Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 12

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boatsetter

Boatsetter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Advertisement -- and non-notable. The areticles consists of a list of services, the references are notice or promotional and fail WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's certainly promotional sources here, but I think there is enough non-promotional coverage to meet WP:NCORP. (if this is deleted, Jackie Baumgarten should be nominated for deletion as well) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Huberts

Willem Huberts (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, and no real evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'll provide some historic context, collapsed and mildly put for reasons of BLP. gidonb (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I added some references from the corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Eastmain. Better than just referencing, you made the article somewhat balanced. I have nominated his publishing business, Flanor. gidonb (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Nom, WP:REFBOMB, WP:PROVEIT, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The first reference, "Lost confidence in library director", is about a "dysfunctional general manager", the second a dead link, as well as the third. This does not advance any notability, especially for a BLP. This leaves the "External links", which would be improper sourcing. A university published thesis for a doctorate, and the rest of the collection just does not reach any minimum bar of notability. As a supposed "expert" on Facism where is the evidence? The final thorn in the bush is that all three references point to the 2008 contentious material concerning the Nijmegen library conflict of trust, also left dangling, which raises NPOV issues. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Holmes

Herbert Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Believe this fails WP:NBASE. Clearly written by someone with personal connection to him, Holmes never played in the Negro major leagues, doesn't have a profile James Riley's Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues even though it was previously sourced in the article. No information/stats on Seamheads or Baseball-Reference. The Boston Globe write up, the article's main source, reads more like a person recounting his opinions of various ballplayers. Found another Boston Globe article calling the Boston Royal Giants a semi-pro team during this time. I don't see a mention of him in the other source, Shades of Glory. Also didn't see anything turn up in Newspapers.com for Massachusetts or Pennsylvania from 1928 to 1945. Penale52 (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Just looked at those articles, and went around the track at Baseball-Reference, which has more on the Negro Leagues than anyplace else. Nothing, either under "Herbert Holmes" or "Chink Holmes." He's not listed on the Negro Leagues Players Association site. Just too many unverified claims ... what takes the prize is the claim that Holmes played for the Philadelphia Giants, which folded six years before he was born. From what I can see, the sole source asserting that Holmes played in the Negro big leagues is his own fact-check-free interview. Ravenswing 19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Completely fails WP:GNG. A common Google search returns very little in as enough to make this subject relevant and notable. Certainly fails WP:Notability guidelines.Canyouhearmenow 03:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drake & Josh#Online videos. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Walter

Where's Walter (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 article fails the guideline for web notability. As it was something that the cast of Drake and Josh did alongside other Nickelodeon stars years ago. But thinking a redirect to the main article for Drake and Josh would be best for this article, if not go through with the deletion process. Pahiy (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Drake_&_Josh#Online_videos - the current article is purely sourced to the material itself. There is some coverage [2] but editorially I don't see enough for a separate article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like most 'web extensions' of TV series in the 2000s, only 5-10% really cared about them as they did nothing to change the plot of the actual series. Complete fan detail, only sourced to WP:YOUTUBE, there's not much beyond this. Nate • (chatter) 01:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Drake & Josh#Online videos: Not much coverage aside from the source indicated by User:力. There's nothing to merge since it's briefly discussed in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Drake & Josh#Online videos - Its certainly a plausible search term and shouldn't be deleted, but the section in the main Drake & Josh article is a sufficient amount of coverage based on the sources available. As the only content in this article is plot information sourced only to the show itself, I don't see anything worth merging. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Drake & Josh#Online videos. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Drake & Josh#Online videos. Zackdasnicker (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad Akhundov

Fuad Akhundov (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 is no English-language RS coverage of this person. Looking at his Russian Wikipedia page, there are no RS cited there either, except for press release style stories. Unless, significant coverage can be demonstrated in non-English independent reliable sources, this page should be deleted. As it stands, it's just a glorified Linkedin bio, which is not what WP articles should be. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Nom. This BLP, required to be held to higher sourcing standards, has one reference, some supposed "memorandum" source, and twelve "External links", in violation of WP:ELPOINTS #3, What Wikipedia is not, and is just a glorified "resume". The entire '"Career" section is unsourced against policies and guidelines. The subject fails WP:NBIO so there are notability issues. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Even if the external links were converted into proper citations, they wouldn't demonstrate notability as (based on machine translation), they're either primary sources or passing mentions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maziar Amirkhanlou

Maziar Amirkhanlou (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 article relies entirely on a Q&A in a blog and a routine transfer announcement and so notability is not demonstrated. I have conducted a WP:BEFORE search through Google News and through DDG and was unable to find any significant coverage in the player's native language.

No evidence can be found to suggest that Amirkhanlou is notable enough to pass WP:GNG and hence warrant an encyclopaedia article about him. Also worth noting that futsal players don't qualify for WP:NFOOTBALL and so absolutely must demonstrate GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arthur (TV series). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's Missing Pal

Arthur's Missing Pal (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 film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the nom or even a Redirect to Arthur (TV series) for this article. Pahiy (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (or delete) to Arthur (TV series). Fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Arthur (TV series). Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Arthur (TV series). Mathmo ^Talk 06:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nasser Etminan

Nasser Etminan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Following a Google News search and Iranian source search in the player's native language, I was unable to locate even one example of significant coverage. Therefore, there is no evidence of a WP:GNG pass, as the two cited sources also fail to meet requirements. Futsal players are not eligible for any presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL either and are required to pass GNG to qualify for an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smeet

Smeet (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 subject of this article may not meet the notability and web notability guidelines. 'Ridge ( Converse, Create, & Fascinate ) 21:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 'Ridge ( Converse, Create, & Fascinate ) 21:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a few journal articles about the game that would satisfy WP:GNG:

• Sucu, İpek (2012-06-01). "SOSYAL MEDYA OYUNLARINDA GERÇEKLİK OLGUSUNUN YÖN DEĞİŞTİRMESİ: SMEET OYUNU ÖRNEĞİ". Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi (in Turkish). 1 (3): 0. doi:10.19145/gumuscomm.98392. ISSN 2146-3301.
• Pannicke, Danny; Zarnekow, Rüdiger; Yan, Xiang (2012). Akzeptanz sozialer virtueller Welten am Beispiel Smeet (in German). Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. ISBN 978-3-88579-602-2.

