Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 16 September 18 >

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 redirect to Glossary of motorsport terms. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grip (auto racing)

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

The only external link is dead; the article itself looks like more a dictionary definition. Mark Ekimov (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Yadav (cinematographer)

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

Has a lot of connections to notable shows, but I couldn't establish WP:N is met. Has been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years; hopefully, we can resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Jaramillo

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

WP:NOTINHERITED applies - his brother is notable but i fail to see how he is, given there is no real coverage and the sourcing for his supposed training of notable athletes is a forbes contributor piece. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To establish this as a fact, you'll need to provide an actual reliable source. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it was your job WP:BEFORE. After a quick search on the internet: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kmehta/2020/10/14/inside-the-mind-of-elite-athletes-who-become-outstanding-business-leaders/, https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/roger-federer-backs-itf-for-handing-maria-sharapova-two-year-doping-ban_sto5641417/story.shtml -GorgonaJS (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently, none of the keeps are policy-based, nor compelling on an IAR basis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ultimately, "mentioned" (as above) seems to be the extent of it. The Forbes article looks promising but is not a Forbes-vetted piece and is from a contributor so wouldn't seem to be subject to the same editorial oversight as we expect from a reliable source. The other article provided above says the following about the subject: "But in an interview with BBC World Service, the US-based star's former coach Gabe Jaramillo said a comeback was possible." That's it. It's such a brief name-check I can quote it here in full. This isn't the sort of significant coverage we require for the subject to meet WP:GNG and I'd have serious WP:BLP concerns about any article built on such scant sources as that. Certainly happy to consider other sources, but I couldn't find anything else (during my own search) that would meet our requirements. St★lwart111 01:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP: SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the association with players such as Sampras appears to be that he was a teacher at Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy at the time they were students. Beyond his own repeated claims, I see no evidence that he was particularly prominent as an influence. There also isn't enough significant coverage about him to meet WP:GNG. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides what Stalwart111 said, the Forbes article has very little in the way of biographical details on Jaramillo that can be used in the article. Essentially, it is an interview, and the claim of having coached famous players cannot rest on Jaramillo's own statements alone. That would be a WP:BLP issue for the players concerned. SpinningSpark 17:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Whispers. Based on the comments, this appears to be a compromise most of the participants would be comfortable with. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Caldwell

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

Does not appear to be independently notable enough for a standalone article. Coverage in name publications is mostly re-hashing a brief Associated Press article about his death (or wire distribution) or brief articles stating he died without going significantly in-depth about him beyond group association. (WP:BLP1E for his death). TheSandDoctor Talk 23:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The earlier AfD listed here was for a different person of the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 23:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 23:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was an important member of the band The Whispers. If he were not an important person, his death would not be mentioned in several newspapers around the world. I believe the article needs to be better developed. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Whispers. In response to the previous voter, the reason Caldwell's death made the news is because he was a member of the Whispers. I can find no evidence that he did anything notable outside of that group, and those obituaries make no mentions of such things either. His accomplishments with the group can be (and are) described at their article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only argument I can think of for keeping a separate article is the fact that he wrote original songs for The Whispers. The associated categories with composers/song writers is impacted when we remove articles on individuals and redirect them to musical groups. Regardless, I agree that a redirect/merge is probably best in this case.4meter4 (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although he was mainly notable as part of a band, he is still a notable musician.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AIR Users Blog

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

Cannot find any sources that would meet WP:GNG about this website (which has now changed its name to "Pro Tools Expert", making it even harder to find any sources about the website itself). pinktoebeans (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Graham Dempsey

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NAUTHOR. I am unable to find significant discussion of the individual in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 16:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 16:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 16:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Support inclusion and reject deletion: The subject of this article is notable, since he has published several books and has appeared in many podcasts and videos. The article includes some unnecessary biographical information in the Academic Studies. That section should probably be removed.Brandonlee25 (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Blogoscoped

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

Could not find multiple reliable, independent sources covering this blog in detail. The (online) sources in the article do not qualify under the WP:GNG guidelines and my WP:BEFORE search only revealed a few articles by TechCrunch which only mention the blog/its contents in passing and do not display notability for the blog itself. The blog also has not been updated since 2011. pinktoebeans (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 George Cross recipients. In case any content needs to be merged it can be found in the page history. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living recipients of the George Cross

[edit]
List of living recipients of the George Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN as reliable sources don't treat living George Cross recipients as a group distinct from other GC recipients (or at least no more than they typically distinguish between the living and the dead). They are distinguished from dead recipients in that they're entitled to an annuity from the Crown, but I don't think it's in any way notable that the pension ends at death.

This page is essentially a WP:NOTMIRROR of the VC & GC Association's membership database. The information is also duplicated at List of George Cross recipients. The only unique information is the smaller list of recently deceased recipients, but that's non-encyclopedic, marginal WP:MEMORIAL, and could easily be incorporated into the larger list in an encyclopedic manner by listing birth and death dates for all recipients. I'd be happy to redirect to the full list, but the maintainers of this list opposed a merge proposal, so I'm bringing it here. pburka (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a simultaneous merge discussion on the talk page at [1] LizardJr8 (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no-one favouring deletion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Arcángel Roscigna

[edit]
Miguel Arcángel Roscigna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominator's rationale: There is not much sources or information about this person. Myself and other have expanded it, but weren't able to do much. If it can't be expanded much more then I don't think there is much point in keeping it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Keep. I have now expanded it as much as I can with the information that I have found. Anyone who knows the language Spanish, please add the information from the Spanish article after converting it to English to this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Do you think that you can find someone who can convert the Spanish article into English. If this can be done then I think the article should surely be kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You only have to click on the word "books" above to find many sources, including, for example, extensive coverage in ISBN 9781849353199. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger, I have that book and did not see the subject indexed or mentioned, for what it's worth. czar 17:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the mentions is shown here. There are plenty more. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I confused that title with Suriano's Paradoxes of Utopia—my error czar 18:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty on the subject in Bayer, Osvaldo (2015). The Anarchist Expropriators: Buenaventura Durruti and Argentina's Working-Class Robin Hoods. Translated by Sharkey, Paul. AK Press. ISBN 978-1-84935-224-6. And since AfD is not cleanup, the existence of the source material is enough—there's no pressing need to translate the article from the ES.WP article (much of which is unsourced). This said, I'm sure you'd find an offer if you asked WT:@. czar 17:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger: Please see if you can expanded the article were more information. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, David, but I don't have the time or the inclination to so immediately. It has been shown here that more information is available in reliable sources, which is what counts for notability rather than the current state of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Eakman

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

Promotional, oddly written, and relies entirely on primary or unreliable sources; Google search shows up nothing substantial; possibly a Scientologist? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Guthrie

