Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 16	October 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Newton (disambiguation)

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

All of these people have Newton as their middle name. Having these people at a dis-ambiguation page like this is an analogy to having Joe Biden as one of the entries of a dis-ambiguation page titled Joseph Robinette. We never expect biographical articles to be titled this way, so no one will expect any of these people other than the early 18th century scientist to be at Isaac Newton; he's the only person on this page whose last name is Newton. Georgia guy (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; after careful looking I found an exception:
Isaac Newton (agriculturalist) (1800–1867), first United States Secretary of Agriculture

This means that we can delete this dis-ambiguation page and simply put a link to the agriculturalist at the top of the Isaac Newton article. That is, at the Isaac Newton article we can have a header saying Alternate meaning: Isaac Newton (agriculturalist). Georgia guy (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Middle names don't count. In addition to the agriculturalist, there are a whole host of things named after the alleged apple victim, but nothing else that I could dig up. I've already adjusted the hatnote accordingly. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. All entries but two are irrelevant to this page, which isn't enough to warrant a dis-ambiguation page. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the reasons presented. Also the Issac Newton article is already appropriately hatnoted. --Bejnar (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian film series

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

Articles are not categories. Dronebogus (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because something is a list, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Bkatcher (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, articles are not categories. Wikipedia has rules about this (of course we have: we have rules about everything). In this case we have a guideline called Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, which has a paragraph that specifically addresses this situation. It reads:- It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Redirects of list articles to categories are highly discouraged: list articles should take the place of the redirect. (This paragraph has its own shortcut at WP:NOTDUP.) And I agree with the rule here because I can see why it applies to this specific topic. Unlike categories, lists have the advantage that you can put citations in them, and we should definitely encourage that. So I'll go with keep.—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't delete an article because you think it looks like a category, that not a valid reason to nominate something for deletion. This is a perfectly valid list article, and is more useful than a category because the films are separated clearly based on what series they are in. Dream Focus 07:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree it does not require deletion only because it happens to be a list. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EAST Initiative

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

Notability concerns. No independent references, and the article is vaguely promotional. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Earlier versions of the article (for example [1]) did include a list of papers: some of which may be just about the broad topic of technology in education but others appear to be the outcomes of research directly about EAST. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- promotional article, lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last one
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zooel Morshed

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

Clearly does not pass WP:NMUSIC Salimfadhley (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - part of an Iranian troll farm. Snackmurat (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, he seems Bangali, not Iranian, although I agree to Delete. See below. Boredathome101 (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any significant news coverage and 3 citations is not enough meet notability. It maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Boredathome101 (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brawadis

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

Youtuber of unclear notability outside of fanbase/gossip columns Iskandar323 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. A passing mention in a student newspaper is far from significant coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Mel

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

BLP. Only reference is her own, rather outdated website. Maybe notable but needs references. Rathfelder (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article could be expanded from pt:Cristina_Mel the corresponding article in the Portuguese Wikipedia, which happens to have 15 references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The results in Google News at least establish WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per Aman Kumar Goel. desmay (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Google news shows many articles. She seems to be a well known celebrity in Portugal.

Check: [2],[3], [4] and [5]Mommmyy (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there are enough news articles for GNGJackattack1597 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Tolstoy

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

No significant coverage and only one role listed on IMDb. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a single role is not sufficient to make him notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can’t see that he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:NBASIC. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting also the copyvio issue. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ngcoya clan

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

No sources. No indication of notability per WP:N. Appears to contain original research (WP:OR). At best, redirect to Mpondo people, but the connection is tenuous based solely on the text of this article, as this clan offshoot is not really detailed in the Mpondo article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything in RS about Ngcoya except as a surname of authors of scholarly works. Unless there is WP:SIGCOV, WP cannot host clan genealogies (especially without a single source to ensure WP:V). –Austronesier (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided at all, and the content here is not particularly informative to readers unfamiliar with the topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is very notable amongst my whole clan, literally almost everyone I know in with my surname has been to this site several times. And the information about how it was created. And there is evidence backing it up, you can read up on the following sites to read it:

http://ngcai.blogspot.com/2008/09/praise-names-of-ngcoya.html?m=1

http://www.wakahina.co.za/listings/n/surname/notununu

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/ngcoya/en-en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngcoyamilo (talk • contribs) 10:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a blog and not a RS. Most of the content of the WP page was ripped verbatim from that blog, so this is a big WP:COPYVIO, and further not sufficient to establish notability. For the second, see WP:EXIST. The third source is an obvious WP:mirror of the WP article. –Austronesier (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Austronesier's assessment of the sources. http://dictionary.sensagent.com/ngcoya/en-en/ even says on the page, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to indicate that they got their content from here. The copyvio was introduced into the article in this edit and was removed but later re-added back. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Uncited junk in an unencyclopedic tone. Even if the subject is notable, this calls for WP:TNT. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True Manufacturing

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

I didn't find significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Need reliable sources to meet the notability guidelines.Mommmyy (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solv

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

I am wondering what makes this company notable to be able to have a stand alone article on Wikipedia? Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 16:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 16:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 16:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 16:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Press releases are not reliable sources. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Times of India and Business Standard can be considered as reliable local news media. But it still lacks reference from reliable sources.Mommmyy (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Before creating the current mainspace article about an Indian e-commerce platform, the new editor who created it first appropriated and then blanked the pre-existing Draft:Solv, which hitherto had been about a US-based health firm of the same name: [6]. I am dubious about the notability of that firm either, though some coverage can be found, but have restored its draft. AllyD (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A promotionally-worded presentation of a new platform's market proposition. The available coverage is routine, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, aside perhaps from the Business Standard piece (23 April 21) reporting speculation by "sources" about its future. If there was an article about Standard Chartered's SC Ventures then it might have provided a suitable redirect target, but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability (WP:NCORP/WP:GNG). AllyD (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Singer-Songwriters Association

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

I did not find any reliable source coverage beyond some passing mentions about awards they organize. MarioGom (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any significant coverage of this organization. Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the citations in this article, most are to the organization's own website, one is to the founder's own website, and the other two are irrelevant, not mentioning this organization. I did find some articles from local newspapers which mention that a local musician had been nominated for an award by this organization, but the articles I saw didn't cover the awards in general, only their local musician's nominations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also could not find much news on them. Does not meet WP:GNG. Lesliechin1 (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Wang

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

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

Not notable Chinese businessman. Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rexh17 (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You should first search for his Chinese name, which I think is 王虎 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability as a businessman. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:A7. (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Carnahan

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

~~Non-notable see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Carnahan Barrettmagic ^Talk 15:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Blocked sock/compromised account. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Barrettmagic ^Talk 15:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Barrettmagic ^Talk 15:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. The creator was already warned previously. – The Grid (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4 and WP:SALT the namespace. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above.Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singhu Border Lynching (2021)

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

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:EVENTCRIT this reads like a news story which has not yet proven enough lasting significance to warrant it's own article. If it is connected with the protests it can be added to 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest but I don't see the link being made only that it was in the vicinity. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia criteria WP:EVENT and WP:EVENTCRIT listed above are not met. This article is in clear violation of Wikipedia criteria about Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. All the newspapers used in citation are reporting a crime or talking about the alleged accused, which is not yet proven in court. The event must demonstrate Lasting effects according to WP:LASTING. So far it has not been demonstrated that this criteria is met. A duplicate article for this event was already rejected, at Draft:2021 lynching and killing of dalit by farm protestors, and this has been moved regardless. So this should deleted. Venkat TL (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair to Call it a duplicate article, comparing with a deleted article, which cannot be viewed now. Also, the scope and coverage of this article is much more broader than the deleted article, which had a limited view of the incident with few sources, while this article has many high quality WP:RS sources and addresses the issue in a broader manner. Dhy.rjw (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion of this article: Singhu border lynching (2021) for the following reasons:

This is one of the MOST Horrific MURDER in India in recent times, a brutal lynching and murder of an discriminated and protected class Dalit youth Lakhbir Singh, who was murdered in broad day light by a group of radicals. The page created and then reviewed (& approved) by editor Hughesdarren After the page was reviewed, another User: Venkat TL moves the article to Deletion Draft by giving a very vague reason that Wikipedia is not News, and cannot be used for a single event. There are thousands of Wiki pages on similar single incidents of Rapes, Murders and Lynching, that are widely reported in WP:RS. I present some examples of similar single events (not proven in Court) in India with Wiki pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Hathras_gang_rape_and_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape_and_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balrampur_gang_rape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhimpur_Kheri_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_snakebite_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Rohini_Court_Shooting

Considering all this, I don't see any logical reason to delete this page, other than to hide a Major Story from Wiki due to malicious intentions. This is a crucial incident widely reported in WP:RS sources in which a person from a protected class "Dalit" has been brutaly lynched and murdered. I hope you can revert this article back and save from deletion. Dhy.rjw (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep Satisifes WP:GNG with a decent list of reliable secondary sources including The Indian Express, Tribune India, India Today, Hindustan Times and The Economic Times. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GNG alone, is not the criteria to meet here, events have a specific criteria to reach the inclusion threshold. That criteria is WP:EVENTCRIT. The thing we are missing right now is enduring significance or lasting effect. I'm not saying this won't become a notable event only that it is not yet proven to meet our criteria. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you do agree that the article does meet WP:GNG? Note that in Wikipedia:Notability (events) it states as the criteria for inclusion: Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect (I've added the bolding to "if" for emphasis). Also, Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). This is definitely the case for this article. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Satisifes WP:GEOSCOPE Over 15 Dalit Organizations across the world, demand strict action on the incident https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/15-dalit-outfits-demand-strict-action-against-culprits-of-singhu-border-lynching-325420

Reported by Reuters International https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indian-police-probe-murder-farmers-protest-site-detain-suspect-2021-10-16/

News reported in over 10 different states and regional language media across Asia. https://newsable.asianetnews.com/india/nihang-brutality-at-singhu-border-latest-developments-in-the-murder-case-vpn-r13ros Dhy.rjw (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Satisifes WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE The Incident's long term impacts are being discussed in Editorials and Opinions in top national publications, Indian Express , The Hindu and others https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/singhu-border-lynching-skm-7573973/ https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/a-murder-most-foul-the-hindu-editorial-on-the-lynching-of-dalit-man-at-the-singhu-border-farmer-protest-site/article37045285.ece Dhy.rjw (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Satisifes WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE New issues related to incident & it's investigation are getting continued coverage; and related case being heard in India's Supreme Court, the highest court of the nation https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/10/india-supreme-court-is-petitioned-to-stop-ongoing-farm-protests-after-lynching-of-dalit-laborer/ https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/singhu-border-lynching-3-accused-sent-to-police-remand-2-sits-conducting-probe/article37040110.ece Dhy.rjw (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty to strike all your keep votes except for the first one. You are free to add to your comment but not to continue to vote with each addition. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:EVENT. Enough citations from reliable independent sources are available to justify its notability and hence passes WP:GNG. NarangD (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I am opposed to creation of single death events that may happen often but we also have other similar articles surrounding this subject like Tabrez Ansari lynching. It should be kept for now given the massive coverage, and a opposition leader too has asked for investigation.[7] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed with Aman.kumar.goel, If an article is available for another Lynching case Tabrez Ansari lynching, This article also passes WP:EVENT. NarangD (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After several days of event coverage, there is clear evidence that this event satisfies WP:EVENTCRIT as below:

1. The Incident's long term impacts are being discussed in Editorials and OPINION pieces in top national publications, Indian Express , The Hindu and others https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/singhu-border-lynching-skm-7573973/ https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/a-murder-most-foul-the-hindu-editorial-on-the-lynching-of-dalit-man-at-the-singhu-border-farmer-protest-site/article37045285.ece

2. Event related issues are being heard in India's Supreme Court, where only the MOST IMPORTANT issues are heard. https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/10/india-supreme-court-is-petitioned-to-stop-ongoing-farm-protests-after-lynching-of-dalit-laborer/

3. There is CONTINUED Coverage of the event in print, electronic and social media: https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/haryana/singhu-lynching-3-accused-sent-to-police-remand-2-sits-conducting-probe-325811 https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/singhu-border-lynching-3-accused-sent-to-police-remand-2-sits-conducting-probe/article37040110.ece https://thewire.in/government/singhu-border-lynching-one-more-arrested-two-more-from-nihang-order-surrender — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhy.rjw (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Dhy.rjw (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been covered consistently for several days now here in India; the incident certainly has gained WP:LASTING notability (i.e. passes NEVENT). Article is admittedly pretty bare-bones, but that is not an argument for deletion: except in cases of BLP violations, spam and other cases of WP:TNT, articles are generally not deleted because of content problems, as they can be fixed in non-TNT cases; and this article is pretty far from being a TNT case. Java Hurricane 06:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The incident is significant as it is an act of terrorism against marginalized Dalits by Sikh extremists. The incident satisfies "significant coverage" and "reliable" criteria of WP:GNG as of 10/18/2021, 8:30AM PST:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/dalit-organisations-approach-supreme-court-commission-demand-extensive-probe-into-singhu-lynching/articleshow/87098517.cms https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/singhu-border-lynching-national-sc-commission-seeks-report-from-haryana-police-101634326560310.html https://www.thehitavada.com/Encyc/2021/10/18/2-SITs-to-investigate-Singhu-border-lynching-case.html TallMegan (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)TallMegan[reply]

keep The incident satisfies depth, diversity and duration of coverage WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE / WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE because of all the references cited. Further, the incident is important as the Sikh Extremist group has warned [1 that anyone found disrespecting their literature will meet the same fate] of being brutally killed as the Dalit victim. Hence in public interest, we should report this incident.

1. https://www.firstpost.com/india/singhu-border-lynching-arrested-nihang-sikh-unrepentant-says-all-sacrilege-accused-will-meet-same-fate-two-more-surrender-10062241.html

This kind of behavior is nothing new. The Nihang's have been known to commit such atrocities [2] however such incidents have remained poorly reported. That is where Wikipedia can provide a better historical record.

2. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/nihangs-cut-off-hand-of-policeman-after-scuffle-in-vegetable-market/articleshow/75104243.cms

Further comment: Venkat TL is zealously deleting any reference to this article and even had me banned as per 3RR rule -- his actions to had this article for deletion is resulting in considerable work by all of us who agree that this article must be published. I think we should report VenkatTL appropriately for vandalism by deletion of important content which can save people's lives. Isn't that Wikipedia's goal ? to make our lives better ? In public interest, this article should be published so no one else falls victim to Nihang extremist Sikhs. Rob108 (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Rob108[reply]

@Rob108: First I would recommend you be careful about accusations and attempts to gather a mob to report a user, please remember WP:AGF. Wikipedia's purpose is to write about notable topics based on what reliable sources have said about them. It is not to make people's lives better, advocate for anything and not a historical record. We are not concerned with the public's interest, that is for the police or some other site. It is not a soapbox platform. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Mcmatter on this. @Rob108: see WP:RGW and WP:CANVAS. Java Hurricane 07:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Java McMatter Thanks for the comments, I will assume good faith. However, recently again, my properly sourced additions were reverted by Venkat TL with a two word explanation 'says who?' -- he should look at sources before deleting content. It takes lot of effort to add content and it is frustrating to see the content removed without any reason or specific reference to wikipedia policies. Rob108 (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)TallMegan[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID high profile murder passes WP:GNG.Now the question whether it will be WP:LASTING can be determined only months after this but with the trial yet to begin there will more coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ubadah