There is also this journal article which seems to not be independent but may have citations or other details that could be useful:

• Verfasser, Post, Steven. Virtuelle Events in einer 3D Welt Eine empirische Studie über das Nutzungsverhalten in Kooperation mit der sMeet Communications GmbH. ISBN 978-3-640-65270-9. OCLC 724295158. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Jumpytoo Talk 03:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Jumpytoo. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above NemesisAT (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Zandipour

Ali Zandipour (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:GNG according to sources cited and ones found during a WP:BEFORE search. It's worth noting that WP:NFOOTBALL does not cover futsal so there is no presumption of notability that can be applied to any of his roles (the roles that he has taken in football are far too insignificant to grant automatic notability). Full source analysis to follow, which will include sources that I found myself. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - fails WP:GNG from sources I found and those presented in the article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://old.ffiri.ir/en/person/detail/Ali-Zandipour/89ee276e-5d10-4dab-b9cd-27a9eaaab9fa/slider/League/		Looks like a website of an official body	Contains name, DOB and no depth at all	✘ No
https://khaneh-futsal.ir/fa/1395/11/03/%d8%aa%d9%82%d9%88%d9%8a%d8%aa-%d9%83%d8%a7%d8%af%d8%b1-%d9%81%d9%86%d9%8a-%d9%be%d8%a7%d8%b3-%d9%82%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%85%d9%8a%d9%86-%d9%85%d8%b1%d8%a8%d9%8a-%d8%b3%d8%a7%d8%a8%d9%82-%da%af%d9%8a%d8%aa/		?	Mentioned a couple of times in passing	✘ No
https://fut5al.ir/fa/1397/05/20/%d8%b2%d9%86%d8%af%db%8c-%d9%be%d9%88%d8%b1-%d8%a7%d8%b2-%d9%87%d8%af%d8%a7%db%8c%d8%aa-%d9%be%d8%a7%d8%b1%d8%b3%db%8c%d8%a7%d9%86-%d8%a7%d8%b3%d8%aa%d8%b9%d9%81%d8%a7-%d8%af%d8%a7%d8%af/		Major futsal news site	Routine announcement of resignation. No biographical depth.	✘ No
http://2020news.ir/fullcontent/20269/%d8%b2%d9%86%d8%af%db%8c-%d9%be%d9%88%d8%b1-%d8%b3%d8%b1%d9%85%d8%b1%d8%a8%db%8c-%d9%81%d8%b1%d8%af%d9%88%d8%b3-%d9%82%d9%85-%d8%b4%d8%af/		?	The article is literally one sentence long!	✘ No
http://old.ffiri.ir/en/training/Coaching-Courses-information/default.aspx?SelectedViewIndex=5&dpTrainigCycleQuery=9			No coverage to speak of	✘ No
https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1400/04/11/2531463/%D8%AA%DB%8C%D9%85-%D9%84%DB%8C%DA%AF-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D9%81%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%82%D9%85-%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%AF-%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%B4%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA		Major news site	Routine announcement of hiring, no depth provided	✘ No
https://fut5news.ir/1397/05/02/%D8%B9%D9%84%DB%8C-%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%81%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%87-%DB%8C/		Looks like a reputable futsal site	Literally just a brief quote from him. Nothing else.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Also, per Wikipedia:Notability (sports), there is no automatic notability for passing a SNG. Passing one only means that the subject is supposedly likely to pass GNG, it still has to pass it. Alvaldi (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am very surprised that this article was nominated for deletion !! The sources are quite authoritative. Some sources are English and some sources are Persian. Ali Zandipour is a professional futsal coach who coaches in the Iranian Futsal Super League and is the official instructor of the Asian Futsal Confederation. In 2 of the sources, it has been referred to the official website of the Iranian Football Federation. Pournia (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources that you refer to FFIRI 1 and FFIRI 2 do not show any significant coverage of him whatsoever. The sources being authoritative is not a valid criterion. Sources need to do more than just confirm that the man exists and that he has a job. If anything, it would also be better if coverage came from organisations not directly associated with Zandipour as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete While I agree that the sources and coverages for this subject are weak and lacking, there are some that do exist. Until more sources can be provided I am going to have to vote to delete.--Canyouhearmenow 03:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears that there is a reasonable consensus that he meets WP:NPROF C1 or C8 (or both). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter John Mayo

Peter John Mayo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While certainly accomplished, there is not enough in-depth coverage for him to pass WP:GNG, and he does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Professor Mayo wrote one of the most cited articles about Byelorussian language: Mayo, Peter J. "The alphabet and orthography of Byelorussian in the 20th century." The Journal of Byelorussian Studies 4.1 (1977): 28-48. The University of Sheffield prize for Russian was renamed after him. The article doesn't mention his research work about the Ukrainian language. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think that the editorship of the Journal of Belarusian Studies passes WP:NPROF C8. Verification that he held it at least briefly is here [3]. Weak because the journal went on hiatus for 25 years, apparently immediately after the subject's editorship, which might suggest that it is debatable whether the journal is/was "well-established." Google Scholar may not cover very well the period in which Mayo was mainly active, and his common name makes it harder to search. The article is not in great shape, but doesn't strike me as overly promotional, and as usual WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to pass WP:NACADEMIC #1 and #8. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep. passes WP:NACADEMIC #8 but probably not #1. --hroest 18:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2021 New York City mayoral election#Libertarian Party. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Prussman

Stacey Prussman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ENT, and references do not satisfy WP:BASIC. References are all either primary sources or contain only minor mentions of Prussman. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Notable. Many sources, many media appearances. We have pages for the people who inspired the name of the county and it is simply "Joe Schmoe was the inspiration of Schmoe county, Texas". Leave it. Notable. Many media appearances, articles focusing on her work. Keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MIKEmDostee (talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC) — MIKEmDostee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete all the credits are minor and negligible. Hekerui (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable in several areas: media appearances and film roles and running for mayor of New York City. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AMK152, running in an election does not confer any notability at all. See WP:NPOL. And minor appearances in entertainment roles do not either, see WP:ENT. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 14:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable as an entertainer and speaker. She has entire articles in major sources written about her work as a speaker and comedian She has a film and tv career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopestarrocker12 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopestarrocker12, if she has entire articles in major sources written about her, then let's see them. Because there aren't any currently cited in her article. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 15:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She has an entire article written about her in The Jewish Forward as cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopestarrocker12 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked her article again, and that's not true, there is no such article cited. Please sign your posts and try not to mess with my signature again. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 15:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olds, Dorri (February 26, 2015). "A Journey of Recovery From Eating Disorders". Forward.com. Forward.com. Retrieved February 9, 2021. Hopestarrocker12 (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Just being interviewed by a minor paper for an article about eating disorders does not make Prussman notable. There need to be multiple high-quality articles about Prussman as a person. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 16:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the Jewish Forward is a Major Publication and the article is about Ms Prussman as a person.MIKEmDostee (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC) — MIKEmDostee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, it's not, it's about eating disorders. Regardless, WP:BASIC requires multiple sources. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 16:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More sources have been added to the article. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 15:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• AMK152, campaign coverage is essentially worthless for establishing notability. I've been through this in many, many AfDs. WP:NPOL requires that people be elected to office, not merely candidates. And as all candidates can show some campaign coverage, that doesn't help get her over WP:BASIC. There needs to be either an unusually large amount of coverage about her campaign, or sources establishing her professional notability independent of the campaign. She would certainly become notable if she wins her election, but people who were merely candidates tend to see their notoriety fade very quickly after losing. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Her acting career doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT, running for mayor isn't enough to satisfy WP:NPOL, and I don't see the third-party RS coverage needed for WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a comedian she fits the criteria with many sources MIKEmDostee (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC) — MIKEmDostee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Redirect to 2021 New York City mayoral election#Libertarian Party. Tartan357 and others have argued convincingly that the subject doesn't presently meet Wikipedia's notability standards. There is, however, a clear potential for the subject to meet these standards at a future time. For the time being, her name should at least be in WP's search engine. Her listing on the New York mayoral election page as a ballot-qualified candidate seems like an appropriate target for a redirect. It also might be a good idea to move the content back to Draft:Stacey Prussman so the article can be further developed and prepared to be moved to mainspace if and when consensus holds that it passes the notability standards.Sal2100 (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, as per Sal2100. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Per author's talk Girth Summit _(blether) 22:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Workington Academy Radio