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

Here v. PROD as it has been previously deleted. I cannot find evidence of notability for this climber via GNG or CREATIVE. His autobiography is self published and none of his writings seem to be part of notable publications. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have subscription access to the Los Angeles Times, and found zero coverage in the archives so the generic claim of coverage in that publication within the article is false. I did find one brief interview in The Washington Post, but as an interview it lacks independence. Of the other sources in the article, the only one that could be consider RS would be the book review in the climber magazine. However, this on its own is not enough to establish notability. All of the other sources are trivial mentions or lack independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Behrouz Jamali

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

Non-notable musician. Can't see how he is notable. scope_creepTalk 20:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Batman family enemies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punchline (character)

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

Sooo... this was deleted back in March 2020 for lack of notability and WP:ONEEVENT concerns, with a caveat that the character may become notable in the future. Now it's back, using sources that get no more recent than... February 2020. And with not a tick of development in the notability department as far as I can tell. I wonder what the reasoning here is? All the arguments from the last discussion still apply, and I guess so should the conclusion. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll vote Keep since I voted that way in the first AFD, and my opinion hasn't really changed. I thought the article had sufficient coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability, and since notability is not temporary, I obviously feel the same way now. In fact, I was surprised that AFD ended with a Delete result, since it was pretty clear to me from the discourse that it was a No Consensus at best. That being said, I haven't been active on Wikipedia recently and I haven't edited this page since before that first AFD. — Hunter Kahn 01:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article should be merged to any of the articles listed by the user above or be deleted, because the character in the present is not notable enough to have her own article, the character is new and not completely developed yet and there is not enough information about her that can be sourced and be put into an article (example: powers and abilities publication history etc) and i think it's better to see if she will remain since it is possible that the character will not appear again in future comics lol! - Greasy mech (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. The character still lacks sufficient sourcing after over a year, so it still doesn't need an article. TTN (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to List of Batman family enemies per WP:CHEAP.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Batman family enemies - The sourcing has really not improved since the last deletion discussion a year and a half ago, so the subject still does not warrant an independent article. The little bit of sourcing that does exist probably does justify her being included on the main list, though, and as she is not currently there, a quick, light merge would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Parr

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

Promotional profile sourced to a scraped-together collection of "coverage" so lightweight it's blowin' in the wind. Seriously, look at these sources and weep. There is one solid local newspaper article [2] but the rest could fit on the back of a postcard. There's no basis for an article here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Opportunity Project

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP - no indication of notability through significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. -Liancetalk/contribs 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -Liancetalk/contribs 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -Liancetalk/contribs 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Withdrawal of the United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Scheller

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

Non-notable BLP1E. Merge content elsewhere. Feoffer (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Payal Radhakrishna

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

Declined at Afc. Doesn't meet nactor, npov, wp:aud nor sigcov. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.asianage.com/life/food/020218/celeb-recipe-spaghetti-special.html
  2. ^ https://archive.org/details/payal-is-coming-as-different
  3. ^ https://www.cinemaexpress.com/stories/news/2018/apr/25/adarsh-ropes-in-paayal-to-play-kaveri-in-bhinna-5713.html
  4. ^ Bengaluru girl Paayal Radhakrishna set for Tollywood debut
  5. ^ https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/kannada/2019/may/02/bhinna-wins-award-even-before-release-1971739.html
  6. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/the-intense-character-in-her-next-left-paayal-radhakrishna-depressed/articleshow/68302751.cms
(70mmreels (talk)
@70mmreels: about that prestigious Dadasaheb Award … read WP:DADASAHEB. defcon5 (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet NACTOR or GNG. No critical reception of her work and the awards are non-notable. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: below are references regarding awards and reception on her work as it is kannada movie she has done as lead in all movies has muliple primary and secondary sources as per WP:NACTOR have mentioned independent coverages with significant roles in multiple movies [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] U can see the full movies bangalore underworld hindi dubbed [15] Bhinna which is uploaded in zee5 [16] Singapenne in zee5

[17]

Tharagarathi Gadhi Daati [18] I can still provide more refrences related to all movies.

References

  1. ^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10083986/mediaviewer/rm24297217/
  2. ^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15151786/mediaviewer/rm1134100225/
  3. ^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13627530/mediaviewer/rm3439779073/
  4. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/bhinna-wins-award-at-dada-saheb-phalke-film-festival/articleshow/69129238.cms
  5. ^ https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/kannada/2019/may/02/bhinna-wins-award-even-before-release-1971739.html
  6. ^ https://boldoutline.in/bhinna-wins-the-best-screenplay-jury-award-before-its-release.html
  7. ^ https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/south-masala/arjun-paayal-to-come-together-for-music-video/articleshow/74738302.cms
  8. ^ https://www.ap7am.com/flash-news-724564/payal-radhakrishna-in-surendar-reddy-movie
  9. ^ https://www.cinemaexpress.com/stories/news/2020/mar/21/life-360-director-arjun-kishore-chandra-comes-up-with-his-first-single-17674.html
  10. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/the-intense-character-in-her-next-left-paayal-radhakrishna-depressed/articleshow/68302751.cms
  11. ^ https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/kannada-films-should-have-global-sensibility-wider-reach-bhinna-director-adarsh-110626
  12. ^ https://kannada.asianetnews.com/sandalwood/kannada-actress-payal-radhakrishna-to-be-acts-in-tollywood-movie-q7fvdh
  13. ^ https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/kannada/2017/mar/07/paayal-excited-about-her-first-in-sandalwood-1578407.html
  14. ^ https://www.filmibeat.com/kannada/movies/bhinna.html
  15. ^ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uKFsuGzaCBU
  16. ^ https://www.zee5.com/movies/details/bhinna/0-0-87629
  17. ^ https://www.zee5.com/zee5originals/details/singa-penne/0-6-3127
  18. ^ https://www.aha.video/originals/tharagathi-gadhi-daati


70mmreels (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The sources provided by 70mmreels all have issues of one kind or another. Many do not mention Payal Radhakrishna at all. Those that do are either not independent of the subject, unreliable, or are trivial mentions. No sources provide independent significant coverage of the subject.4meter4 (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep (DOUBLE VOTE): According to WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG In Many of the Links Payal radhakrishna Name is mentioned and also have independent significant coverages https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/the-intense-character-in-her-next-left-paayal-radhakrishna-depressed/articleshow/68302751.cms https://kannada.asianetnews.com/sandalwood/kannada-actress-payal-radhakrishna-to-be-acts-in-tollywood-movie-q7fvdh https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/kannada/2017/mar/07/paayal-excited-about-her-first-in-sandalwood-1578407.html https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/south-masala/arjun-paayal-to-come-together-for-music-video/articleshow/74738302.cms Here is one more article which has been published yesterday https://epapervijayavani.in/ArticlePage/APpage.php?edn=Bengaluru&articleid=VVAANINEW_BEN_20210923_6_1&artwidth=185.2566666666667px Local sources in kannada langauage should also be considered because she is south actress along with English any articles have been published in local print sources also https://archive.org/details/payal-is-coming-as-different https://archive.org/details/payal-in-tollywood 70mmreels (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudette Roy

