meet WP:BIO. Sources currently do not meet WP:RS and I cannot find anything else published about him. However - I do not think that it is appropriate for the nominator to bring up a living subject's spiritual beliefs to further their point and would suggest Shibbolethink deletes these. Wikipedia has many pages on mediums. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- done. I honestly did not think about it that way, I agree there are absolutely lots and lots of notable mediums. I simply wanted to describe the subject and his connection to the promotional sources. But now I see what you mean, and have struck that content accordingly.—Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 09:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any notability. Cant see this as anything other than a vanity article in all probability createted either by the subject or a shill.TheLongTone (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Mill, Delaware

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

This one is quite a puzzle due to the testimony of the topos and aerials. There was definitely a mill here: the pond is still there. What it milled, I can't find out, but what is peculiar is that it seems to grow into a sizeable complex if apparently industrial buildings. But sometime between the mid 1950s and 1980 everything changes: a large building appears on the south side of the road across from the old mill area, almost all of whose buildings disappear; meanwhile, a tight group of mobile homes appears on the far end of the mill dam. Most of the latter are gone by around 2000, and they are all gone now; on the west side, one barn-ish building remains at the mill site, along with a modern house, and the large building still seems to house some enterprise. And that is all I can find out, as Delaware Place Names labels the whole thing a locality, and searching is heavily masked by the development just to the west, and tends otherwise to bring up info on the pond. At this point I have no basis for notability, but it's not unlikely I've missed something. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google maps. I'm presuming the article is actually referring to the small community to on the west bank of the pond (apparently called the Estates of Morris Mill). If we had information on who was Morris and what did he mill, this would be a wildly different situation; however, with the information that exists, this is clearly non-notable, per WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Hog Farm's excellent assessment. Topo maps commonly showed landmarks such as mills, and the "Locality" label in Delaware Place Names confirms that's what this was. –dlthewave ☎ 12:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Joy, Delaware

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

Another crossroads which gets a name for no apparent reason late in the topo game, late enough to where it doesn't even appear in Delaware Place Names. Searching turns up nothing illuminating. Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google maps. Another one of these strange rural neighborhoods. Fails both WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I guess - I'm turning up a road, a church, and some passing mentions, but nothing actually describing this location. Hog Farm _Talk 06:02, 11 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) 04:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Opinion episodes

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

This is an episode list for a TV series that doesn't have an article (it was deleted in 2011). It only covers 10 episodes from 2011 (a little over 13 years into the show's run). It only has one single source.... which is no longer functional. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The show was deleted for copyright reasons in 2011, for the record (deletion log). The show has a Wikipedia article in Albanian (sq:Opinion - Tv Klan) and Italian (it:Opinion). Maybe we should have an English-language article for the show, I don't know. This list should be deleted, however. I think that's self-evident, but for the sake of argument: the defunct source is accessible via the Wayback Machine here. It verifies that there have been over a thousand episodes. WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies, specifically because Wikipedia is WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. I don't see this serving any WP:LISTPURPOSE. TompaDompa (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TompaDompa, but also for a concept such as a Sunday morning talk show like this weekly program where the topic is usually the news of the day/week, we don't generally have any time of "List of" articles for those types of shows (for Meet the Press, it would be a 3,600 episode list-of). I would support a re-creation of Opinion (Albanian TV program) without copyright issues. Nate • (chatter) 04:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flutrack

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

The subject of this article likely lacks significant independent coverage. It appears to share its name with a tool used to assist flu vaccination, and it has a similar name to another flu tracking program used in Australia and New Zealand, so many search results pertain to those two things. This article was created in December 2013 by an editor who has not done anything else and who shares a username with the developer's account on GitHub, which has the same real name as one of the authors of this article. This is the only article on PubMed about Flutrack and it was published three years after this article's creation, so I suspect that this article was created for promotional purposes by a Flutrack developer. Velayinosu (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the article on PubMed referenced above was written by the site's creators, so it isn't clearly independent. And my searches aren't finding anything else that could constitute significant coverage: everything is trivial single-sentence mentions. Barring something more, this fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The main debate was whether the article met WP:GNG, specifically whether or not there was significant coverage in reliable sources. Both sides made valid and applicable arguments here. Ultimately though neither argument was strong enough to justify a keep or delete consensus. Interestingly the WP:WEBCRIT guideline was not brought up–this may be a good point of debate in a new discussion. More analysis of the sources reliability and significance is also justified. (non-admin closure) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Taste