Workington Academy Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Student radio station. No sources, no indication of significance, but A7 doesn't cover radio stations. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that this AfD was made 20 minutes after the last edit in which the creator said there are edits still to make, I'd like to invite CumbriaGuru to demonstrate why this topic meets the general notability guideline: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If they cannot do so, this topic will fail the GNG and thus be deleted. In that event, even if it doesn't qualify for its own article, mention may be merited in Workington Academy. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sammi Brie, the editor has indicated that they'd be happy for it to be moved to draft space in lieu of this discussion. I'd be satisfied with that; if you are happy with that, we can proceed on those lines. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Girth Summit Yes, that'd be great. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus exists that the interviews do not contribute sufficient notability. Daniel (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranga Dias (scientist)

Ranga Dias (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Assistant prof with h index of 11. Had some media attention for metallic hydrogen and was co-author of a paper with >350 cites back in 2017. But is this enough to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG? I'm not convinced. Plus might be WP:TOOSOON to know if the 2020 superconductivity result is actually notable. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am not seeing evidence of meeting NPROF C1, either through straight citations or through some subjective citation-independent concept of "impact". Media attention is on the result, not the author, and anyway would qualify for BLP1E unless there was sustained interest and significant attribution of the result to him. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. I agree that he does not pass C1, his citations and scores are too low and not impactful enough. It appears he did recently win an NSF career award but I do not believe this counts for C2 despite some of its prestige since it's more a grant to study something. However, it does have press coverage to some extent. His group website does a good job at catalog press on him and related to his research. I was able to rather easily find several news articles interviewing him, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and there are others. Most are in science magazines but he's been mentioned and interviewed in Vice and Business Insider which strikes me as adding up to pass WP:GNG when taken with his research activity. This also tips the balance in my view that he passes WP:PROF C7. While his research is currently of lower impact, he is studying a challenging and important field and seems to having an impact anyway. I was on the fence between weak keep and keep, but ultimately went to keep because of numerous small factors that add up. If this isn't kept I am almost certain it will be remade in several years and is a case of WP:TOOSOON Side note; metallic hydrogen is really neat. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 21:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Would the interviews not count as primary sources though, and not be independant? And I'm not sure if something like https://time.com/collection/time100-next-2021/5937727/ranga-dias/ is sufficient to count as significant coverage of him as a person. There might be a case for combining multiple items though to show notability... -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That is my feeling on the matter, that there are numerous interviews and it seems like he's making a concerted effort into involving himself in commentary/conversation on his field of study, and all taken together makes it seem like he's having a noteworthy impact. I am only one opinion on this though. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 23:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That does sound more like he's promoting himself, rather than being independantly notable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On whether interviews are primary sources to be given lesser weight: Here is an admin using interviews as support for keeping a BLP FWIW. --Yae4 (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

• • The coverage seems pretty much standard for flashy inventions in the superconductor world. We get excitement every time they raise the temperature a few degrees, with media attention increasing dramatically if the researchers are trying to attract funders for their startups. I don't think it is sustained enough to demonstrate major impact on the field, especially since it's so impractical right now -- it's an important stepping stone, but not necessarily one that will produce extraordinary renown. It should also be noted that he co-led the research according to the Vice article. The handful of interviews is not enough for C7, since most of them relate directly to his research (not him) and are not probing his general expertise in the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks significant coverage about the individual - the only coverage appears as part of a group not as an individual. The notability issue been tagged since January 2018 without any significant improvements or more reliable secondary sources. As indicated those sources which are interviews with the individual are clearly primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not yet as big a popular splash as Stanley_Pons but with a little work on the article, he'll be close enough for Wikipedia. NY Times[4] and this just in, Forbes[5] coverage. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't get to the NY Times articles right now, but the Forbes article is just a passing mention of the person, and is primarily about the techology - not significant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yae4, Newslinger is not using interviews to support notability there, they're using them to demonstrate the person not being low-profile. JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Solid hydrogen and room temparature super-conductor is notable enough for the lead inventor to be notable. --Greatder (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He hasn't even gotten tenure or associate professor. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Assistant professor with limited academic output (h-index = 11). Uhooep (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I come down on the keep side because of coverage. Interviews are not useful for WP:Verification, exceptions noted, but they are useful for coverage, particularly when the questions being asked are looked at. I often think the we are too quick to keep musicians and too quick to discard scientists. --Bejnar (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bejnar, the opposite is true for interviews: they can be used sparingly for verification, but cannot be used for notability considerations because they are primary and not independent of the subject. Also, academics have by far the easiest path to WP notability (no other guideline has automatic passes, much less passes without any secondary coverage at all, and scholars can always get in through GNG anyway). JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are often partially independent, namely the interviewer and their organization, although a lot of what is said by the interviewee cannot be used for verification, the types of questions asked and the scope of the interview, as well as any introduction by the interviewer can all go towards coverage, and the depth of coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete WP:TOOSOON while clearly a monumental achievement if turned to practical use, it is way to early for the impact to be seen outside and inside academia. If this pans out an article would be in line in a few years. --hroest 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not yet notable. A goood deal of attention, but its to unverified work. Which exact rule we use to delete it isn't really the point. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elmar Mammadov

Elmar Mammadov (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 is no English-language RS coverage of this person. Looking at his Azerbaijani Wikipedia page, there are no RS cited there either. Unless, significant coverage can be demonstrated in non-English independent reliable sources, this page should be deleted. As it stands, it's just a glorified Linkedin bio, which is not what WP articles should be. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Les Trophées du Libre

Les Trophées du Libre (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 award. I can only find links associated with this award. No secondary coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added several new sources. It started with one citation when it was nominated, so it is a case of WP:HEY. Webmaster862 (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But are any reliable sources? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Articles lists 6 non-trivial references in French press, and it's easy to find more, e.g. [6], [7], [8], etc. Sure, the competition itself remains in the past, but it was widely publicized event back then. GreyCat (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:HEY. Some sources were added. It still needs more fonts and more tweaking, but I realized the article has potential notability. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The event barely meets WP:EVENTCRIT. It doesn't have a lasting effect or significance, it has a limited scope as the coverage is mainly French, the topic is pretty narrow and the coverage itself is mostly routine reporting. —K4rolB (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As there are now many French sources in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackattack1597 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is sufficient coverage of sources. Rondolinda (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Mainly in French" is about as limited as "mainly in English". Sources have been added. /Julle (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melodymag

Melodymag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, nothing showing significance Mardetanha (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G7. Geschichte (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ctelnet

Ctelnet (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 need for disambiguation - this is the only Wikipedia page that mentions Ctelnet. Leschnei (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• oh wow, did I really create this? Yeah, this is some sort of high point of low usefulness. Speaking as creator, delete - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Élie Bayol