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

Poorly sourced article about a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not a role that passes WP:NPOL per se -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one -- but there isn't much else here to hang a "preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy" claim on, since it's all just unsourced career background on her work as a member of various local boards and committees. And even on a WP:BEFORE search for other coverage, I'm not finding much -- out of just 130 hits total, the clear majority are unrelated Claudette Roys such as a school board trustee in Montreal and a hockey player in Sudbury and a woman in Cornwall who won a Fitbit in a walkathon, and what little I do get for this Claudette Roy is either run of the mill campaign coverage that doesn't make her more special than other non-winning candidates or glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things, with virtually no sources that are about her in any non-trivial way. And while being named a Member (the lowest level) of the Order of Canada would be a strong notability claim if the article were sourced properly, it isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more and better sourcing than just one short blurb about a non-winning political candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Baraby

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

WP:BLP of a regional director of a government department, not properly sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to make him markedly more notable than most other holders of a not inherently notable job title. The notability claim here is his role in investigating a single child abuse case of no clearly enduring significance for the purposes of the ten year test -- and the sourcing is not about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG, but just glancingly namechecks his existence in the process of being about the incident. So all of this just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a person who warrants permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia on this basis per se. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tubi Style

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. Completely promotional, zero references. Mikeblas (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that WP:N requires significant coverage. While you've added a few references, they're to articles that make ancillary descriptions. A review was done of a car that had equipment made by this company, for example, but does not describe this company. One reference simply happens to mention the president of the company. Anohter just mentions the company in the title, nothing further. Despite your edits, notability is not established because these references are superfluous and not significant -- not even direct, really. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Surasky

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

There's already been substantial discussion of whether this person is notable by our standards, so it seems to be time to get a wider view on that. There's no in-depth biographical coverage of him in the article as it stands - the "sources" simply rehash tidbits from his website. He gets no hits on JSTOR, no hits on Scholar and no verifiable hit on Gbooks; he is not listed on Scopus.

It is claimed that he is certified by the American Board of Addiction Medicine; attempting to verify this on the website of that august body takes us to this other website, where his name does not appear.

The creator of the page has been asked to disclose any WP:COI or WP:PAID connection to the subject, but has not responded; obvious is obvious, in any case. The draft was accepted in good faith by FormalDude. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - you got to this nomination before me. Subject doesn't appear to pass WP:NBIO, WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. Per the talk page, the article was created with a pile of non-RS sources, including the sponsored-content sections of otherwise-RSes. I went looking myself and could find zero biographical coverage actually about Surasky - a few (surprisingly few) RSes quote his opinions on things, and he goes on TV occasionally, but this is punditry and the biographical coverage is just what he says on his website - which, as you note, turns out to be quite difficult to independently verify. The thing he seems to do is to appear in crank sources of the sort that Wikipedia deprecates; but this doesn't rise to the level of being of note in RSes.
This is not a comment on Surasky's expertise as a doctor; I am noting that we don't have the material to justify a Wikipedia article.
FWIW, the creator did comment on the talk page on his relationship with Surasky: "I do not have a 'close relationship' with the subject. I am a colleague who knows Dr. Surasky from medical school & residency training." - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard, that talk-page comment was added by an IP editor, and then messed around with by a different one to include a (failed) ping to me and to the creator of the article, Canes Stains. I've no idea whether that's the same editor or a different one; I am however sure that the Canes Stains account has not responded to my request for clarification. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to the request: I do not have a COI. Also that IP editor is not me. Canes Stains (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Thanks, FormalDude, that is indeed correct, and I'd overlooked it, my careless mistake. Canes Stains has denied any COI or PAID connection to the subject; as above, an IP editor has disclosed a COI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – but with no prejudice against the current article being WP:TNTed. Consensus is that the topic is notable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MusicBee

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

Non-notable software article with poor sourcing. Article reads like a manual, and Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 16:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 16:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Spiropoulos

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

BLP with no actual references Rathfelder (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Ruumet

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

An MMA fighter who has just started her career doesn't pass WP:NMMA. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sulit TV

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

Article has been moved to draftspace twice in 24 hours. It has no references. Suggesting to Delete and Salt. Whiteguru (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: From zero to six sources since being nominated, this is worth another look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze. The page history is retained for anyone wanting to merge content and references. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Squeeze

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

Pretty much entirely original research and refbombing. Sourced to dubious or unreliable sources (including wikipedia articles). The vast majority of the sources do not mention gamma squeezes. Additionally, the article looks like a POV fork from short squeeze in several respects. Maybe the subject is notable (although IMO the subject's notability is not separate from short squeezes), but this version should be WP:TNTed. JBchrch talk 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Strongko

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

no notable independent wrestled. Not enough coverage by reliable, independent sources HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but with no prejudice against a merge, which was even suggested by the nominator (just a reminder, you don't need to send an article to AfD to merge it). There is clearly a consensus against deletion so the article can either be expanded with more sources or merged to David Narcizo. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lakuna

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible ATD is redirect or merge/redirect to David Narcizo. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CNN Philippines. MBisanz talk 18:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Philippines Headline News

[edit]
CNN Philippines Headline News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article. Too short. Likely fails notability. Could be merged to a relevant article or list article if warranted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete outright. Beyond that, there's no real agreement on whether to redirect, merge, or keep as is, but that can be worked out on the talk page. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus)