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

WP:DIRECTORY like list with insufficient sourcing to establish either accuracy or notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, a huge list of little known items. Creator is indefinitely blocked. Geschichte (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Israel–United Arab Emirates relations. MBisanz ^talk 14:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UAE-Israel Business Council

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

This was previously deleted on CSD G11 grounds, but was recreated and now reads nearly identically to what it read at the time it was tagged with db-spam. In the interest of giving the article and its now two-year-out-from-speedy-deletion existence, I'm listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and notable. Can see no reason whatsoever for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see two problems here: [1] Each paragraph has a header. Paragraphs should be written around an idea and section headers should integrate these ideas. [2] While the topic is notable, the Council is not mentioned in what is supposed to be its parent, the Israel–United Arab Emirates relations. One can be fixed and does not stop me from supporting a keep, two does as this makes it into an improper WP:SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per my rational above, this article should be (substantially) merged into Israel–United Arab Emirates relations. gidonb (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I can't find a keep consensus on the basis of often poor arguments, but there's clearly no consensus to delete or merge. Merger discussion can continue on the talk page. Sandstein 18:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Python Software Foundation

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

almost no independent references DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I am quite sure the foundation responsible for one of the most popular programming languages[8][9][10] is sufficiently notable. It isn't unusual for a software platform to have a foundation article, such as Apache, .NET and F# to name a few. The fact the article needs development and additional referencing isn't a suitable rationale for removal. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thereferences you cite are about the language, notthe foundation. Nobody is challenging that Python is notable . DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware the cites are for the language, which is why I say immediately beforehand "one of the most popular programming languages". I do feel this is a fairly important consideration. The foundation is responsible for it. If the AfD sways towards deletion, which I hope it doesn't, it could well question the integrity of the other "foundation" articles aforementioned. This article, like so many others, would indeed benefit from additional 3rd party referencing, but I don't accept the fairly vague rationale offered. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect into Python (programming language). Based off of my reading of the sources, I can't say that the two would be independently notable. I also don't think that the Python language article is so long that length would become a problem. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly shouldn't be deleted outright; I don't think a merge to Python (programming language) would be an editorial improvement. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without merging. The computing world does not document iteself well outside of academia. However the Python Software Foundation is one of the computing nonprofits analyzed in
- Jyh-An Lee (1 January 2012). Nonprofit Organizations and the Intellectual Commons. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78100-158-5. OCLC 1027550705..

StarryGrandma (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Python programming language article is already lengthy, I don't think it needs more content merged into it. NemesisAT (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Potts

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

Non-notable actor. On further research, can't find reliable sources that talks about this person. GeeJay24 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On Google search, there were no reliable sources for this subject that showed up. 210.178.110.229 (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find evidence of substantial coverage after doing a Google search. It seems like that this is an instance where an actor has received steady work, but has not attracted any public attention or interest (at least in the form of articles). He has a respectable career, and I find Beverly Hills Teens to be oddly fascinating lol, but there is not enough coverage to support him having his own article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet Relay Chat commands

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

This is a very weird one, and I'm not even sure if this is the right venue for this, but couldn't find a better one. Right now this page contains a enormous list of IRC commands, but does not indicate why they are notable, as a list, in any way. On the other hand, its an easy look up, and is linked in multiple places across the wider Wikimedia verse, including Mediawikiwiki (see MediaWiki on IRC#Connecting to IRC), indicating there is a clear need and wish for a page such as this to exist. I therefore think the best solution, considering its, at least in my opinion, a non notable list, but is clearly wanted, would be to move it either into the Wikipedia: namespace, or to transwiki it to meta, which would be my preferred solution. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 11:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every messenger has commands, and we don't need page for each. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:LISTN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN. [11] [12] [13] [14] IRC is not a "messenger", it's a protocol. This is in principle no different from List of HTTP status codes which is also similarly referenced by RFC documents. – SD0001 (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keep Madbrad200 (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. SD0001 makes a good case. Dream Focus 17:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Ajf773 (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As SD0001 notes, this passes WP:LISTN just as any list of protocols; all of which serve WP:LISTPURP#Information. It is not WP:NOTHOWTO because it is not a "guide" (i.e., there are no instructions to follow). -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of commands and how they are used, including a reference to someones work describing them in further detail. How is it not a guide. Ajf773 (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that, because this article references a guide, the entire article should be deleted? That seems a bit extreme, no? If you think the reference violates WP:V, why not WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead?

And anyway, as someone who hasn’t used IRC since like 2001, I forget how or where to use these commands. This article does nothing to help me. So if the title included the word "guide" I would take serious issue with that. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user:Tiredmeliorist. Christian75 (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is a notable list topicJackattack1597 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Chacha

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources mentioned were just about her retrenchment on ABS-CBN and her welcome on Radyo5 92.3 News FM. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:34, 03 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:40, 03 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:40, 03 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:43, 03 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 13:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TZN Xenna

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on sources on pl wiki article and a simple BEFORE in GBooks/Gscholar, this band seems to be a significant part of the history of the Polish punk music scene. In my few minutes of search I did not stumble upon an in-depth source, but I wasn't opening each and every article - there are dozens of works that mention it. A claim of significance is seen in many of them; for example in here: "Dezerter began playing (initially as SS-20) in May 1981 and is next to TZN Xenna the most important band to hail from Warsaw of the 1980s.". This scholarly article (in Polish) has a page-long paragraph dedicated to Xenna's works (discussing their anti-communist theme). The article can be tagged for improvement but should not be deleted, and the nom's rationale indicates an obvious and sad fail at BEFORE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The subject is probably notable, as Piotrus illustrated above, but more sources added to the article - would be helpful. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spyce (software)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only reference is to its own page. Imcdc (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. This is not the same as Spyce Kitchen. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to expansion by Eastmain. NemesisAT (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geetika Mehandru

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

~~Fails WP:NACTOR, Fails WP:GNG Barrettmagic ^Talk 13:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Blocked sock. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Barrettmagic ^Talk 13:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of playing any significant roles, -- Ab207 (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiographic article of non notable actress, fails WP:NACTOR, no roles of any significance yet, WP:TOOSOON.Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TOOSOON, the roles are minor, no evidence of GNG JW 1961^Talk 22:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails WP:NACTOR. --Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Unable to meet WP:NACTOR.Advait (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As above - nothing to show WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG has been met Ravensfire (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why deletion ? this all true info added so please check — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:23C8:3980:C038:A01C:D5C1:BBF2 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She does not have significant roles in the movies. Eevee01^(talk) 09:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply resonating with everyone else. Nothing more to say. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly doesn't meet any notability guideline.Brayan ocaner (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of any notability. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas W. Anderson

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Heck, most of the article is about the company he founded, not him. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to see there rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 15:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G11, unambiguous promotion or advertising. --Lockley (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability for this subject. Mccapra (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. ✗plicit 14:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton F.C.

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

A lot of the claims in the article are exaggerated so I tagged this as WP:G3 under hoax grounds, which the creator has vehemently denied is the case. If this club does indeed exist and meets WP:GNG, then we can stubify the article and remove all of the unsourced nonsense. A WP:BEFORE search is extremely challenging as all I can find is info relating to Ashton United F.C. and Curzon Ashton F.C..