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Currently one of the Japan Times articles being referenced doesn’t even mention Trash Taste or Video Podcasts. The article does discuss the hosts of the show, but the podcast does not WP:INHERIT notability from hosts or guests. The second Japan Times article actually mentions the podcast, but it’s an extremely brief and trivial mention. The Mipon article very briefly mentions the podcast, but from what I can tell the site is just a WP:BLOG written by Alfred Toh. I’m not sure if Alfred Toh is an authoritative source or not, but regardless the source is trivial. The rest of the sources are not independent and reliable secondary sources. When searching online there are some WP:GHITS in part because the words trash taste are commonly used together and because the podcast has trivial mentions in a few sources, but I can’t find anything good. Maybe someone else can find some good non-digital or non-free sources that I’m unaware of to demonstrate notability. I began discussing the notability of the article at Talk:Trash Taste where one of the major contributors to the article, Washuotaku, has indicated that they believe the subject is notable. The article could be merged into GeeXPlus or merged into BookWalker. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the largest contributor of the article, I strongly oppose the deletion of this article and have been critical of the attempt to merge with the significantly smaller BookWalker article (by view count alone, Trash Taste gets more than twice the average views than BookWalker). At issue, I believe, is the niche subject matter of the podcast (anime, manga, fandom, and Japanese Pop Culture) and it being hosted by three people, each being more notable than the podcast itself, despite the podcast having over a million subscribers on its own on YouTube. It is obviously a notable podcast, there are third party reference that discuss and mention it, there is even an interview about the show by the FCCJ, who which interview and hold press conferences of world leaders and other figures that are in or visit Japan. Of course, I welcome any additional improvements by others to make the article better, but deleting it because of one editor's opinion of not having the gold standard is ludicrous. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Japanese pop culture is not a "niche subject matter," it's very much mainstream. Regardless, do you have any sources which cover the podcast in-depth? I'm tending to agree with the nominator that, although there are a large number of sources in the article, many of them are either not independent or trivial. Mlb96 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My in-depth reference was the FCCJ event, where the three hosts were interviewed by the FCCJ about them and the podcast. However, this is apparently not considered a reliable source because it is a YouTube video and interviews don't qualify (for some reason). --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERVIEW sources are generally consider primary sources not secondary. So it would not meet the WP:GNG requirement that "Sources should be secondary sources." TipsyElephant (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well written article. Good editor. It can become a GA. Not through AfD. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being well written does not make the article notable (WP:ARTN). Your account is also fairly new and you've been flagged for canvassing. You emphasized that the editor is good, but the primary editor does not WP:OWN the article. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leanne Sepulveda: I disagree. Whether the article is well written or poorly written, notability is the concern. SBKSPP (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a bit of work on both copyediting and sourcing to get anywhere close to GA. --MuZemike 16:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in the interest of full disclosure, I am the creator of the BookWalker article. Now that disclosure is out of the way, I am not convinced by any of the !keep rationals above. For one, pageviews are not an indication of notability, which is directly stated on WP:PAGEVIEWS. Second, all of the non-primary sources in this article just give it a passing mention and nothing that passes WP:SIGCOV. I tried to search for references and admittedly I am not familiar with podcasts much so I just checked Anime News Network and other sources at WP:A&M/ORS, but came up with nothing. As far as a merge, the article on BookWalker is more about the E-book store rather than the subsidiary GeeXPlus. If an article for GeeXPlus gets created, I wouldn't oppose a merge with that, but I don't feel BookWalker is very appropriate. Link20XX (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My rational of mentioning the view count is two-fold. First that people are more likely to search out Trash Taste as oppose to GeeXPlus/Bookwalker (despite the fact that GeeXPlus/Bookwalker is linked on Trash Taste, as well as several other articles). The second is for those that vote here to take note that despite the article's short existence it has already generated considerable views for something that is claimed to be not notable and more so compared to a longer established article, that the submitter put forward to be merged with as a possible solution. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the title "Trash Taste" gets more pageviews isn't a reason not to merge it into GeeXPlus especially because we can just create a redirect. It's also worth noting that pageviews werelikely increased by opening this AfD or someone searching for something with the same name. The title "Trash Taste" is fairly generic whereas "GeeXPlus" is quite unique. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has enough sources. I don’t see what good deleting the article would do. Sahaib (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having a lot of sources doesn't necessarily mean they count towards WP:GNG, see WP:REFBOMB. Deleting articles on non-notable topics is a reason for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON. Link20XX (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It now has 27 references (a lot of which are independent). Sahaib (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG per WashuOtaku's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Having WP:LOTSOFSOURCES or how neat the article is does not make the program notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Keeping WP:INHERIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF in mind, I think it's just not notable, going by WP:GNG, with the main issue being a lack of reliable sources. The Japan Times and CBR articles are ok, but even then, they're just passing mentions and only a couple of other non-primary sources seem to exist. Maybe at some point we can revisit this, but as of right now, in my view it's non-notable. Disclosure: I listen to this podcast. Curbon7 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sourcing on this is borderline, I'd like to see more in industry coverage specifically about the podcast before this is a full article. Would support Drafting this page until it's ready. Esw01407 (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe FCCJ interview and magazine would count as significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I noticed nobody has added this yet so I'll leave a link to the digital copy of the magazine source Mathchem.21 (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This was addressed above. WP:INTERVIEW sources are considered primary sources. Link20XX (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new link provided is a published article, written by Fred Varcoe, and not the interview video; this should be considered a valid secondary source. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not downloading a file on my phone just to check it, but even if it does count, GNG requires multiple sources. Link20XX (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let us breakdown what GNG says: Significant coverage - This is a podcast that has over one million subscribers on YouTube. Reliable - We have that, not just the most recenter source that goes into great detail, but other references of the podcast. Sources - Says there is no fixed number, disputing your claim that it is not enough, because sources can vary in detail. We now have a very detailed article regarding the podcast. Independent of the subject - We have identified that the source is indeed independent (as are several other sources in the article). Presumed - I don't think anyone is saying this podcast does not exist. So we had already cleared this before it even came up here, but with this new source, there should be no mistake now that this article is a keeper. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I perhaps conveyed my meaning wrong. Previously, others have mentioned that "they believe this sourcing borderline"; as such when I discovered a new source on this topic, I figured, it would be enough to demonstrate notability. Indeed I meant to convey that the magazine article by FCCJ, clearly a secondary reliable in-depth source, along with Japan Times source "New trends in 'J-vlogging' allow for a more diverse range of views on Japan", combined demonstrates Trash Taste to have significant coverage. I agree that the Japan Times sources coverage on the topic is only one part of the greater topic on Western Japanese vloggers. However, the amount of details given about the Trash Taste podcast and its hosts in the article means it still can be considered a non-trivial secondary source. Reason is because after reading it I can confirm "no original research is needed to extract the content" as per Wikipedia guidelines in WP:Trivial mentions. All the other sources on Trash Taste currently I believe are trivial, primary, or unreliable. Therefore, there are, as I see, two independent secondary reliable sources on Trash Taste. Of course, now the question still stands whether two independent secondary-sources can satisfy WP:Multiple sources. This is obviously a subjective matter as guidelines are ambiguous about the number of sources required. I however personally believe it does demonstrate notability hence my statement that this page should be kept. Mathchem.21 (talk) 4:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Having a Million subscribers on YouTube doesn't automatically make the podcast notable, nor is that what WP:SIGCOV is. I disagree that the Japan Times article is in-depth, as it is 30 paragraphs long and only one of them even mentions the podcast. Link20XX (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you read what I wrote. I did not state that Trash Taste is notable because it has a million subscribers. Neither did I state the Japan Time article is in-depth. I simply stated it is not a trivial mention (as GNG WP:GNG requires sources to be non-trivial). The two are not equivalent. Mathchem.21 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of my comment was addressing WashuOtaku's comment Significant coverage - This is a podcast that has over one million subscribers on YouTube. I also don't understand the comment you just made. Significant coverage or trivial mention is the same thing as both are referring to the depth of coverage, just a different way of mentioning it. Link20XX (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to evaluate the recent source indicated in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the analysis of the sources listed above pretty clearly indicates that this person does not pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What person? This is a podcast. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in my opinion this discussions' result is no consensus (I can’t close the discussion, as I’m involved in it). Sometimes the discussion seems like it's going to go one way, but then more people give their opinion. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:47, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Brackman