[edit]
Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:BASIC and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The subject is mentioned once in passing in one single primary source, and I can find no secondary sources offering any commentary. Avilich (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge It is quite normal for classical topics to be based on one of the limited number of histories that have survived. As a princess of early Rome, we should find some place for her, as she appears in numerous works and so readers may wish to know more. Even if we have to disappoint them, we should record what there is. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except no histories have survived, her name is only even known because that's the royal family's name, and she doesn't play an active role in any event. Does she really appear 'in numerous works' or are you making stuff up? Avilich (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would he be making stuff up exactly? There are probably hundreds of plays, paintings and novels based on the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, not hard to believe that she would have a role in some of them. Why do you have to be rude to other editors that don't agree with you all the time?★Trekker (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because a wp:before already reveals that no such coverage exists, and because this isn't the first time I see someone inventing sources or page numbers in an AfD. Avilich (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, the subject appears briefly in Robert Graves' King Jesus. As Graves' work is the subject of extensive scholarship and is based on history, readers might well want to know more about the historical figures that he mentions. Their names should therefore not be redlinks. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring for a moment that it's a passing mention with no coverage like any other, there is no evidence that Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus) (exactly like that) is a plausible search term (many/most titles with parenthetical qualifiers aren't), which is the requirement for a redirect. Your argument may be applicable for mentioning the character in a dab page without either a redlink or a blue link. But a passing mention in a random novel has nothing to do with establishing notability or whether a redirection is adequate. Avilich (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any history that states that Brutus was the king's nephew would be a valid source for Tarquinia's existence, since his mother would have to have been the king's sister (otherwise he would have been a Tarquinius). And passing as the mention may be, a classicist refers to the works of Robert Graves as "random novels" at his own peril—but I digress. I'm not arguing—and neither is Andrew Davidson—that Tarquinia is necessarily notable enough to justify a stand-alone article. Merging into the other articles concerned involves nothing more than noting her existence, or anything else worth knowing about her—potentially including whatever Robert Graves says about her—with appropriate citations, in the articles about Tarquin the Proud, Brutus, the Tarquinia gens, and perhaps one or two others (not necessarily all of the content or sources in each one—a single source may be sufficient for her existence, but all of them might appear under her entry in "Tarquinia gens"). Keeping the current title as a redirect seems prudent precisely because it is a plausible search target, whether or not we conclude that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit a stand-alone article. P Aculeius (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what makes it implausible. If you mean, "what are the odds that someone will type this exact phrase without any idea whether such an article or redirect exists", then it is at best improbable, but hardly implausible, which means that nobody would be expected to come up with the phrase, rather than "people looking for the topic are likely to search using a different formulation". There are indeed several possible titles that would logically point to this subject. But someone searching for "Tarquinia" would probably find this title in the search window before typing further, or by guessing there might be some parenthetical disambiguation—and by clicking on the proffered link, they would arrive at whichever article contains the most useful information (based on the discussion, probably either "Tarquinia gens" or "Lucius Junius Brutus"). So it would still be a useful redirect, since its appearance when searching under the subject's name would help readers locate whatever information we have. Otherwise, they might guess between several possible articles, and potentially choose one with less information, not knowing that a fuller discussion is in another article. That's the argument for keeping this as a redirect, wherever the content is merged to. P Aculeius (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destubify -- This is a very short article, but it is not properly designated as a stub, for the simple reason that there is nothing (and can be nothing) to add, because we only know of her existence from what Livy says of her. What else we do with the article I am not sure. There might be merit in merging/redirecting, but to which of her relatives? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She should probably be mentioned in the three articles identified above, since she was Tarquin's sister, Brutus' mother, and a member of the Tarquinia gens. However, Livy alone is probably the only source it's necessary to cite to, if the only historical material is the assertion that she existed in the aforesaid relationships. Under her entry in "Tarquinia gens", any other details—such as whatever Robert Graves says of her in his novel—can probably be mentioned, together with citations to other sources supporting her existence. Entries there are limited to two or three lines, but it sounds as though it should be possible to summarize all of the relevant facts in two or three short sentences. P Aculeius (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Graves says nothing at all, it's just the usual filler "Brutus, son of Tarquinia" when saying how he's related to the King. Avilich (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary to say "again" when this is the first time you've said something. You can't remind someone of a fact that hasn't previously been mentioned, as though they should have been aware of it the whole time. P Aculeius (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man argument. Nobody has said that "there must be sources" that nobody has identified; there are sources, and they are well-known and reliable. Notability is only at issue insofar as the only facts that we have about the subject are her relationships to notable persons; but the correct procedure in a case such as this is merger into articles where whatever materials there are may be adequately documented. It is beyond dispute that the subject can and should be mentioned in those articles; there is no argument whatever for erasing all mention of the subject from the encyclopedia.
As a practical matter, since the subject is already mentioned in some of those articles, the only differences between merger and deletion are 1) double-checking to make sure that all of the relevant details are moved to the appropriate places, and 2) changing the current title as a redirect to the most appropriate of those articles, so that people who search for information on this subject can still find it, and so that the page history is preserved. These are not insignificant or unimportant steps, but they take very little time and effort in a case such as this. Let's not muddy the field by ignoring them, just because skipping the proper procedures might save five minutes and 100 Kb. P Aculeius (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from above: There are probably hundreds of plays, paintings and novels based on the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, not hard to believe that she would have a role in some of them. This article is three sentences. A quick search of Tarquin the Elder, the Proud and Brutus' articles show that the scant information in this article is already given there. The idea of someone searching specifically "Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus)" rather than "Tarquinia" is pretty unlikely and I'm not sure worth spilling any pixels over so I'll stop here.Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not unlikely at all if you've read any early Roman history. "Tarquinia" without disambiguation is the modern name of the ancient Etruscan city of Tarquinii; all daughters of any male member of the Tarquinia gens would have been named "Tarquinia", and according to most sources the wife of Servius Tullius (the sixth king of Rome) was a daughter of Tarquin the Elder, who would also have been named "Tarquinia". Readers searching for more information might reasonably guess that any of these would be found under an article beginning with "Tarquinia"; when using the search window the first ten options beginning with that title appear, and only the parenthetical disambiguation makes it possible for a reader to tell which of the possible topics to visit (as it happens there are currently two formulations for the subject of this article, but both are plausible). P Aculeius (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: uuh, merge what exactly? This is an unsourced permastub, this shouldn't be more complicated than a simple 'keep, notable' or 'delete, not notable'--yet I keep seeing people, includig you, throwing around unnecessary complicators such as the merger of nonexistent content, false assertions of her being a 'queen mother', and suggestions of article creation (for which this isn't the venue). Avilich (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. Your tone is becoming uncivil. In response, some of the content on Tarquinia is not so overtly stated in the article on her son. The content in the article is easily sourced to a host of references in a google books search (which you would know if you did a WP:BEFORE); hence why a merge and redirect are fine. Just because the stub is unsourced doesn't mean its content isn't easily verified. Lastly, a dab page suggestion strengthens the argument for deletion/merge because there is a viable alternative to some of the problems highlighted in the keep arguments. As such, the suggestion was of use to this conversation in building consensus. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was nothing wrong with the suggestions that 4meter4 made. He made no indication of her being queen mother, that was another commenter above, and left a helpful suggestion of how we could better clarify a topic with many same/similar names. While there is no mergeable content left, as both her motherhood and her relation to the Tarquins are both included in Lucius Junius Brutus, there is no need for you to always take things so personally and aggressively, Avilich. This is a recurring pattern of behavior with you and I am quite frankly sick of your hostility. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 18:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Dunhan Claus