I am still of the belief that this article needs to go but am taking to AfD to hopefully establish clear consensus from fellow editors on this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nominator, I have CSD'd some of these creations earlier, looks like they are hoaxes (some articles just had one word like Hi) - at the very least they are disruptive JW 1961^Talk 13:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

237Showbiz

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

This article does not indicate significant coverage and looks like its just doing self promotions so, I think it should be deleted or moved to the sand box again. Barrettmagic ^Talk 11:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Barrettmagic ^Talk 11:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - highly promotional. Deb (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is puffery and advertising. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Sawatra

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

This article is a work in progress and should likely either be deleted so that the author is encouraged to rebuild it based on better sources, if they wish, or incubated safely away from mainspace until it is in better shape. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, the author has since been banned, so incubation would not help. I suppose deletion or reduction to a stub are really the only routes forward. Interested in the consensus on whether any of these sources are valid first. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete as lacking proper sources. If there is a valid topic here the article will need to be recreated from scratch anyway. Mccapra (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Gazette

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

Article has no sources. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G7'd ~TNT (she/her • talk) 14:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranveer Singh (Author)

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

non notable British writer/Author fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. NarangD (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD G7 author has requested deletion JW 1961^Talk 11:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseywales1961:, Please remove this comment. That G7 tag was done by me. Sorry for my mistake. Fade258 (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fade258 Hi, I added the CSD G7 tag following the creators comment delete page? see page history JW 1961^Talk 12:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseywales1961:, No, You misunderstood. That tag was done by me. See the page history and my CSD log beacuse the reason left by me was same. Fade258 (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Gil

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

BLP without any proper references. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search brings up nothing but some self made profiles. Boredathome101 (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1994 United States Soccer Federation presidential election

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

There is simply no reason to have a standalone article about this. Nothing that can't or shouldn't be covered elsewhere. Geschichte (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:TRIVIA. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial and not needed. Can be covered in the federation and relevant bios.--Mvqr (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA, fails WP:GNG. All the other United States Soccer Federation presidential elections (there seems to be an article for every 4 years around these years) also fail WP:GNG too. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge content into United States Soccer Federation#Leadership. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 United States Soccer Federation presidential election. I could see a procedural keep as nom does not indicate any reason for deletion, however we and subsequent commenters agree that this shouldn't be a standalone article. For me, this fails WP:COVERAGE and WP:EVENT. That said, the choosing of leadership at a major organization such as the USSF shouldn't go unnoticed and I feel the best landing spot for this would be the Leadership section of USSF as linked earlier. GauchoDude (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz de Carvalho

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

Only reference, which doesnt work, seems to be to his church website. Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the nominator. Non-notable. Boredathome101 (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third World Network

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

Unclear notability. The organization clearly exists and publishes its own material. However, the material on this page is unsourced, does not really explain the organization or what it does or establish clear notability. Even if the consensus is keep, it would seem wise to reduce this article to a stub based on the few available facts and let it be built back up from the ground up, if and when significant new sources arises. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Baumann-Parkhurst

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

Without any desire to diminish the trials that the subject of this article went through in their life, their experience is not unique and the only case for the notability of this article appears to be a standalone self-published work. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG @Whpq Just nominated this article for deletion before realising that it has apparently come back from the grave. I would re-nominate it for speedy deletion based on it being restored deleted content, but that was in 2009, I can't see the old content, and I'm not sure if there is a statute of limitations for things like this. Please advise. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify, this article went through AfD in 2009 and the consensus was for deletion. It has since been created, with what sounds like much the same, limited, self-published sourcing for which it was deleted in the first place. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is this source: Author looks for release from Bergen-Belsen memories (Santa Cruz Sentinel, 2008, updated 2018) that highlights the significance of surviving and writing two books about The Holocaust, and seems like a start to supporting WP:AUTHOR notability, which requires one work or a collective body of work, and makes no apparent distinction with regard to whether or not the work is self-published. Beccaynr (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Her first book is also in the collection of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Beccaynr (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The normal notability standard for NAUTHOR is two successful books from significant publishers, each with multiple reviews. The one book possibility is there because it sometimes but rarely happens that a person publishes a single book, and becomes very notable for it , like Margaret Mitchell with Gone with the Wind. (anyway, The subject in fact only wrote one book, in two volumes). Almost always self-published books don't count for notability by NAUTHOR , again with exceptions-many books before the 19th century were self published , and some authors have preferred it. like Rombauer's The Joy of Cooking. (We have 117 articles about notable self-published books in WP out of our 24,766 articles on notable books). Otherwise anyone with a thousand dollars could be notable. (Or even less, if the internet counts.) The provision for works in museums applies to only artist's books, which are usually an assembly of images in book form rather than a book intended to be read in the usual way.

Her book has almost never been read, because it is only two libraries--a library that tries to collect every possible book by a Holocaust survivor (they have about 230,000), and her home town library. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content of the article deleted in 2009 was fairly similar to this one, except that the Santa Cruz Sentinel citation has been added. But it doesn't appear that this author should be considered notable per WP:NAUTHOR. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Freeman (musician)

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

Non-notable musician. Only got attention for his work on the album The Vertical Collection with Jon Hassell. There are no RS in the article: only the two interviews give any biographical informations, and they almost all come from his own month. One of the interviews is done alongside Hassell. The other interview is in a non-notable publication and notes that his work with Hassell as his main contribution to the musical world. The interviewer also says she spoke to Freeman before, for an article on Hassel's work. That article doesn't mention Freeman at all.

Freeman died six month ago, but I didn't find this being reported in any RS. You can only see his death being reported on content farm websites. Mottezen (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination this guy really has not made any significant contribution to music. He does not have any awards or anything. Does not pass WP:GNG --Rrmmll22 (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve I disagree with both the proposer and the first response above. The history of early electronic music and the people who contributed to it is not very well documented, but the scope of Freeman's contributions shown in the filmography is both impressive and interesting. It is easy for some Wikipedians to say "non-notable" and simply scrapping this on the basis of "I couldn't find any sources so there must be none" for a new article is one of the banes of the Wikipedia. This isn't a vanity article; the subject is dead. The proposer asserts that a publication is "non-notable" but that again is just an assertion. Yes, the article needs more citations. The right thing to do is to flag the article for improvement, not for summery deletion. -- Evertype·✆ 19:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per Evertype above. To declare my COI, Peter and I were in a relationship during the last months of his life, and we were friends for longer. I am still absolutely distraught, six months after his death. As a musician and innovator, he kept very much to himself but he had influence far beyond that which appears in public sources. He was a software innovator and was a key contributor to Looperverse, and to software developed by AVID. His influence on Jon's music was significant, and you can hear it in Maarifa Street, to give one example. Not just as a musician but also a co-producer, for which he was credited. His memorial service was a who's-who of musical innovators and people he worked with for years. Elliott Sharp said yesterday that Peter "made electrons sing". There is unreleased music of his that will see the light of day. And so on. I know the rules on WP - I've been here nearly 18 years myself - and know that the measure of a person is more than the sum of the WP:RS you can find via Google. Anyways, I've said too much - Alison ^❤ 00:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The music he was involved in was pretty niche in the first place, but there are interviews dating back over a decade. Here's one ("he likes to stay behind the scenes and not be noticed [..] for the last 17 years has been the bass player and sound manipulator behind Jon Hassell") that's on blogspot, which doesn't meet WP:RS on the surface, until you see that it's Hans Stoeve, who ran a world music radio program on 2SER for many years. Ndeya Records, Jon's own label, referred to him as "A close musical collaborator with Jon Hassell for over 25 years". Much of this is obscure, especially for someone who's not just a musician, but a mixing engineer, producer and sound creator. There's so much focus on charts musicians and rockstars that are in popular genres and hug the limelight, but there's way more to music than just that - Alison ^❤ 01:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"[... both Peter and guitarist Rick Cox could be thought of as Jon's go to sonic cinematographers [...] They are both such creative and giving creatures and great sounding boards for Jon's directorial vision"] - Hugh Marsh. All these quotes and snippets add up to a much bigger picture. Again, someone will declare this not a WP:RS, but then again, it's Hugh Marsh who's speaking - Alison ^❤ 02:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve as per Evertype, it seems a disservice to a niche topic area and someone who from their discography and collaborations was high profile/prolific in their music genre to just slap a deletion tag on it. His name makes searching efficiently online slightly challenging without doing more serious amounts of due diligence. Smirkybec (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve as per Evertype and Smirkybec, et al. Niche musicians may not get the kind of traditional coverage that mainstream musicians get but that doesn't diminish their contributions and so we need to broaden our definition of what is a reliable source to accommodate this - in 2021, blogs by notable commentators have to be looked at differently than how we looked at blogs ten years ago. Yes, let's try to improve this piece with more and "better" sources, but deleting it is utterly uncalled for. Tvoz/talk 21:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luis David Serrano