Élie Bayol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A very clear pass of WP:NMOTORSPORT (competed in World Championship events, competed at Le Mans, including winning in class and the Index of Performance). There would be more contemporary sources, especially in French, but I was able to find enough coverage in some books to improve the article (which I will do when I have the time though I don't normally edit biographies), using for example Gregor Grant's Formula 2, Quentin Spuring's Le Mans 1949-59 and Peter Higham's Formula 1 Car by Car 1950-59. Basic biographic information can be verified by the motorsport magazine database (I'll add this to the article). I also found some substantial coverage of him online here and here(French) though I'm unsure of the reliability of these sources. A7V2 (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely keep since the subject clearly meets WP:NMOTORSPORT, A7V2 has found enough to clear WP:SIGCOV anyway.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep F1 drivers, at whatevever level, are generally considered notable, particularly competitors in World Champ events. His bio in Small, Steve (1993). The Guinness Complete Grand Prix Who's Who. pp. 48–49. ISBN 0851127029. confirms (and extends) the information at the page. Eagleash (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Blatantly notable. A basic WP:BEFORE search shows numerous sources exist, although many aren't in English. Deletion is not cleanup. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - he raced in Formula One for five years for goodness sake. Mathmo ^Talk 10:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Harun al-Rashid. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sukaynah bint Harun al-Rashid

Sukaynah bint Harun al-Rashid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Biography of a daughter of Harun al Rashid which isn’t actually about her at all, but about her male relatives. There does not appear to be sufficient coverage of her to make her notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Harun al-Rashid. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 05:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Harun al-Rashid. This user has made mutliple articles on family members related to caliphs. I will probably have to redirect all of them. Wretchskull (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Da'tid Bahrana

Da'tid Bahrana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncertain of standalone notability, though the Encyclopædia Iranica entry is extensive. If not kept, this should at the very least be merged to Issa Benyamin who was the editor and founder.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Extraordinary Writ: Today I have access to new resources that leave no doubt about notability. This nomination can be closed. --IamMM (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sound object

Sound object (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

it's a mess, rambling OR essay. The term - as coined by Schaeffer - is for the most part associated with musique concrete, best we redirect to a single paragraph in the musique concrete article instead. Acousmana 13:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acousmana 13:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The article has sources: 8 citations. How is it rambling? How is it essay like? What's the point of making blank assertions that articles need to be deleted without explaining the reasons? People often tell me to respect the process, and the guidelines urge you to explain rather than simply assert, to prove rather than postulate. Hyacinth (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC) What are the personal feelings or opinions inappropriately expressed in the article which includes quotes to sources with different conceptualizations rather a single truth? If there is bias, what is it towards or against? The only bias I see is that it assumes music is of value and music theory is of value to music composition, improvisation, performance, and listening. Hyacinth (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't problems like article structure and number of citations more easily fixed by finding sources to cite and reorganizing the article than by deleting it and starting over with nothing? Without studying music, all the music theory related articles will all seem like random babbling using a bunch of Italian words, a weird system of notation, solfege, letters and numbers for pitches, and a tuning system based on acoustics and mathematics (semitone ratio = 2^(1/12)), but most people view the subject to be inherently subjective, being an art, so not only does it seem obscure, but it's also inherently of questionable worth. Hyacinth (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why include the paragraph at all? Doesn't the term explain itself, and thus any definition or explanation could be considered rambling? Hyacinth (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. The topic seems notable as it has several hits on Scholar (e.g. [9][10][11]) and there isn't any reason under WP:DEL-REASON I see to delete the article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Just because a single reader doesn't understand a text, and won't explain how so, doesn't mean that the text is nonsense and, more importantly, that reader saying it's, somehow, nonsense, doesn't help anyone improve anything. Hyacinth (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A bit of WP:BEFORE would have led the nom to see it is notable: [12] [13] [14] I also found two scholarly articles that used the concept of sound objects in their titles. We do not look that the state of an article to determine if a subject is or is not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assel Tasmagambetova

Assel Tasmagambetova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not independent notable from her father Imangali Tasmagambetov and husband Kenes Rakishev. Lack of independent in-depth coverage. The article is mostly not about her, but promotion of philanthropy by this group.

Note the ruwiki entry was created by the same creator on the same day, so is not a sign of interest in the topic. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would a Russian speaker be able to assess the quality / non-reliability of the Russian language sources? Furius (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's nothing in English language RS to indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep range of Russian language sources indicate notability Furius (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The first source is a kind of legal profile, not an RS. The other sources are good. It's important to note that the sources describe the Saby Foundation activities. There is little info about the subject. My opinion is that most sources are good and independent, but they are not describing the subject directly. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I will try to answer all questions above. The first sourse is one of biggest informational agencies in Kazakhstan zakon.kz (can be translated as law.kz but it is not a legal sourse). Most of sources describe not only Sabi Foundation but also Tasmagambetova's activity as the founder of Sabi Foundation because she is known as a philanthropist and her activity is connected tight with the Foundation. Her activity is not only connected with her husband, also there are a lot of events where she gather resources by herself. For example, [15] (observer.com). There is a lack of English sources, off course. But there are more for Aselle Tasmagambetova. I think that it is right transliteration of her name because all foreign sources use it, and the article can be renamed according to it. Mheidegger (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that - that does bring in a tonne of new sources [16], [17], [18]; [19], [20], [21], [22] (says she received a major Kazakh award, but is self-published source); also her linkedin page (which isn't an RS, but probably is a good indication that Aselle Tasmagambetova would be a better name for the article). Furius (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Those sources rather prove the point she isn't independently notable. In [23] there is a single namedrop in a list of patrons ("none of the evening’s patrons or patronesses—Jonathan and Somers Farkas, Aselle Tasmagambetova, Domenico Vacca and Eva Lorenzotti among them"). [24] and [25] are a regurgiated press release on Tasmagambetova and her husband Rakishev opening a school, much of the content being on Rakishev's business and philanthropy (including "In 2002 Kenges Rakishev founded the Saby Charitable Foundation together with his wife Aselle Imangalievna Tasmagambetova"). [26] reads like a press release, and covers a statement from the foundation on seal conservation. [27] is titled "The year 2020: Kenes Rakishev and Aselle Tasmagambetova presented the Saby annual report", again tying the whole thing to her husband's business, and this coverage is not independent. [28] is from the Saby foundation itself. There is little that in depth on Tasmagambetova herself, it is all activities in which she is present in the context of the philanthropy wing of the family business.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My tentative opinion would be that if the philanthropic activity of the foundation is notable, then I think she is notable, since she and not Rakishev is the President of the Saby foundation. I grant that her activities in that sphere are very closely intertwined with those of Rakishev, but that is also true of (e.g.) Bill and Melinda Gates. So, I don't think this is a case of claiming that notability is inherited... and it seems to me that it would be inappropriate therefore to merge her into Rakishev's article. But I grant that the source material that seems to be available is not great; perhaps it makes more sense to have an article on the Saby Foundation? Furius (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. There is a number of sources in English (e.g [29]) and Russian about her activities, some of them mentioned by Furius above. But I also have some concerns about history of creation of this page (and some other related pages) possibly by paid contributor(s), as well as about the sources that are mostly weak. On a balance though, I would be inclined to keep because there is a substantial non-trivial information about the person, it is mostly sourced and does show that the person is notable per WP:GNG in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Swami

Kumar Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems like this is a non-notable guru. Article is all over the place, with everything from dandruff remedies to blood donation. Article would need to be re-written. Sources do not seem notable from my brief looks, and do not contribute to notability from my point of view. PabloMartinez (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – there certainly seems to be some sort of monkey business going on with this guru, but he does appear to have attracted a great deal of attention in the press and among the Indian public at large. Most of the sources are (as the nominator notes) useless for notability purposes, but [30], [31], and [32] do seem to provide significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:BASIC/the WP:GNG. Searching is difficult (both because of the language barrier and due to his numerous names and titles), but I don't doubt that someone familiar with the topic are could find many more sources. The remainder of the issues can be resolved through the ordinary editing process. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Article require major rewrite but AfD is not the right place for requesting that. AnM2002 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Speakers