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

None of the sources given in the article have Walter Dunhan Claus as the primary subject. None of the claims to notability, such as academic posts or assessment of his work as stated in the article are supported by any of the sources cited. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no sources of significance. Essentially this is a largely unverified article, with sources only verifying the existence of his publications but without indicating the significance of those publications or his overall work as a scientist. None of the biographical content is supported by the sources either. I was unable to find any critical assessment of his work to verify his role as a pioneer. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable, independent sources are cited. Peer-reviewed journals with the subject in the byline are not reliable, independent sources, as they are merely self-published work with editorial oversight. Multi7001 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be Walter Dunham Claus, as in the text, not "Dunhan", as in the title. At least one of the sources cited is reliable and independent, though I wouldn't call it "in depth". Some other sources are available, and I've begun incorporating them into the article. Wiki-notability might depend on whether fellowship in and presidency of the Health Physics Society meet WP:PROF. I'm inclined to say "yes", when comparing him to other researchers of the time period. (WP:PROF is mostly geared to evaluating scientists and other academics who are alive and active today; mid-20th-century American physicists most known for work during the Eisenhower era are a little outside our typical "look 'em up on Google Scholar" methodology.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for finding and adding sources as well as catching the spelling error in the title. I went ahead and moved the page to fix the spelling error. I'll take s look more closely at your additions later today to evaluate whether or not to withdraw this nomination. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the remark that "Peer-reviewed journals with the subject in the byline are not reliable, independent sources, as they are merely self-published work with editorial oversight." alarms me considerably. I think it's contrary to WP:PROF which indicates that writing highly-cited papers is a route to notability, and I worry that it doesn't reflect the nature of peer-review, which is highly selective and independent of the author. The whole point is that editorial oversight is what converts self-publishing into publishing. And the editorial oversight of a good peer-reviewed journal is ferociously strong. Just try publishing something in Nature! I haven't looked at the citation rates and impact on Walter Dunham Claus' publications, but his publications, with proper evaluation, should be taken as a potential measure of his notability, in that they reflect the impact he made on his field. Elemimele (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elemimele, I agree with you. However, I think what Multi7001 was trying to get at is that sources which are authored by the subject lack independence per the written guidelines at GNG; no matter how much editorial oversight there is. That's important in this case as a large percentage of the cited sources in this article were written by the subject. What we are really lacking is any source material which covers this person in depth in an independent source. To quote GNG. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." We are currently lacking a source which provides significant independent coverage on Walter Dunham Claus.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4meter4 But please do have another look at WP:PROF. The point is this: notability can be achieved by authoring highly-cited works. It's in the specific criteria notes, section 1(a). A citation is an independent recognition of the author. There are basically two ways it can work. We can either find an independent review article that says "Smith's method is used by absolutely everyone", or we can find that a million everyones have cited the paper in which Smith originally described his method. The second situation still makes Smith notable, but obviously we can't list all million times Smith got cited; instead, by convention, we give a reference to Smith's highly-cited paper as evidence of Smith's notability, and it is independent because Smith didn't, and couldn't force anyone cite him. The only thing we could reasonably add to this would be an indication of how many people actually did cite Smith's paper, by reference to some citation index. Conventionally we don't do this because most academics would regard it as superfluous. Incidentally, we also regard academics as notable if they've held a named chair or been chief editor of a high-ranking journal, and neither of these necessarily generates independent coverage. Again, the point is that you can't get to either of these situations unless someone independent of you thinks you're worth it. Elemimele (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elemimele, I can see some merit to the rationale that the subject would meet criteria 3 or 8 of NPROF per User:XOR'easter. I'll admit I was a bit biased against the article to begin with because it was created and largely written by InfoDataMonger (an undisclosed paid editor who is now permanently blocked), and the article title misspelling threw off my BEFORE search. I am happy to change my vote to Keep based on that rationale. Unfortunately there can be no withdrawal because another editor has voted delete.4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4meter4, oh, no, sorry, I'm just confusing the issue here. I don't have any particular opinion on Walter Dunham Claus, and I'm not trying to change your opinion; I only took objection to the idea that widely-cited peer-reviewed papers didn't indicate notability, and particularly I didn't like the term self-published (you may well be right that I misread that editor's intent; I think I took it too personally; I work an an academic field). If you don't think the subject of this article is notable, by all means stick to your guns! Elemimele (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elemimele No harm done. I was already contemplating changing to keep, and this little side trail helped me make a decision. Ultimately I do find XOR'easter's comments convincing. I'm currently getting ready to submit work to a journal for publication myself; so I can understand why you took offense to the label of self published for academic journals. Anybody who has ever gone through the scrutiny of a peer review process, an IRB board review, followed by an editorial board review would object to that label.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keerthana Sabarish

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

No reliable sources found on a WP: BEFORE. Requesting speedy delete. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Al Futtaim

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

Borderline A7. Futtaim has a plausibly notable father and brother, however notability is NOTINHERITED. Lacks significant coverage. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I

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

Non-notable. Spam. See plot.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michigan Technological University#History, selectively. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women at Michigan Technological University

[edit]
Women at Michigan Technological University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, fails GNG. Also reads like an essay and I can't identify why it should be on Wikipedia. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Michigan Technological University#History, probably to a new subsection. The only useful sources seem to be the 2004 Nordberg article (which I can't access) and this 2019 Riippa article. Given the lack of independence of the "Alumni News", this is probably not enough to support a full article that meets WP:GNG. (There may be high-quality independent sources available in the Copper Country Historical Collections, which is mentioned in the existing sources.) The details about Nada J. Fenton seem interesting and notable, if they could be verified; unfortunately, not much came up in a search. Suriname0 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Rost (boxer)

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

My before search found significant coverage in German, however, the reason I've brought this here is because significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. Yes, I believe (I only checked one of the German sources) the subject does indeed pass GNG, but I'm here to raise the question of why this subject merits an article. As far as I can tell, Rost's biggest achievements are reaching the semi-final of the German national championships as an amateur, and as a professional, winning an insignificant regional title in 2019 and losing to a former world champion the following year. So, let's just ignore GNG for a second (after all, significant coverage is an assumption that a subject merits an article)...what actually makes this individual notable and worthy of inclusion? 2.O.Boxing 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article after concluding a research on Rost in which i was able to pick some good reason why i think this article should not be deleted first of all rost is a professional german boxer and quite popular in germany and other country Beckyrose233