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

Non-notable boxer who never won a title as a pro, failing WP:NBOX. JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. His challenge for the WBC Silver title doesn't satisfy NBOX. Regardless, I couldn't find anything to satisfy GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 10:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Squared.Circle.Boxing that he fails both WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. His boxing record looks less impressive when you look at his 14 fights preceding his bout with Medina and find his opponents had a total of 16 wins out of 101 fights. Papaursa (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Concerns that the subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in secondary sources were successfully rebutted by the evidence provided by James500. A merge to Road Traffic Act 1988 may still be preferable but that is a decision best settled outside of AFD. Editors can pursue that path through a merge proposal if desired. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Driving Instructors (Registration) Act 2016

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

Article on a non-notable statute, sourced entirely to Hansard and text of the statute itself. (And therefore WP:OR.) AFAIK, statutes are subject to the same notability standards as any other topic, and this one fails WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We are all expected to know the law of the land and so calling this OR is absurd. It's sensible to use the actual statute as a source and it's not difficult to find more sources such as this and that. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not at all absurd to call this original research—describing a statute, or any written work, purely by reference to its text, as opposed to secondary sources discussing it, is textbook OR. The first source is pretty good but it's one paragraph (page 125). The second "source" is a PowerPoint presentation of no clear reliability. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is primary legislation, so definitely keep. It would stand even without sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to what policy is an article about primary legislation, or any other kind of legislation for that matter, an automatic keep? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Article Creator Firstly just wanted to note my conflict on comment here due to being the original page creator (albeit some time ago). My view at the time (which I don't think has particularly changed) is that any Act of Parliament of the UK is likely to be sufficiently notable either to be included as a standalone article, or to have its own subsection within another article where this is more appropriate (e.g. legislation relation to HS2 is likely to be best placed as a standalone section on the HS2 article). At one point I was looking to create articles for each primary Act as they were created but ultimately got busy within other subjects so never completed this. Possibly the contents of this article could in some way be merged into Road Traffic Act 1988 with a suitable redirect or to keep as a standalone article if there now sufficient commentary to justify an article (I haven't looked at what online commentary has been added since the law was passed and the article was originally written shortly after Royal Assent was given). Either way I think some commentary on each Act of the UK Parliament that is made should be retained in wikipedia. This might be a topic to seek further consensus on in the Law or UK projects/portals, there was brief discussion at Wikipedia:Notability (law) on similar topics but no consensus was reached. I do appreciate the sourcing of the article to secondary sources could be better (there are now plenty of online sources that talk about ADI requirements which could potentially be used here).Tracland (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the best merge destination would be Driver's education? Andrew's source—a proof from Exploring Parliament (ISBN 9780198788430)—could be used to source content for a selective merge there, especially as a start to an "in the UK" section or similar. As for the broader point: I'm not sure how often statute notability comes up at AfD (will have a look at the archives of list of Law-related deletion discussions), but in the absence of any clear guidance I think falling back on GNG is fine, especially since statutes often are discussed at length in treatises and law journals. One could also try a variant on WP:NPROF and judge statute notability by number of citations, but that would depend on finding a worldwide Google Scholar–equivalent for statutes, which I doubt exists. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think it’s a difficult one. For what it’s worth this Act probably isn’t sufficient for its own article but is probably better as a subsection of another. But other UK statute articles are often sketchy on details (if they exist) which makes it hard to properly decide. One of the reasons I gave up on the project (of creating content on acts at Royal Ascent) was it was just too big a job to fix other articles connected to new laws as they came out. Bring it all up to date is a task for some (more diligent) editor than me. Tracland (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Road Traffic Act 1988 perhaps. There is no basis whatsoever for the claim that individual laws are automatically notable, and closing admin should disregard such comments. Best to cover with related legislation it amends or its subject like Driver's education in the United Kingdom, but many laws are mundane and bureaucratic without significant coverage of their effects. This is listed at both List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 2016 and List of Acts of the 1st Session of the 56th Parliament of the United Kingdom (unclear why there's such duplication) so it could be redirected there as well. Reywas92^Talk 17:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. This Act is included in both Halsbury's Statutes and Current Law Statutes, with significant commentary. I can also point you to LexisLibrary Legislation, Westlaw Legislation and Lawtel, amongst other sources. James500 (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- James500, can you provide some links and/or snippets? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can get both of the printed publications from a library or a bookseller. The online sources require a subscription. James500 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WTCL (TV)

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

Speedy delete: WLFM-LD is set to become WTCL on January 1, and that station already has an article. Just change the title when the time comes. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A10 tag applied Station cannot become a full-power station and will retain -LD suffix. So tagged. Nate • (chatter) 00:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WTCL is currently a redirect to WJXO, which I bet got paid off to give up the WTCL call sign (the station has had some VERY hard luck of late). The FCC call sign desk indicates the request was for WTCL-LP for some reason, not WTCL-LD. The base title of WTCL should be a dabpage eventually. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article creator, CPLANAS1985 (talk · contribs) commented on their talk page and noted that the TVNewsCheck release didn't mention the WLFM-LD license at all, thus they created it thinking it was a new station/license, which I did have a feeling about why this article was created. Nate • (chatter) 20:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Mrschimpf: If I had known WLFM was to be converted into WTCL, I would have NOT created a separate article... Again, the link I provided makes NO mention of converting another station... Rather, "launch a new television station"... CPLANAS1985 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Agreed, not placing any kind of blame on anyone here; it was a good-faith article created using a source that could have been much better written and made clear the station already exists (I assume Gray wanted to completely leave behind WLFM's franken-FM legacy as an analog station, and that Jewelry TV is merely keeping the transmitter warm and not a serious affiliation). Nate • (chatter) 02:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mrschimpf: I had NO idea analog LPTVs still existed in large markets... Why do I sense this was a "troll" move on Gray's part??? CPLANAS1985 (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the large-market ones that existed did so on 6 for the FM audio capability (see: the conversion of a bunch of these to ATSC 3.0, which allows the television portion to be transmitted in just 5.5 MHz of the 6 MHz channel). In this case, Jewelry TV is definitely a signal-warmer (it's also used on the ATSC 3.0 stations such as the 6 in Chicago). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mrschimpf and Sammi Brie: With all things considered and given the circumstances... What do I next??? Do I move one article to the other??? Do we merge the two articles??? How do we work around this knowing what we know now??? CPLANAS1985 (He/Him/His • T • C • TW • IG) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mrschimpf, Sammi Brie, and Mvcg66b3r: Should we just merge the two articles into one??? What will happen to the new article for WTCL (TV)??? I need to know... Because the article was created in good-faith despite a vaguely worded release by Gray Television and TVNewsCheck... There had to be other reasons other than WLFM being a "transmitter-warmer" as one indicates... It is clear this was NOT made up... Just limited details at this time, nothing more... Only preparing for a future event, and that is NO speculation with all due respect... CPLANAS1985 (Male • T • C • TW • IG) 18:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is incorrectly titled, it has no incoming article space links, and the topic is covered at the correct page, WLFM-LD. That will move to (likely) WTCL-LD when a call sign change is formalized. No need to keep. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that the unusual claim for WTCL-LP is correct (not LD). The article was moved today, and the station has reported to the FCC that it is back up and transmitting. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more crack at this...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on the discussion above, seems the creation of the article was unnecessary as an existing article can/will be moved into its place in the near future. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in light of new sources. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor^Talk 11:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saints-Vikings Rivalry