Warwick Speakers (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 university society. Article relies entirely on primary sources. A search for reliable sources doesn't turn anything up Dexxtrall (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cannot see how this can be possibly be notable. Anything of significance can be added to University of Warwick. Edwardx (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not think this page deserves to be on Wikipedia. It is just a university society, how come is this up on Wikipedia?--Discologist (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails NORG bigtime. All primary sources, no reliable independent secondary sources available. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Delete. There are almost no student societies that are notable, and neither the article nor the purported sources give any reason to believe that this one is. RomanSpa (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This student society clearly isn't notable. I don't even think it's worth a redirect. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No soft-delete due to being totally unreferenced. Daniel (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Baxter

James H. Baxter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Hall of Fame" namings that receive no actual coverage do not show that a person is notable. This basically falls under stamp collector cruft, which is one thing Wikipedia is plagued with, and we have done very little about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Triple parentheses. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence Detector (app)

Coincidence Detector (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previously merged into Triple parentheses as an adjacent topic not notable enough for its own bespoke article. Has been recreated since and there is an ongoing edit war over it. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect back to Triple parentheses as an enforcement of the previous consensus to merge. Current version does not indicate what part of WP:GNG is satisfied. As a draft also exists at Draft:Coincidence Detector (app), {{R with possibilities}} should also be added to encourage improving the draft instead. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Triple parentheses per the previous consensus to merge on the talk page. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Bates

Ernie Bates (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:SIGCOV. Sources are only statistics databases with no prose discussion of this player's career. This does not constitute significant coverage or establish notability. 4meter4 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - made over 40 appearances as a professional in The Football League. Has nominator even tried to comply with WP:BEFORE? GiantSnowman 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That not a policy based rationale. Please provide sources demonstrating notability per WP:SPORTCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demanding people show sources for someone where sources likely only exist offline is not the correct policy though.... Joseph2302 (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is. It’s why GNG and SPORTCRIT exist. Not to mention WP:Verifiability. Additionally, I disagree that offline sources likely exist. Many players of this era were in the background in terms of public notice. The press and public had there favorites and they got coverage. Others were there and never got noticed in offline sources.4meter4 (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep handily passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY does not preclude the sourcing requirements at SPORTCRIT to prove presumed notability.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he comes from the pre-Internet era, and with 40 appearances in the Football League, it's likely that offline sources exist to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is there any website similar to newspapers.com where on could look for old British newspaper articles for cases like this? Alvaldi (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BNA is a good starting point, I find. I can't actually find any mentions of him there, though. I would have expected some Yorkshire papers to cover him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment probably weak keep Other sources exist, amazon shows two books which can have information on the subject The Avenue: Bradford Park Avenue, Pictorial History And Club Record and Bradford Park Avenue Who's Who: The Football League Years 1908 to 1970. Although they need to be review, at the moment it's just catalog listings. Not to mention the local newspaper for Bradford West Yorks, for the time period. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's not there. Govvy (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and 44 appearances in the pre-internet era.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NH Professional Theatre Association

NH Professional Theatre Association (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, nothing like WP:SIGCOV. PepperBeast (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unreferenced, lazy article about probably non-notable organization. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Gaming Commission

Missouri Gaming Commission (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:ORGDEPTH, WP:VERIFYOR and WP:GNG. One primary external link without secondary and tertiary coverage. Possible original reserach Bash7oven (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SIGCOV. I found several news articles detailing the commission's work: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section about recent disputes with the highway patrol based on some of these sources. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the sources added to the article by Presidentman. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Racing Board

Illinois Racing Board (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 sign of notability as it's stated in the following guidelines WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:GNG, WP:VERIFYOR. The article cannot boast with significant coverage. Bash7oven (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ridiculous nomination; ultimate authority which controls horse racing in Illinois, along with OTB and remote betting. Nate • (chatter) 19:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SIGCOV. I found multiple news articles detailing the commission's work: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added an infobox and section on ethics violations to this article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mortyplicity

Mortyplicity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nominating along with Mort Dinner Rick Andre; I fail to see how this episode is notable as well; being an episode of a popular show doesn't qualify it for notability, this article just seems very WP:Fancruft to me. (Also, this article relies on a lot of primary sources) wizzito | say hello! 15:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment - Forgot to say this, but this article should probably be merged into Rick and Morty (season 5). wizzito | say hello! 15:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: meets WP:GNG per the reviews. Meets WPTV common practice, including the soon-to-be-proposed Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television episodes, with information for a non-trivial Production section and Analysis and Reception. Primary sources are appropriate and well-used per WP:PRIMARY. If the nominator did the required WP:BEFORE search then they should have specified what they found and why it isn't enough for notability, because it seems clear that even before looking for non-English language sources, you can find a wealth of reviews from Canadian, Australia, UK etc. publications. AFD is also not the place to go for a nominator to recommend merging—Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers would be one fitting location. — Bilorv (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above, the episodes do indeed meet WP:GNG per the reviews and WPTV. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bilorv. –Bangalamania (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just like the other episode this passes GNG with ease.★Trekker (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is notable, along with the other episode. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and reviewed. Pikavoom (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I agree that episodes are not inherently notable on their own, but when they have reliable sources, we can't argue the other way and say that they are inherently non-notable. The sources here justify the notability of this article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and reviewed. This episode is one of a kind. This article is a good summary of it. 8:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.94.49 (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 keep. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mort Dinner Rick Andre

Mort Dinner Rick Andre (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 fail to see how this episode deserves an article; being the first episode of a season of a popular show doesn't qualify it for notability, this article just seems very WP:Fancruft to me. (Also, this article relies on a lot of primary sources) wizzito | say hello! 15:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment - Forgot to say this, but this article should probably be merged into Rick and Morty (season 5). wizzito | say hello! 15:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: meets WP:GNG per the reviews. Meets WPTV common practice, including the soon-to-be-proposed Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television episodes, with information for a non-trivial Production section and Analysis and Reception. Primary sources are appropriate and well-used per WP:PRIMARY. Also seems like a serious WP:BEFORE failure: I can find [47][48][49][50] that could be added in less than 30 seconds, and with another 10 minutes and some geo-specific searches I'm sure I could find more reviews from Canadian, Australian, British etc. publications, rather than just American. If the nominator did the required BEFORE search then they should have specified what they found and why it isn't enough for notability. AFD is also not the place to go for a nominator to recommend merging—Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers would be one fitting location. — Bilorv (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above, the episodes do indeed meet WP:GNG per the reviews and WPTV. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG with ease.★Trekker (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and reviewed. Pikavoom (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I agree that episodes are not inherently notable on their own, but when they have reliable sources, we can't argue the other way and say that they are inherently non-notable. The sources here justify the notability of this article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Pasadena Cancer Center

South Pasadena Cancer Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Medical centre with no clear indication of notability. No refs other than its own website. PepperBeast (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Checking the history, I see that I tagged this as bad over a decade ago and, apart from a little cleanup, nobody has improved it. The Google search links suggest that the there isn't much source material that could be used to improve it. I see nothing that indicates sufficient notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus to keep and rework. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest pyramids