@Beckyrose233: I don't doubt Rost's popularity, but popularity isn't the same as notability. What is it that makes him notable? Being a professional boxer is not noteworthy. – 2.O.Boxing 23:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Squared.Circle.Boxing: as I said, I think rost has gained recognition in the boxing industry and for that, I think he quit notable am not even from Germany and I believe have watched a couple of matches featuring rost he has amassed popularity and notability status for him self in the last couple of years Beckyrose233
@Beckyrose233: he definitely doesn't have recognition in the boxing industry; his only real achievement is winning the WBF International title. The WBF is not considered a notable organisation and the International title that Rost won is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment. Additionally, he's never been listed in any of the rankings (top 10, 15, or 40) by the organisations listed in criteria 3 at WP:NBOX.
Again, I do presume he satisfies WP:GNG, however, in situations such as this I think it's more than reasonable to have a discussion (beyond "passes GNG") to determine what actually makes this individual worthy of inclusion. – 2.O.Boxing 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Comment Where is the coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG? I did an admittedly quick check, in English, and found lots of routine sports reporting and promoting but little that convinces me the WP:GNG is met. It's clear he fails to meet WP:NBOX, so meeting WP:GNG becomes important. I think that if GNG is met, then the question of why he's notable is a bit irrelevant because, in my opinion, the world at large would have indicated he's WP notable and that trumps any editor's viewpoint. Papaursa (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Papaursa, your comment just reminded me of the very first statement at GNG, Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time (bolding mine).
So, the sources I found are in German. The results I get in a standard German-language search all relate to a single fight with Felix Sturm, which received wide coverage in Germany, but basically WP:1E. When amending my search to "before:2020", I get results like: Westdeutsche Zeitung, Rheinische Post, Remscheider General-Anzeiger. I stopped there as I'm using Google translate and am on a mobile device (terribly tedious), but they're outlets that serve the North-Rhine Westphalia region of Germany, so the coverage doesn't appear to be by the world at large after all. I believe this is comparable to a subject only receiving coverage in the Yorkshire region of England or New York State, which I don't think satisfies GNG. – 2.O.Boxing 23:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zana Messia

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

Created by single-purpose account. Does not demonstrate notability. Re-created after 2 speedy deletions. – Fayenatic London 06:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IES Andrés Laguna

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

This is a secondary education campus. Insufficient references for notability. Does not meet WP:N and WP:ORG. Whiteguru (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Basketball TV. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Home Video

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES as per article. I think that it is too hard to find sources to make it notable. So not notable. ----Rdp060707|talk 06:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 06:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 06:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 06:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was created in violation of Light show's topic ban. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine

[edit]
Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely not notable. A number of figures in this list aren't even celebrities, but rather politicians. What, are we going to have to create another list called Politicians who have received the COVID-19 vaccine? What about Elderly people who have received the COVID-19 vaccine? New Zealanders who have received the COVID-19 vaccine? Why even point to any of these people in the first place? Unnecessary. Love of Corey (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Which celebrity would Dr. Anthony Fauci like to publicly get the vaccine?"ABC News
"President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama and a slew of celebrities including Billy Crystal, Jennifer Hudson and Lin-Manuel Miranda are part of a special aimed at boosting COVID-19 vaccination rates."AP, and was on an NBC prime time special.
Celebrity news beyond trivia is always notable. A review of the sources proves that easily, and those sources are usually focused on the people who had the vaccine. Example sources: People Magazine, USA Today, US Magazine, Glamour, BBC, Fortune, Business Insider, CBS News, Japan Times, Hollywood Reporter, New York Times. The list certainly does no harm to the vaccine issues, but with the controversies about anti-vaxers in the news, it clearly provides important information. At a time like this the benefit and notability of the people listed is obvious. As for including politicians or others that may not be considered celebrities, simply remove them, with a rationale.
The rationales mentioned above for deletion include sillilness, such as why not include a list of all seniors who got a shot, or all New Zealanders. Or that it's simply of list of brunettes, or other American celebrities, or we can simply turn on the TV news. As for one idea mentioned above: List of celebrities who have publicly refused to be vaccinated, that would be a good topic to promote against vaccination, despite the fact that most of the rationales for it are based on misinformation.
This very significant list only includes names, at this point, making it relatively brief. In comparison, a topic like Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation, is about 10,000 words—enough for a small book or scandal sheet. And that's a mere allegation, not a fact. In any case, the celebrities and sources could also be used in context within the main article, which could help balance out all the gratuitious anti-Trump commentary and the commentary about vaccine hesitancy . --Light show (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being that the list is of primarily American celebrities, it would be understandable why it might be attacked as being biased, although no one has mentioned that as reason. So if there are any other editors who are Americans and want to delete the list, that could be helpful to note. Or better yet, if there are any non-U.S. celebrities that should be added to balance the list, feel free to add them.--Light show (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I… don’t even know where to start. While I admire your impassioned defense of your article, it is not a notable or important subject in any way whatsoever. It’s a list of various famous people who did something logical during a pandemic. That’s like “list of notable London inhabitants who took measures to avoid getting blown up during the London Blitz”. Additionally, there is a vast difference between a highly publicized sexual assault accusation that’s been covered and discussed on-and-off for decades and somebody getting a shot. Finally, this isn’t exactly “sudden” when the article has been around for less than a month, and most editors had no idea it existed in that time. Dronebogus (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While you may not think so, an abundance of news stories from Europe, especially the UK, have been trying to reach and convince skeptics, with some notables boasting about getting vaccinated:

"British Health Secretary Matt Hancock called the 75% milestone a big step forward, but he warned that “a worldwide pandemic of misinformation” threatened the vaccination campaign. ... Hancock said Britain had bolstered vaccine confidence by using “trusted voices” — including naturalist David Attenborough and Queen Elizabeth II — to disclose that they had received a shot and to deliver a pro-vaccine message." AP
"Celebrities are coming forward with their firsthand accounts of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to quell skepticism as vaccination efforts roll out across the world. ...Duchess Kate Middleton announced on Twitter that she got her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine on May 28, a little more than a week after her husband Prince William.  ...Prince William joined #teamvaccinated announcing he got his COVID-19 shot on Twitter.... "On Tuesday (May 18) I received my first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.  … it was announced that Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall had received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. … Queen Elizabeth II, 94, and her husband, Prince Philip, 99, received their COVID-19 vaccinations, according to Buckingham Palace. ... "Yesterday I received my first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine at London’s Science Museum. ‘’USA Today’’
"Covid vaccine: PM receives AstraZeneca jab as he urges public to do same."BBC --Light show (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

And with articles like this one, despite the attack on its viability, we may actually catch up to you guys.[5] watch us. --Light show (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia, specifically because Wikipedia is not a place for non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. At time of writing, the cumulative number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered is nearing six billion, per Johns Hopkins. Of course we don't know how many of those are second doses given to individuals who have already received their first dose (it could theoretically be up to half), but the lower bound for the number vaccinated individuals still exceeds a third of the global population. That a significant number of celebrities would be included is not exactly astonishing, and trying to list them all is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TompaDompa (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete - WP:CSD#G5. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Borole