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

Former rabbi is not notable simply for having written a book and some columns. | MK17b | (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. | MK17b | (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. | MK17b | (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. Struggle to find any secondary sources discussing him or his work except these two which are pretty light. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tarzan. I find a clear consensus based on policy-based rationales, to not sustain this as a standalone article. Varying views as to whether a merge is the right option or not, so rather than formalising a set action by closing as 'merge', closing as 'redirect' and normal editorial process can rescue content from behind the redirect and incorporate into the main article if there is a desire to do so. Daniel (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sabor (Tarzan)

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

Unnotable fictional character, no sources found in WP:BEFORE, article is almost entirely unsourced. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Though I would, wouldn't I, having originated the article. Unnotability is debatable, and plainly a matter of opinion. Claim that article is almost entirely unsourced is false on its face; five sources listed in the references support points made in the text. Other points do remain unreferenced, and for these sources would certainly be useful. But while one can debate the sufficiency, quality or suitability of the sources, the claim as made is simply wrong. BPK (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion It is easy to find more detailed sources such as this. The topic is therefore notable and our policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a plot summary, but if I missed something more analytical, don't hesitate to provide a quotation. TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above Sahaib (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:KEEPER is not a valid contribution to AfD.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article has WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a long period of time. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Tarzan (redirect is preferred as this can be a searchable term). As written, the article shows no evidence of notability. BEFORE shows a bit, but not much goes beyond a plot summary, and WP:SIGCOV is lacking. "killing wild animals like Sabor provides Tarzan with material demonstrations of his superiority" is the best I see. Coverage is limited to plot summaries and one-sentence statements like this (ex. Tarzan shows how mighty he is when he kills Sabor". Sabor is a very minor device in the book and I don't see how this fictional animal deserves its own article, given the sources I am seeing (or mostly, not seeing). At best, she can be mentioned in the article about Tarzan, with a footnote or two, in the same form like the sources found - a sentence that mentions Tarzan killed her, which shows his maturing as a warrior or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the information provided above by @BPK2:, @Andrew Davidson:, and @Sahaib3005: who are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a google scholar search shows many academic sources referring to Sabor in Tarzan. Pikavoom (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I looked at the and found nothing substantial several days before you posted. Did you even read my post just above yours? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tarzan. If I understand the story correctly, Tarzan's dominance over Sabor is a key point in the Tarzan mythos, but most of what I find in a search for references is "in-universe" articles in Tarzan-related websites. We clearly need to mention Sabor, but without stronger referencing I'm reluctant to retain this separate article. RomanSpa (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tarzan. The current sources are not substantial enough to keep this as a standalone article. TTN (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tarzan: is not notable character. No reason to create a fan driven universe here at WP. Kolma8 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tarzan. No solid sources to incorporate into the article have been raised in this discussion (passing mentions in stuff on Google Scholar doesn't help), and sources on the article are either primary sources, or listicle-style articles with titles like "15 classic Disney film death scenes that destroyed your childhood", which doesn't seem like a very solid source. Waxworker (talk) 23:38, 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 merge to Mobile Suit Gundam: Encounters in Space. czar 21:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam Thoroughbred

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article says that the subject is a sidestory, but the name of the sidestory doesn't match the subject. The subject is basically a spaceship the sidestory is about. There are many links about the manga, the characters and the Gundam franchise (at least in Japanese). However, it doesn't mean that part of a sidestory is notable. If the decision is to keep the article I'd recommend changing the title. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, the whole thing is kind of a mess. I would say that this should either be merged into the article on Mobile Suit Gundam: Encounters in Space, where this side story originated from as a mode in the game, or renamed and restructured to be about the manga adaptation, assuming that manga actually passes the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to both options. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:24, 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) 00:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mobile Suit Gundam: Encounters in Space. The only references I can find for this are from "in-universe" websites and fan sites. This doesn't seem enough to establish general notability to me. RomanSpa (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mobile Suit Gundam: Encounters in Space. I attempted to find a good source, but it only appears as fan sites. 49.149.97.0 (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Weatherford, Doris (20 January 2012). Women in American Politics: History and Milestones. SAGE. p. 247. ISBN 978-1-60871-007-2.

[1]