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

Clear fail of WP:GNG. No rivalry exists between these two teams. This is evidenced by a simple google search of Saints Vikings rivalry which has few hits, most of which being either WP:ROUTINE coverage of a game between the two teams or opinion pieces from either New Orleans or Minnesota writers, this is a clear fail of WP:LOCAL. The Wikipedia article only has one reference that mentions the term “rivalry,” an opinion by a Saints beat writer in a blog that calls itself “a New Orleans Saints community.” The balance of the sources are individual game summaries which do not establish the existence of a rivalry. Further, the article notes the teams met five times in the playoffs. While impressive, that is WP:OR in establishing a rivalry. Frank Anchor^Talk 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I move to withdraw the nomination based on the additional secondary sources brought forth by User:Jackmar1 and User:BeanieFan11. The article is still poorly written but these two users have shown that there is enough to establish a rivalry between the two teams. With no “delete” votes present, a non-admin close can be in order.. Frank Anchor^Talk 01:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor^Talk 03:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor^Talk 03:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor^Talk 03:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor^Talk 03:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Jackmar1^Talk

I added two additional sources, one of which describes the Saints as a top five rival of the Vikings and other a Minneapolis Star Tribune article discussing the rivalry. These two teams have played many meaningful games in the last 20 years and there has been lots of chirpiness as the article stated. The Packers & Giants currently have a rivalry page and there is certainly no rivalry there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackmar1 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all of these sources are blogs or local newspapers based on either Minneapolis or New Orleans, which fails WP:LOCAL. Notable rivalries are mentioned as rivalries in national outlets (ESPN, CBS sports, etc.). You also bring up the Packers and Giants having a page even though pointing out other articles is not a valid argument in AFD debates (for what it’s worth, I agree the Giants-Packers page should also be deleted but this debate is for the Saints-Vikings page). Frank Anchor^Talk 15:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have time now but a quick search found this and this: part 1/part 2. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a quote from a Sports Illustrated article (national source) that said "There was major news involving two of the Vikings' biggest rivals, the Packers and Saints, on Sunday."Jackmar1 (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Nottingham Open – Singles

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

0 sources. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 10 minutes in Google found a whole bunch of newspaper sources. Also, can we please stop using AFD as a high stakes source request tool? Iffy★Chat -- 09:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Amerrisique Natural Reserve

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

0 sources. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, source added. And it wasn't hard to find. Geschichte (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Science

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

This appears to be a series of science textbooks. Written as an advert. No secondary sources and none found. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book series clearly isn't notable and the article was created by a now blocked advert account. So there's zero reason to keep this around. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terotechnology

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

The sole reference does not work. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notable term defined everywhere with RS WP:NEXIST Books: Maintenance management and terotechnology and Terotechnology XI and Quality Control and Total Quality Management and Maintenance Management and Terotechnology Lightburst (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article does need significant cleanup—however, the sources Lightburst provided seem to indicate that this isn't a non-notable term, and that it is widely used in technological fields. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Should the film become notable after being released, the content will be available for others to improve and establish notability. Should it fail to garner coverage, it will succumb to WP:CSD#G13. ✗plicit 11:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Christmas Miracle For Daisy (TV Movie)

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

Non-notable television film, lacks significant independent coverage per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 02:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete - So far from passing NFF. No notability. Citations include: the based-on-author's own website, an Instagram post which verified nothing (which I removed), and a single press release on LinkedIn. Platonk (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete - This film does not satisfy film notability either based on reviews or as a future film with notable production. When the film is released, it may be notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2021 SAFF Championship#Final with the option to merge any worthwhile content. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 SAFF Championship Final

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

No need for this separate article, a majority, if not all of the information is located at the main article 2021 SAFF Championship. All other information can be merged. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not needed for one of the most insignificant regional championships in football. Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the info about this page can directly be added to its main article instead of a seperate page. @Sportsfan 1234: Can we also do the same for the previous editions of the tournament? It seems that people just keep on creating stubs due to some of these initial pages. I think if the page does have some pre or post match news or any related info (depicting the possible importance of that edition) then only that page should be kept.--Anbans 585 (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus here to delete, for sure. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect back to 2021 SAFF Championship#Final. Giant Snowman 11:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect back to 2021 SAFF Championship#Final. No need for a separate article with almost no content, it can be added back to the main article. Same for every other year where we have finals for this competition. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Merge/redirect back to 2021 SAFF Championship#Final per Joseph and GS above. Pointless splitting the main article. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge as necessary, as above. It's best to expand the main article and split it if and when there's more WP:DUE information to include than would be DUE for the main article. I don't foresee this game being discussed in so much detail as to require a standalone. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Noting that the nomination and other arguments for deletion have been withdrawn or changed to neutral. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering rules

AfDs for this article:

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

This fails WP:GNG and is a straightforward violation of WP:NOT (a guide). It's not Wikipedia's place to provide rules for games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is literally nothing but a how to guide, and thus is a blatant failure of WP:NOT. An actual overview of the general rules of the game is already included in extensive, but much more succinct and better written, detail at the main Magic: The Gathering article under gameplay. There is nothing really salvageable here that should be merged over, nor am I seeing any reason why there needs to be a WP:SPLIT from the main article. Its probably worth it to also take a look at List of Magic: The Gathering keywords, which is much like this article, only actually worse somehow. Rorshacma (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have numerous similar articles about the rules for other major games and sports and so such articles are clearly acceptable. The nomination is absurdly false claiming this one fails WP:GNG because there are numerous books dedicated to this game and they explicitly cover the rules too. The game is played professionally and so the detailed intricacies and changes naturally attract coverage too. Moreover, as this topic has been nominated repeatedly before but is still here, this is an obvious case of WP:NOTAGAIN contrary to WP:DELAFD: " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." See also policies WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons I specified last nomination. AFD is not cleanup. The article as it stands may not currently have all the features that Rules of Chess has, but there is no reason it couldn't have all those features. The rules are notable in and of themselves because they have a history of changes, and have had commentary been written about them extensively. Just because the article doesn't currently reflect this is no reason to delete it. (summoned by someone thanking me for my previous keep vote) Fieari (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have a lot more faith in that argument if it weren't for the fact that the same argument was made to keep five years ago, and the suggested article improvement never happened. WP:NOT is a policy, and this article failed that policy five years ago, and fails that policy today. Is the consensus really that Wikipedia policies don't matter, and that content that blatantly goes against it should just be kept indefinitely because someday it might be rewritten? And, as I mentioned above, a version of an overview of the rules of the game that doesn't violate policy already exists at Magic: The Gathering#Gameplay, so its not like its being argued that the rules of Magic shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia. It should just be covered in a way that falls in line with our policies, which this article, as a literal how to does not. Rorshacma (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time spent without being cleaned up is not an argument. Again, AfD is not Cleanup. The solution to a bad article that meets notability criteria is not to nuke it from orbit. A subject is either notable or not. This is notable, regardless of its current quality. Is it YOUR suggestion that every single stub quality article on wikipedia be deleted if no one improves it in 5 years? That's not how this works. The policies you cite are not deletion criteria, they are improvement criteria. Fieari (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A stub article can remain a stub and still conform to Wikipedia policy. However, that has no bearing on this AFD as WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for this particular article. You say the policy I cite is not deletion criteria, but criteria #13 of WP:DELREASON states that one criteria for deletion is if an article that falls contrary to the established policy, then there is grounds for deletion. In this case, the entirety of this article falls contrary to WP:NOT. Additionally, notability of a topic alone is not automatically grounds for an independent article, per WP:NOPAGE. In this case, we have a very extensive section on the notable elements of the rules of this game at Magic: The Gathering#Gameplay already. What actual policy based reason is there that would justify a WP:SPLIT into a how to guide? Rorshacma (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable - why? You haven't provided an argument to back up your assertion of WP:ITSNOTABLE. And yes, articles beyond hope can be nuked from orbit (Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over). Given this article is a pure rules summary with nothing showing the topic of MtG rules has received any wider attention, there is nothing to salvage here. And the rules are already much better covered on up to date fan wikis like https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page so there is no information loss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As someone who is quite familiar with MtG, both as a fan and as a scholar who writes about games, I'll also point out that despite MtG being very popular, there is next to no academic research about it, and the little that is is about the community, not the rules. The game is notable enough, but we don't need a 'how-to' summary of its rules that has zero about their reception or significance outside the game itself (and no sources to address this have bene presented here). This is different from chess or go, whose rules have been subject to a zillion of more academic treatments. MtG is still not there. A brief summary of the rules can be included in the main MtG article, but any comparison to chess and such is pretty much WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS. I am also seeing a worse attitude of WP:ITSNOTABLE. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, being a fan of MtG and so on, but folks, if you want this kept, please try to do better with your arguments. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When an encyclopedia covers a game, the rules are a central aspect of it and an essential part of understanding the nature of the game. A valid discussion can be had about whether the rules should be in a separate article or not, but the rules page is long, so summary style is probably appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most other WP pages that cover game rules use third-party sourcing (with some first-party) to show the relative notability/importance of the rules. This page does not. Whether that is possible with MTG's rules to this level of detail throughout, I don't know. --Masem (t) 20:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the rules are a key part of the game and can be covered in an encyclopedic manner.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is bad. Like really bad. The writing isn't great. But the argument that coverage of rules happens all the time here is valid. So the question remains: are their solid, reliable and independent sources that can be used here? If not, this needs to go. A quick search via Google Books turns up stuff from WotC and self-published stuff. Is there anything else out there? If there is, then the only argument for deletion is WP:TNT, and I think the article isn't *that* bad. But if there isn't, we have a problem. I'm not a huge fan of WP:THREE but I think it is useful here... Anyone? Hobit (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this, I note that the main Magic: the Gathering article is a Good Article and does not even have a section called rules, but has one called gameplay. While that GA review was in 2009, the editor who I think was the main driver of GAing this was User:OdinFK, who perhaps could offer some advice on thoughts on whether they think this topic is rescuable, or mergeable (to the main MtG article). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or redirect.~~ Fails WP:NOT (game guide) and is mostly unsourced (WP:V). Sandstein 10:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral after improved sourcing. Sandstein 10:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My perspective on Magic is mostly from within the community, so I wouldn't necessarily know if there are good independent sources. I'm also not really a WP guidelines buff, so I'm not sure of much help I can be. However, I must admit that I don't really see a reason to have a MTG rules article in its current style in the Wikipedia. A condensed explanation of gameplay is very important and should be in the main article. As far as I'm concerned the main MTG article does a good job of explaining the basic concepts. What goes far beyond that clearly seems to violate WP:NOT. If some editors want to salvage this article, then I think it would make sense to zone in more on other things than the game rules themselves. For example an outline of the tournament rules might be sensible. There should be reliable outside sources talking about p.e. the World Championship and while doing that also try to outline how the competition works. Also the history of the rules and how these rules changes were received by the community might be topics that you can find reliable 3rd party sources for. There must be dozens of articles that detailed how Magic was surely going to die when combat damage stopped using the stack. Similar articles would have been written after the M10 rules were announced. OdinFK (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the WikiProject Magic: The Gathering talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