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources provided have disclaimers stating that the content was republished from a press-release, with no editorial changes. KH-1 (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stefano (trainer)

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is extremely overdependent on primary sources that are not support for notability (e.g. his own work metaverifying its own existence, unpublished private personal correspondence with the article creator), and not nearly enough on reliably sourced analysis of his significance — but inclusion in Wikipedia depends on the latter, not the former, and if the article has spent over a decade tagged for that problem without ever being improved then there's no serious reason to give it even more time. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Steel Panther. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stix Zadinia

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

DOesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independent of Steel Panther. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Steel Panther. Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 summary argument by Extraordinary Writ explains why deletion has consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Baus

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC; has no WP:SIGCOV on his career and has been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, so let's resolve this. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the SNG invocations above are tenuous at best (NPROF 5 "can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level", not to lower-level academics, while a single state-level award seems pretty far afield of the "significant critical attention" required by NAUTHOR 4c), so I'm inclined to apply the GNG. Since my pretty thorough search (Google, Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, Proquest, Newspapers.com) isn't finding anything that could truly be characterized as significant coverage, I'm not seeing a real basis for notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 11:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles television stations

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Los Angeles television stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unusual list duplicates {{LA TV}} without imparting much new material. Page is orphaned. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 11:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of television stations in the San Francisco Bay Area

[edit]
List of television stations in the San Francisco Bay Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We don't have any other topic overviews of TV stations by market in this style. The contents lack citations and duplicate {{SF TV}} and the various pages featured. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While generally true, [[WP:NMEDIALIST]] provides more specific elaboration ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How I'd organize it, albeit a lower quality example, is Radio in Guyana, where there's a general topic summary, then that sortable list that directs interested parties to read in detail. I think it's better for people who aren't enthusiasts but perhaps need a general idea for personal or educational purposes. Plus that makes coming up with sources easier and more tidy.
Checking again, I see that there's Media in the San Francisco Bay Area that also contains dupes of corresponding List articles. This is a very annoying problem because WP contradicts itself due to different editors managing and updating lists (and being totally unaware of other lists, a problem I experience frequently). There's a few different ways this could be handled, but if "TV in the bay area" is considered a significant enough topic, (sure, why not?) merge the TV section from Media in the San Francisco Bay Area into this page and change this from a list article into a prose one. That way any new additions to Bay Area TV would be directed right away to add it here only. Estheim (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Appleberry

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

Record producers don't get an article because they were the mixing engineer in the credits of a song that charted. Otherwise, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

892 (film)

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

Future film that has not received significant coverage, all coverage has been run-of-the-mill casting/production coverage by trades, production has not been particularly notable as required by WP:NFF, despite filming wrapping. Would be best to be in draft space until notability is established BOVINEBOY2008 22:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean the Afd of course. scope_creepTalk 19:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this point the coverage is still too thin and is not in-depth enough to warrant an article. Draftify is the best option.4meter4 (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Three 4 Tens

[edit]
The Three 4 Tens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

They don't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above such Pitchfork, AllMusic, Philadelphia City Paper and others referenced in the article that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors who voted "keep" are encouraged to add sources to the article based on the research indicated below to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiwaga sa Bahay na Bato

[edit]
Hiwaga sa Bahay na Bato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt91486: The reference you mentioned is not reliable. Please find other sources that is reliable for the said subject. Thank You! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: These are literally scholarly reviewed academic research journals, the pinnacle of WP:RS. "Perspectives in the Arts & Humanities Asia", the first Google Scholar search hit, is from the Ateneo de Manila University, If you are a Filipino who has access to the internet you know what "The" Ateneo is. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stoppomat

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

Exists, but doesn't appear to meet WP:N. After 12 years in CAT:NN, hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sussie 4

[edit]
Sussie 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Found quality RS in my university library. There are many performance reviews and other coverage in independent Spanish language publications over the last 20 years. I don't have urls to give as I am viewing articles through university resources. See the following sources as a small sampling of refs.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonzalo Aburto (August 31, 2010). "Canciones mexicanas inmortales a ritmo de rock". El Diario La Prensa. p. El.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) -Concert Review
  • Nancy Gutiérrez (June 19, 2020). "Inyección de optimismo". CE Noticias Financieras. - Review of online streaming concert
  • Ben-Yehuda, Ayala (May 2, 2009). "MALT ROCK". Billboard. 121 (17): 12. Not the main subject; but a review of a concert in which they were one of several bands
  • Aburto, Gonzalo (September 12, 2010). "Himnos Mexicanos En Rock: Los Clasicos De La Musica Son Reinterpretados Con Distorsionadores". El Mensajero. Music included within this article on classic Spanish language rock songs
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Tremblay

[edit]
Jean-François Tremblay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a civil servant, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. This was originally written (I've corrected it) to describe the subject as a "politician", but that's not accurate: "deputy minister" is a civil service role that just makes him a bureaucrat, and not a political office that would garner him an automatic free pass over NPOL #1 -- and the sole "reference" is his staff profile on the self-published website of the ministry he works for, rather than any evidence of media coverage about his work in the role to get him over WP:GNG for it. Simply put, existing as a person with a job is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just a staff profile on his own employer's website for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hazard symbol#Ionizing radiation symbol. MBisanz talk 18:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 361