List of tallest pyramids (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:OR/WP:SYNTH list which includes disparate structures that happen to sometimes be described as pyramids, though no reliable source exists that groups all of them together. Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It might be merged into the main list of pyramids but the basic concept seems sound. And without this, I would not have discovered the Memphis Pyramid which sounds awesome. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comment. It is was the comparison across types of structures and historical eras that makes made it more interesting than the average WP list. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A list of every pyramid that has its own Wikipedia article, with the all the stats, notes, and images of them, would be better. But is there any doubt that the taller pyramids throughout history have been seen as more notable? If listing all of them would make the list too long, just list the tallest ones here then. Dream Focus 02:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There are three such lists "in the wild",[51][52][53] but they're not from what you'd call particularly reliable sources, and comparing ancient pyramids with modern buildings that just happen to pyramid-shaped seems pretty WP:ORish to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Marginal keep. Splitting into ancient and modern examples works okay. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do not contribute to architecture pages, but what is often considered a "pyramid" in those spaces? Does it have to be from a certain time period and built out of a certain material or just be pyramid shaped? Paragon Deku (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the article needs a lot of work (The Shard is only a pyramid by the most basic of geometric definitions), it is a worthwhile article to have and with proper curation would be good. BSMRD (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am fine with the seperate existence of both List of tallest pyramids and List of pyramids as I do not see a point in either deletion or merger. Kerberous (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see three issues with this list:
  1. As pointed out by Paul_012 and Clarityfiend, comparing ancient pyramids like the Great Pyramid of Giza and modern (roughly) pyramidal buildings like the Ryugyong Hotel is quite an apples-to-oranges comparison, and may violate WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Considering it has such a major fundamental flaw, my first instinct about the article was that it should be deleted. But then I figured we could simply split the table in two, which I did.
  2. It does not have proper WP:LISTCRITERIA that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. The WP:LEAD even says Due to lack of precise criteria, the list is unranked. This is however perfectly WP:SURMOUNTABLE; I suggest that entries should meet two criteria: (1) being described by a consensus of WP:Reliable sources as a "pyramid" (i.e. not "pyramidal", "pyramid-shaped", or "in the shape of a pyramid") and (2) meeting some minimum height requirement, say 50 meters.
  3. It may or may not pass WP:NLIST. In this particular case, I'm willing to apply WP:IAR if it doesn't since it is such an obvious superlative list to have.
  I don't think these issues are best addressed by deleting the article, but by improving it. TompaDompa (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 Miyagi earthquake

This earthquake is one of the aftershocks of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. but this earthquake is less damaging than the 2021 Fukushima earthquake that occurred a month ago. Also, Max intensity is 5+ and no more than 6. Eleven people were injured, but no one was killed. I think it is not uncommon for an earthquake of this magnitude to occur in Japan. --Miamiaim (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thibaut (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are sufficient sources to demonstrate its impact. Whether it is uncommon or not seems irrelevant. Dimadick (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — It had significant local coverage and its own impacts. May be scientifically noteworthy considering its proximity to the Feb 13 and May 1 earthquakes which are likely to be studied. CactusTaron (Nopen't) 00:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional quantum mechanics

Fractional quantum mechanics (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 article was created by Nlaskin who appears to be the primary author of this concept. There are long standing concerns on the talk page over this COI and promotional bias. I quote from 178.197.232.148 at the talk page As mentioned elsewhere, this theory is an ad hoc modification of quantum mechanics without any serious motivation or application. It is also the fruit of one person, which has not attracted interest or recognition in the physics community. Also, the number of times the author's name is mentioned on this page and on the page on Fractional Schrödinger equation is striking. Fractional Schrödinger equation currently redirects here, but the author is persistently recreating it. This redirect should also be deleted. Polyamorph (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as detailed in my nom above, it is nothing more than a vanity project by Nlaskin

Fractional Schrödinger equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Polyamorph (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional Poisson process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Polyamorph (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article about fringe topic written by main author. Clearly doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Note that the author has also written Fractional Poisson process to promote his work, and just added a section about it in Fractional calculus. I think we're also dealing with a case of WP:NOTHERE. Tercer (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, editor clearly WP:NOTHERE, they're only interested in promoting their research. WP:TNT is the only solution these vanity pages. Polyamorph (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would make sense to bundle Fractional Poisson process in this AfD. Tercer (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added above. Polyamorph (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all including Fractional Poisson process. This is a bit of a tricky case, since references do exist, and some of them might even qualify as independent, secondary sources. But the sheer extent of the COI means that we can't trust any of the material to be worth keeping and editing. For example, every bullet point under "Further reading" in multiple pages would have to be checked to make sure it's actually about the page topic, rather than merely using similar-sounding terminology. Every historical statement and claim of credit would have to be interrogated, and the selection of topics couldn't be taken to indicate a third-party assessment of what's interesting. (None of the "Physical applications" in Fractional Schrödinger equation are physical applications, for instance; they're all equations for the sake of equations, with one model thrown in that makes a gesture at possible relevance to an actual physical system.) I'm all for articles on niche topics, but these pages amount to using Wikipedia as a personal website. Volunteers who can work on specialized physics content are in short supply, and every minute spent cleaning up after somebody's ego is a waste of a scarce resource. In short, WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Polyamorph and XOR'easter. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per XOR'easter. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Per XOR'easter. JBchrch talk 15:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Good call, Delete all: per the rationale of XOR'easter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all clear WP:OR violation. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Apocalypse (2007 film)

The Apocalypse (2007 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)

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Couldn't find anything about this on Google other than databases stating the movie exists. AdoTang (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails NFILM. I could not find anything myself either… Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant Coverage found. Non notable Film. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Materialscientist (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hypaspist 1 (UCAV)

Hypaspist 1 (UCAV) (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 product, lacks significant coverage to the point where the information present is not verifiable. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, I'm sorry if the article is too simple but I will add more information and creat more articles about other new Greek UAVs that were presented recently. Just like every article, it is simple at first but I hope that it will be improved if other users contribute too. (Historyandscience)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as hoax and block the editor, who was already caught creating hoax pages and blatant attack pages. Enough is enough. Fram (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax ??? I though the problem was that it was too simple and small or not important. You guys have a great imagination, search Greek News and you will see about the presentation of dozens of new Greek combat machines happening at this moment.

Why don't you present us with some links to news sites discussing (or even mentioning) the Hypaspist 1? Something reliable of course. It may not be sufficient to keep the article, but it would remove claims of "hoax" and "unverifiable" and avoid you getting blocked. Fram (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a hoax per WP:G3. Absolutely no corroborating evidence for the existence of a Hypaspist 1 or an engineer named "Peter Laios" who supposedly designed it. Tagging the page for speedy deletion. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Luman L. Cadwell. ✗plicit 09:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Alabama Bayou

Skirmish at Alabama Bayou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skirmish at Aberdeen for another work by this same page creator. The cited source is Dyer 1908 p. 739, which simply states Sept. 20 ... Skirmish, Bayou Alabama in a list of battles of in Louisiana. Dyer 1908 p. 595 also mentions this action, but just to say Alabama Bayou, La. -- Skir. ... Sept. 20, 1864. So I have no idea where the result, location, and commanders listed in the article are coming from, as they have no support in the cited source.