keep: Per the arguments made above. Rules of a vastly popular games become notable in themselves, and there is literature that demonstrates that. If it makes sense to have an article on the Rules of chess (and that one being rated as a Good Article no less!) then there is space for rules of other games to also be considered for notability. On the other hand, I do agree that the article needs improvement. Taking a page from the chess article, the rules of MTG article would benefit from also having a history section. This becomes even more needed in the MTG article because the rules are ever evolving. Further, covering how the rules get decided and changed also mertis coverage. Other section of the chess article include conduct, equipment, and variations. Yes, the article has plenty of room for improvement, but the topic is in itself notable. The wiki community should constructively build upon what already exists, instead of tearing it down. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Using the aforementioned Rules of Chess as a model, I started to reorganize and trim the article. I was able to find a lot of sources explaining basic gameplay mechanics so while I think this article needs a lot of work and additional sources, it is also a salvageable article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While AfD shouldn't be cleanup, the point was raised that cleanup wasn't done after the last AfD. I've started to edit the article, however, the two big areas that still need trimming & sources are the Gameplay and Timing sections. I'm fairly confident that I'll be able to find more sources for the Terminology section but since I don't play this game, some help editing the other sections would be great. Additionally, there's this really useful image (File:Carta Magic Italiano.JPG) explaining components of a Magic card - however, it is in Italian. Does anyone have photoshop ability to translate this into English? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Speaking of other useful images from the Wiki Commons that need translating, here's one (File:Magicarea.png) that shows the various gameplay zones. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, your improvements are very helpful. Before I withdraw my nom, can you point out at least two reliable, independent sources that cover MtG rules in a way that meets SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above, and per WP:HEY[15]. BOZ (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article's sourcing has been massively improved. Props to Sariel Xilo on the cleanup. Mlb96 (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please, don't delete it 🥺 Esaïe Prickett (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd just like to point out that this is the fourth nomination of this article, for this very reason. The article has only improved since then, and survived all three AfD discussion with two "Keep" results and a "No consensus to delete" result in 2008. I'll copy this from the closure of the most recent AfD, in 2016: policy prohibits "how-to style manuals", but it does not cover a mere reproduction of game rules that do not focus on advice how one should play. It seems there's pretty broad consensus that merely being a rule guide (to which MtG is not nearly unique) is not grounds for deletion. MtG is highly notable, and has a complex ruleset—I don't see how it harms the encyclopedia to keep this article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is covered by WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Also, MtG rules are probably subject to copyright so " a mere reproduction of game rules" is not just something that violates GNG and NOTAGUIDE, it also likely violates COPYVIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm still not thrilled that there don't appear to be really strong independent, reliable, sources that cover the entire topic in depth, but the sources in the article now make it clear there are tons of independent, reliable, sources that cover parts of the topic in depth and it can (and is) written without a ton of reliance on non-independent sources (the rules themselves). Huge shoutout to Sariel Xilo on meeting WP:HEY! Hobit (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just dropped an outline over on the article's talk page about areas that still need the most work. What I need help with is reducing some sections to what is actually important & getting rid of stuff that is too nitty gritty. Also, some sections still need secondary sources. I think the area that is going to be the most difficult to source is actually the new History section. I found primary sources on the big rules changes (1994 revised edition, 1995 fourth edition, 1997 fifth edition, 1999 Classic Sixth Edition, Magic 2010 core set) but no secondary sources. Given the age of these updates, coverage might have been offline (game magazines, etc) so this would take some research by another editor. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. The improvements to the article by User:Sariel Xilo, coupled with Talk:Magic: The Gathering rules#AfD_Cleanup_2021, seem to be sufficient to prove this can be salvaged, and in fact has been sufficiently for now - before, it was just a borderline copyvio & game guide/rule dump, now this is shaping much better into what an encyclopedic article should be. I still think we could discuss summarizing this better and merging it to the main article, but it's not a priority. Ping User:Rorshacma and User:Sandstein who also voted for deletion, as my withdrawal cannot be executed if there are any delete votes outstanding. Perhaps you'd be inclined to change your vote as well after reviewing the rewrittena article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I concur, and have stricken my previous recommendation. Given the way the discussion was headed at the end of the initial week, I had actually not expected it to be relisted, so thank you User:Piotrus for the heads up on this. I agree that there is still room for discussion on whether a separate page is needed or if it can be covered on the main article on the game, but my concerns of WP:NOT for this article have been addressed with another excellent job by User:Sariel Xilo. Rorshacma (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Some evidence has been provided that reliable sources have examined the perception of fraudulent claims of virginity, and an article may conceivably be written using those; as most other !votes make clear, though, this article is framed very differently, and runs foul of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in its entirety. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virginity fraud