[edit]
ISO 361 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "This article suggests that this ISO is about a symbol, a claim not backed up by sources, nor mentioned in Hazard_symbol#Ionizing_radiation_symbol nor Ionizing_radiation#Radiation_hazard_warning_signs. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Note: if there is no arguments to the contrary, I propose redirecting to List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999 per WP:SOFTDELETE and WP:ATD" It was deprodded by User:Spinningspark with the following rationale "deprod. I don't know why you have doubt what this standard is for. The ISO link plainly says it. At worst a merge case, no need for deletion". However, there is no referenced content to merge and further, I stand by my view that this article is confusing - is the standard just a symbol? While this may be the case, the lack of references, confirmation in other relevant articles, and general lack of notability in the current sub-stub reinforce my view that this should be redirected (unless someone can expand it; I'll note the German article is longer, but similarly poorly referenced). IMHO unless notability can be shown, a redirect to the ISO list of symbols is sufficient, although it might be good to expand the tiny entry there to link to the articles I mention in my first sentence. Last thought: it may be that the symbol family is in fact notable, culturally-wise, and someone could write an article on this, but if so, it should be under radiation hazard warning signs, discussing cultural references/recognition, etc. At that point, once a proper article exists, this could be redirected there instead. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps it is time to seek a consensus that the work of the International Organization for Standardization is sufficiently important that all ISO standards are inherently notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but until this is done there is no exception, and often enough ISO AfD discussions are closed as redirects, ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO 5 from just few days ago. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hazard symbol#Ionizing radiation symbol, where for instance ☢ currently redirects. The concept of a radiation hazard symbol is clearly encyclopedic, with plenty of sources, and could plausibly be a standalone article, but our coverage of this at the hazard symbol article is much more complete. If kept, this should be broadened to cover the more general concept of a radiation hazard symbol without so much focus on the weeds of the ISO standardization of that symbol. (I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:Hazard symbol, as I think should be required when actions involving non-nominated articles are discussed at AfDs.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not against a merge, but I am against simply redirecting as proposed by the nom. That amounts to redirecting to a target that does not discuss the term being redirected. Piotrus nominates far too many articles on this basis. If the nom really meant a merge they could have done that as a BOLD edit and it almost certainly would not have been challenged. The claim that the article does not have reliable sources is utter nonsense. The one source it has is the ISO page on the standard. There is nothing in the article that is not in the abstract on that page. Is the claim that ISO is not a reliable source for the contents of its own standards? Further information on the ISO history is here (how the standard developed from a 1963 recommendation). And here is a source independent of ISO that briefly touches on the importance of the standard. SpinningSpark 06:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to bold redirecting, which IMHO is nothing but a stealth deletion. Deletion, or redirecting, should be reviewed by the community. Since proposals to create any separate procedure for reviewing redirects are shut down, AfD is the way to discuss this. As for the merge, there is no referenced content to merge. The external link to ISO standards page is hardly a "source", and it probably exists on the proposed redirect target page anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your rationale for it not being a source? You can't make that so by your fiat. The information in the article clearly came from there, ipso facto it is the source of the article. And no, it is not in the target article nor is the standard even mentioned. SpinningSpark 15:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be a mislabelled source (in EL section). So what? It doesn't change the fact that this source is not enough to establish the notability of the concept, per what others already said. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a mislabelled EL, it's under the references section. Even a cursory look shows the information in our article is in the source. As long as you are unwilling to move the information into another article, I am against a redirect and staying with "keep". SpinningSpark 16:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Redirect with merge to Hazard symbol. People searching for 'ISO 361' should get a sensible response: indeed ideally we should have 'safety nets' for as many ISO standards as we can. BUT that does not mean that each one has a trivial stub article if we already have entirely suitable and more comprehensive articles that they can be redirected to. Of course the target article needs at least an anchor but that is just an incidental detail when what is being discussed here is the principle. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified my vote since, in the light of the squabble above, it is necessary to state the obvious: a blind redirect would not happen, it would redirect to a section or anchor that enumerated and described the relevant ISO standard(s). And ANSI, BS, EUN and anything else relevant if it comes to that. Sigh. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Benjamin

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

Notable only for inaccurate claims made about her in the past few years, e.g. the Thoughco article referenced. Qwirkle (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see any indication in the article that the information is incorrect and I couldn't see the thoughco article which you mentioned in your nomination. The sources in the article are reliable and she has sufficient secondary sources about her that pass WP:GNG. You mentioned on the talk page whether the patent had been checked, this copy doesn't indicate that the information is incorrect. You also didn't indicate whether you had checked that patent yourself which you should have if you thought it was a concern as per WP:BEFORE. Suonii180 (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn’t see the thoughtco article, then you didn’t actually read the article. It is the first reference.

You should strike your vote until you have actually read it and the cites. Qwirkle (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference has about.com, not thoughco in the reference so no, I didn't automatically realise that was the reference you were talking about. It's also still unclear what you think is inaccurate about the article. The source that you're referring to doesn't refute the information in Benjamin's article. If you think some of the information is incorrect then it would be helpful to be specific about what that is. Suonii180 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
…Which is to say you didn’t actually read the first reference. “Thoughtco” appears in very, very big letters on it, right at the top.

Nearly every single fact in the article aside from biography is wrong, by the look of it, and most of the cites are the sort of dreck that makes this unsurprising. Qwirkle (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources which I recognised to be reputable sources such as the JSTOR article, the blackpast.org article and the Smithsonian article which all collaborate the information on Benjamin's article. You need to be specific on exactly which paragraph you think is incorrect. Also, the deletion process is not just based on the sources already in the article. As nominator, it's your responsibility to do a WP:BEFORE check which I don't think you did as there are numerous results that provide secondary source about her such as [7] [8] [9] Suonii180 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that the first cite is already mentioned in the existing references…i.e, you are stacking cites[?]

You do realize that the references for your second cite explicitly refute the idea that this was adopted for the Capitol?

Do you really think that a cite which records the “McCoy” canard is that credible? Qwirkle (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even ignoring the sources from a two minute search you should have done before nominating the article, she has enough notability to pass WP:GNG. As you cannot specifically say which part of the article is incorrect [other than the capitol information] then I'm going to remain with my keep opinion and leave it at that. Suonii180 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC) - scored out the capitol part as it sounded like I thought the info was inaccurate which I don't. I merely meant that my opinion hasn't changed even if the source mentioned above is ignored. Suonii180 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many times you trot out the false assertion that a search was not done before nominating, it remains false. As I explicitly mention above, the first source was already visible just by fully reading the article, down to the roots…so why didn’t you see it?Qwirkle (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The “capitol part” is, in fact inaccurate, as anyone…anyone else, by the look of it… who actually reads the sources right effin’ here, and in the article will see. Miss Benjamin’s system, and others like it, no doubt, were proposed, but rejected against more modern technology, electricity. Qwirkle (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I haven't found anything wrong here.--Rhpitts1055 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references for the subject are sound. That the nominator disagrees as to whether or not her acknowledgments or achievements are warranted is beside the point. If anyone feels that there are inaccuracies in the body of the article, they can be added to the article (referenced, of course). She is clearly notable, even if there are "inaccurate claims made about her in the past few years". Someone does not become less notable if facts about them are proven to be wrong when they have the sort of independent referencing this subject has. ExRat (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think given that it has now been documented in the article that MEB was notable as a composer, in a minor way, perhaps, but a real one, it’s safe to withdraw this AfD.

That said, the other references are not sound. They are listicle glurge. Real inventors will show up in actual technical documents, in advertising, in the patents, descriptions, and lawsuits surrounding other patents. Miss Benjamin -as an inventor of signaling systems- only shows in ethnocentric or gender-based glurge. Compare this with, say, Frederick McKinley Jones or Stephanie Kwolek. As an inventor, Miss Benjamin only appears notable for the mythology based on her. Qwirkle (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_September_17&oldid=1046445176"