This does support that there was a skirmish on Sept. 20 at Bayou Alabama, but says nothing in-depth, as its just a table. Likewise, this is just a passing mention in a list as well. This states that it was part of the Operations in the Vicinity of Morganza, but not much else. This explains it all - 225 Union cavalrymen broke up a small Confederate camp. However, it's a primary source report and can't be used for notability. Short mention here, but it's mainly just Luman L. Cadwell's Medal of Honor citation. I don't think enough has been written in non-primary sources for this minor skirmish to meet WP:GNG, even if a Medal of Honor was won in it. Hog Farm _Talk 16:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Luman L. Cadwell. The MOH citation gives this verified search term a minor importance, IMHO. User:Hog Farm has demonstrated a reasonable WP:BEFORE. No objection to recreation if better sources are eventually found. BusterD (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Luman L. Cadwell per BusterD's reasoning. Not notable enough for its own article, but can point to a notable related topic (in this case, a soldier who received a Medal of Honor citation for his actions at this battle). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per BusterD. The fact that it is only a skirmish suggests this is the best course of action. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per BusterD, the bio article can contain this. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chettinad Health City

Chettinad Health City (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. unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. GermanKity (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VIP News

VIP 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)

Article is not notable. Mr.Siddharthrajvanshi (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mr.Siddharthrajvanshi (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VIP News article appears to have no notablity whatsoever. I say it should be deleted." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral.Mr.Siddharthrajvanshi (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing else other than a couple mentions on directory lists appears to be there for this channel. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The last AfD was six weeks ago. If people think that a merge is appropriate that can be done through a merge discussion. If the feeling is that the outcome of the last AfD was incorrect, then WP:DRV is the correct place to challenge that. But as our consensus poplicy notes, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive and as such I am speedily closing this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quran code

Quran code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Relevance? User:Rilum originally created this article on the German Wikipedia (de:Korancode), saw it deleted there multiple times and now creates it on various Wikipedias. To show this article deserves it? On the Dutch (and French) Wikipedia it was created in the user namespace and then move to the main space, on the English Wikipedia this article was imported from the German Wikipedia. I think it might be wise to discuss if this article is allowed on Wikipedia. Trijnstel_talk 10:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)use[reply]

Note that I missed the 3rd nomination, but also note that the deletion of the German version and the attempts of Rilum to have this article on multiple wikis weren't mentioned. Trijnstel_talk 10:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:SIGCOV, see 3rd nomination discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quran_code_(3rd_nomination). The result was keep. It is allowed to use some other languages wikis too. --Rilum (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep it is only a couple of weeks since we reached consensus to keep this. Mccapra (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Rashad Khalifa, the originator of the theory. I do not agree with the claims of significant coverage as a lot of these sources are self-published or otherwise don't meet RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Thank you Mccapra. Saying that a lot of the sources are self-published or otherwise don't meet RS is wrong. It gives the impression that the entire citations have not been looked at or examined in full by the previous speaker. --Rilum (talk)
• Merge to Rashad Khalifa. There's some coverage, but it isn't significant due to the nature of so many of the sources either returning to the theorist or being self-published. This article has been deleted on multiple language Wikis, and has been nominated for deletion by multiple different users here on English Wikipedia, for a reason. It's fair to say that the article looks like a creation to use Wikipedia for gaining attention for a fringe theory. It's certainly a significant part of Khalifa's biography, but there isn't sufficient evidence for its significance outside of that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Besides the two books by Rashad Khalifa and the articles by Martin Gardner, there also seem to be three books on the code cited in https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.968.5885&rep=rep1&type=pdf - this article doesn't mention Rashad Khalifa. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chalst :) --Rilum (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's an unconvincing write-up of a dubious concept and most of the sources that exist for it highlight the topsy-turvy lingo we have where WP:V calls them reliable, however, the concept is sufficiently visible, the sourcing goes beyond what is appropriate for a section of the Rashad Khalifa article and the Martin Gardner articles show that it is possible to write both well and objectively about the topic and the text analysis article I gave is also usable. I'd nominate Trijnstel for WP:TROUT except this is her first AfD nom in 8 years: even with a no consensus result at AfD, one should normally wait at least six weeks before nominating unless there is an exceptional WP:TNT rationale: so soon after a keep close with no new information, the right thing to do is to challenge the close on WP:DRV. I found Barkeep49's close uncharacteristically weak: Eggishorn made a strong OR case that was not refuted, and the nom Hemiauchenia's case that the sourcing was too weak to justify recreation was not really disputed; no consensus or relisting would have been better options. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chalst sometimes there's something to say, sometimes there's not. That one the consensus of the participants seemed clear so no closing statement felt necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 1994. Sandstein 13:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bettan & Jan Werner

Bettan & Jan Werner (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 is nothing wrong with the accomplishments of these two singers; however they should be linked in articles as Bettan and Jan Werner, i.e. as individuals performing together, rather than as a group. (Incidentally, they already are linked as two individuals at the Eurovision Song Contest 1994 page.) Yes, they performed together after ESC 1994 too, but they also performed in constellations with a multitude of other singers. Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree that they make sense as separate articles, which already exist. Grk1011 (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Grk1011. Kevin19781 (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 1994 - the WP:XY problem forbids other redirects. This doesn't appear to be a musical group, just two people who performed together for Eurovision. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Sehrawat

Kunal Sehrawat (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 qualify WP:NPOL or WP:BASIC. XYZ leaders congratulated. Promo articles. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non notable politician. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No prominent source available to confirm notability. Thanks. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 14:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete student organization leaders do not default pass any inclusion criteria and the sourcing is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Non notable polotician. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. President of a state-level chapter of a political party's youth wing is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia, but the article is not sufficiently well-sourced to claim that he would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a notable political office: the sources are all either extremely short blurbs or glancing namechecks of Kunal Sehrawat's existence in coverage that isn't about him, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a person notable. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Zee

Queen Zee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Usually, an article about a relatively unknown musician would not be notable however this particular musician has supposedly won an Artist of the Year award, making them slightly more notable. I am not sure if this meets the threshold for notability however. Osarius 08:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Osarius 08:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn’t meet WP: GNG. -Xclusivzik (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't meet notability. Kevin19781 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaya National High School

Ilaya National High School (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 pass WP:NORG as there are no WP:RS to support. fails WP:NSCHOOL. DMySon (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DMySon, I believe that this institution is notable. Because it is a public secondary school whose offered a value education. It is also been part of the history during the America-Philippine War in the year 1899.But sadly there's no internet source as references, because the history was only published in a paper work and magazine only. Remember that it is categorized to be as {{school-stub}}. Hope you give emphasis this discussion to better improve the article. Thanks Filipinotayo (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NSCHOOLS. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The school is not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article was improved and new citation was added. Filipinotayo (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unfortunately, the sources provided all have the appearance of directory entries rather than substantial articles that would provide significant coverage of the school. Significant coverage is required to meet Wikipedia's notability requirement. If you have print sources, as I noted below you could add information cited to a book, newspaper or journal article, but as it stands now the sources are not enough to meet the notability guidelines. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As per the above decisions, how could we decide that it will fall to fails WP:NSCHOOL? Wherein, some articles as I have noticed does not have any reliable sources and Citations (eg. Marinduque State College) and they are remain published as article in Wikipedia. Please give me a brief understanding on this, anyone are free to answer thanks Filipinotayo (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Filipinotayo, sourcing on Wikipedia is not required to be online. If you have book, journal, or other printed articles about Ilaya National High School, you can use information from those offline published sources to improve this article. Just be careful to summarize or paraphrase information and cite it properly from a book, journal, or newspaper article. This AfD will be open for a few more days, probably until July 19, so there is still time to improve the article to pass NSCHOOL. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of masculine Latin nouns of the 1st declension

List of masculine Latin nouns of the 1st declension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:NOT. This probably belongs at some sister project (as I already raised on the talk page in 2009...), but which one? I don't know if Wiktionary hosts such lists. But Wikipedia is not the place for such grammatical lists. Fram (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Ajf773 (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wiktionary list the information for each word, and has categories that can group these things together if it is a valid grouping. Dream Focus 10:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transwiki. I wouldn't want to go after subject-specific glossaries, but this seems a pretty clear case of WP:NOTDICT. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion as unsupported by any of the policies cited. Some of these arguments clearly put the cart before the horse: "I don't know if this can go in Wiktionary—delete it because it should". Well, it doesn't appear that Wiktionary hosts articles about elements of grammar. That's what Wikipedia is for. The encyclopedic part of this article is relatively short, but it doesn't become an "invalid" article either because it's short or because it has a list of things—in this case words—appended to it. "NOTADICTIONARY" would apply if this were the definition of a word. It's not. It's a description of a class of words in Latin that goes on to list some of them, and explains their significance. But even the list portion clearly isn't a collection of dictionary definitions; a short description of each word is not a definition. if you visit Wiktionary and look for these words, in some cases you might not find an entry at all, particularly for the proper nouns. In other cases you'll get much more information than is contained here. But what you won't get is an explanation of the phenomenon—that can only exist on Wikipedia. For comparison, a list like this will appear in some Latin grammars—but not in Latin dictionaries.

The editors seem to have been confused by the fact that the list consists of words used as words, and perhaps by the length; yet we have perfectly acceptable articles listing words because of their grammatical relationship or significance. For instance, the List of English prepositions easily withstood a challenge based on "NOTADICTIONARY", even though it consists primarily of a list of words. The non-definition explanations provided are roughly equivalent to the lead in this article; and while I note that the list in question doesn't explain the significance of individual words, in the case of prepositions it would be rather hard to do so without giving dictionary definitions. A list of nouns is somewhat easier to explain with brief descriptions, without any of them necessarily constituting dictionary definitions. Dictionary definitions will generally be much longer and more detailed than any of the explanations provided here, but most dictionaries don't contain exhaustive lists of the proper nouns of persons who might have biographical entries in an encyclopedia, or taxonomic classifications.

The other policy cited, "NOTINDISCRIMINATE", is rarely invoked for what it's actually for: random, irrelevant, unencyclopedic information. The policy cites four examples, none of which is remotely connected with this article:

1. Summary-only descriptions of works. Summaries are fine, however, in the context of articles that treat a work in a more general way.
2. Lyrics databases. Excessive quotations from works that don't explain their significance and potentially violate copyright; the full text of lengthy sources. Clearly not the case here, where nothing is being quoted and there is no copyright; the significance of the topic is explained at the beginning, and the examples provided illustrate the topic.
3. Excessive listing of unexplained statistics. This article consists of explanation, without really containing any statistics at all.
4. Exhaustive logs of software updates. Software updates can be perfectly encyclopedic, but should be described in third-party sources, and trimmed to a reasonable length. Since this topic doesn't concern software, or any kind of log, this clearly isn't concerned with this article.

The present article simply doesn't come within the purview of "NOTINDISCRIMINATE"; this policy seems to be invoked primarily when people think that a topic is unimportant, rather than when it fits any of the criteria listed. However, notability is not really an issue here. The relevant policy states: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Any Latin grammar—and there are several notable ones—will describe the existence of first-declension masculine nouns as an exception to the general rule that first-declension nouns are usually feminine, and typically some examples will be provided (typically "agricola, nauta, pirata"). The topic of this article clearly meets the criteria for notability, although it might benefit from more citations. The fact that the list of examples is much longer than that found in Latin grammars doesn't affect its notability.

Now, it's possible that the list would benefit from some trimming, because although Wiktionary can't discuss the topic of first-declension masculine nouns, it does contain a corresponding category which appears to be much larger than the one here. But this list is apparently not exhaustive; it contains a selection, for which the significance of entries is provided in one place. The benefit for readers that cannot be obtained from a Wiktionary category is not insignificant. For instance, I would not have realized that there are several rivers and watercourses that are masculine although they belong to the first declension (most river names in Latin are second declension and obviously masculine; there are only a handful of feminine rivers, to the best of my knowledge). So it seems to me that this article might benefit from an examination of what is useful to readers, and perhaps a more thorough explanation with more citations. But there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept or the structure; none of the policies cited justify deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A lot of articles like this exist. Arabic nouns and adjectives Gender_in_Dutch_grammar#Masculine_nouns Latin declension etc. Seems encyclopedic, and isn't found anywhere else. This is not a dictionary, not one article for each word that exist with a short definition only, but something else. Wikipedia is for educational content also, not just popular culture. The Wikiprojects for Latin and for Language have this AFD on their list, so hopefully they'll participate. Dream Focus 16:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the three examples you give are comparable to this list though: those three are explanations of aspects of a language (and a much larger aspect than the one described here), not lists of all words and nouns matching said aspect. There are whole books (well, libraries probably) about "Arabic nouns and adjectives", separate from books of "Arabic nouns and adjectives" (which are, er, dictionaries). Here, we have lists of masculine Latin nouns of the 1st declension, but where are the books, texts, ... about the subject? A list of words which share a common grammatical characteristic is not the same as an article about such a characteristic. By the way, Wiktionary has this, so the information is already there. Fram (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, Latin grammars routinely discuss this particular phenomenon. There doesn't need to be a book about it; just reliable, independent sources—and it doesn't matter whether they've already been cited: the question is whether sources exist, not whether they've been cited. And the Wiktionary category provides a perfect example of why this topic can not be adequately addressed in Wiktionary. Wiktionary doesn't allow for extended discussion, or really any discussion of topics such as the usual characteristics of first declension Latin nouns, or why most are feminine and certain ones masculine. The category seems to contain many more examples than this article does; the article contains a selection which can be pruned or improved as needed; Wiktionary doesn't allow for that. And of course in the category you don't know the significance of any of the items in the list without visiting the corresponding entries; in Wikipedia it's possible to explain their significance briefly and without the length or complexity of a dictionary definition, all in one place. So in fact, comparing this article with what Wiktionary provides seems to make abundantly clear why this article should be kept. P Aculeius (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the list is far better than a category. Dream Focus 12:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a weird one, but broadly speaking lists of words don't belong on Wikipedia, especially not ones this oddly specific. If there were several articles about these words, this page could serve as a list of them, but as is it is just a weirdly specific dictionary. BSMRD (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY; it's also a dictionary that somebody stopped working on by the letter H. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is covered at wikt:Category:Latin masculine nouns in the first declension. I don't know if xwiki links to categories are permitted by policy, and I'm not sure why we would need one here, but it is technically an option. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ronald Duncan. Sandstein 13:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan at Blue Fox

Jan at Blue Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find any reliable secondary sources covering this short-lived piece of lost media. Fails WP:GNG. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]