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

Article is basically original research with elements of WP:ATTACK. PepperBeast (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. If there's anything to be said about the subject of cheating on a "virginity" test, we can say it at virginity test, where we also explain how they are invasive, based on bad biology, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article should be merged with virginity test instead of deleting it, it should be a section there. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Virginity test—it's not that there's no place for some of this material, but certainly not in a standalone article, not like this. Perhaps the singular incident described is actually notable enough for its own article, but that'd be for later. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a disgusting article. The very premise is misogynist in terms of its framing. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect to virginity test. For one, the term "virginity fraud" is a rather WP:POVTITLE. Secondly "virginity fraud" can mean many things. For example, this TED talk is called "virginity fraud" and its really about myths about the hymen. So we might not have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "virginity fraud".VR _talk 16:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and unfortunately, the way the article is currently written, it elaborates on the term as a societal problem rooted in misogyny without even mentioning prejudice against or the commodification of women. The article is junk as is. If discussion of the subject needs to exist anywhere, it is only as a minor chapter in the long and sordid history of virginity testing and violence against women. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic. For example, see Female Fraud: Counterfeit Maidenheads in the Eighteenth Century which starts "Falsified Virginity: a recurring object of representation and concern in eighteenth-century Britain..." and Counterfeiting the Loss of Virginity... Andrew🐉(talk) 17:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 11:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Kartoğlu

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

Sources are repeating what this person says and/or are unreliable "Kimdir?" sources. A beforehand search results in his articles published on Akşam, the newspaper he works for (a.k.a. not independent). No claims of meeting GNG. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looking at the [16] results at least, I don't think it's fair to say that this is a "small result." They seem to be fairly significant Reasonable mind can differ about the sufficiency of the coverage but, at least to me, I think the relevant notability guidelines are met. --عائشة المقدسي (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just copy-pasted what you said here. My response is the same. And didn't I already tell with this sentence that those are not independent: "A beforehand search results in his articles published on Akşam, the newspaper he works for"? ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is the editor-in-chief of a well-known Turkish newspaper Akşam and we have a source from CNN Turkey CNN Türk talking about him and he is a reliable source + Medya Scope https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medyascope --عائشة المقدسي (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are already in the article, and the nomination message applies. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He seems to be a well-known journalist and editor-in-chief of a Turkish newspaper

--Gazeteci Mesut (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)— Gazeteci Mesut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Being 'well-known' is a matter of opinion and has nothing to do with notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between Well-known, Famous and notable.Misasory (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was already suspecting it, but the name of the second account pretty much confirms that this is a sock of User:علي أبو عمر. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 10:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend filing a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/علي أبو عمر if there's enough evidence. I'm not too familiar with this sock farm. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: عائشة المقدسي and Gazeteci Mesut are now both locked. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of both keep voters being blocked as socks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to WP:GNG concerns. Also please consider doing a speedy delete under WP:G5 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Martin

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

Promotional WP:BLP of an ostensible "virtuoso" tuba player that fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. And, in any event, a plausible WP:TNT candidate, given that it mostly consists of an unsourced resume. (Came across this Rex Martin looking for this Rex Martin, who I take it is not the same.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any secondary coverage about him that wasn't copied from the article. Mlb96 (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't seem to pass WP:NMUSICIAN, and I can't find enough independent sources to pass WP:GNG. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the others does not meet GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medebra

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

Sources are mostly sites where you can buy their products, nothing significant (plus a few deadlinks). Doesn't pass WP:COMPANY and likely promotional. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to fix the article and removed a deadlink source and added categories but I agree if the company isn't notable it should be deleted and one secondary source (Cancer Be Glammed) that was cited has absolutely no mention of Medebra on their website. I found this article in the uncategorized articles list but so much of it is hard to understand advertising lingo that I don't understand enough about surgeries to know if is legitimately how the product is used/discussed that I think it should be deleted. This is my first time ever contributing to a deletion discussion though so let me know if I'm wrong in any way. Feralcateater000 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on FeralCatEater000's recent cleanup?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No issues with the cleanup but that's not the biggest problem. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Axia Investments

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

This en.wiki article was created as a new account's 11th edit, moved to draft, rejected and then accepted at AfC. A Wikidata item containing promotional content ("AXIA Investments is a registered brand of the most secure and trusted trading online broker in the MENA region. Start Trading with AXIA Investments." [17]) was created around the same time and there also appears to have been a subsequently deleted ar.wiki article. Regarding this en.wiki article, the references do not appear to rise above listings describing the company's product proposition (though strangely one, the ArabInvest posting, prefaces the product listing with strongly negative paragraphs about the firm). Setting out a company's wares is insufficient to demonstrate attained WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Clearly a promo piece for the company, perhaps by their PR department. And does not pass WP:N given the mixed up nature of the sources they tried to pile up there. Let them do promo elsewhere. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment ok, it looks like an an advertisement, clealy not part of the rulz Esaïe Prickett (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I can see, there only appear to be press releases available or content that simply regurgitates such press releases, so does not pass WP:NCORP, in particular WP:ORGIND Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. scope_creep^Talk 23:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Charig

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the sources on the page are independent of the subject or the subject's employers, except the NYT article about his father. I have done a search and could find no independent sources. This is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion, my apologies if I have done anything wrong. Red Fiona (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Except the NYT the other sources are not independent. Pretty much a WP:PROMO issue and does not pass WP:N. And Red Fiona you did nothing wrong. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Clearly WP:NPF - a vanity page for a minor business figure whose escape from an air accident is close to WP:BLP1E. Worth noting perhaps that almost all of the content was contributed in Jan-Feb 2007, by an editor (10comforts) who has contributed on no other topic at all. Nwhyte (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Puff page written by his own office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianne Farrar-Hockley (talk • contribs) 10:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete The NYT article is his fathers’ obituary, and the Telegraph article on the air accident is behind a paywall - pretty much WP:BLP1E. His current company is a red link. I see on his talk page someone asked if his having a letter published in the local newspaper was noteworthy! - Arwel Parry (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete. While the plane crash is notable - being aboard is not (152 people were on the flight). Nor is the fact of having a father with a wikipedia page. There is really nothing else to see here. Francis Davey (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a classic case of WP:BLP1E who lacks coverage in reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I agree - this seems to be a classic case of what Wikipedia calls a Pseudo-biography; Also, the relationship to his father is by definition an invalid criteria for the Notability test. Mirandafyfe (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete To add to the above, I looked at his LinkedIn page. He was CEO at two defunct companies, neither of which was notable by itself. (N.B. the "Tao Group" on his LinkedIn profile is not the hospitality company.) No other job was particularly notable. Greg (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't usually !vote for deletion but then usually I can find something to add as a citation or proof of notability. I'm not seeing anything here that I'd use if I were writing this article. I don't see it passing WP:BASIC. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 18:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil John Tangborn

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A recipient of the Silver Star is far below WP's notability standards. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC a person's unpublished journal doesn't establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There exist two published memoirs written by the late Wendell Tangborn, American glaciologist, which are Appointment in Amfreville: A Memoir of Virgil Tangborn (Aug 18, 2016) and Wartime Journal: A Memoir of Virgil Tangborn (1938-1944) (Dec 21, 2017). Both are currently available in Kindle editions from amazon.com, and I suggest anyone voting to "Delete" might first spend the nominal sum and time to read one prior to making their marks of deprecation, or even thinking of casting aspersions. I would suggest that a person who thinks that "the Silver Star is far below WP's notability standards" should reconsider the value of both sacrificing one's life and future for one's country, and in helping to save France and the world from Facism. When a statue, such as that honoring Virgil John Tangborn and his three compratriots—"Les Quatre Braves" or "The Four Braves" memorial, dedicated June 4, 2000 in Périers, France—is constructed in honor of those people belittling this hero's contribution to mankind, I might tend more to lend an ear to either their criticisms of the merit this brave heart, or to their ponderous deliberations as to whether Tangborn deserves a few small words of respect in this "most high" Wikipedia.ELApro (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- According to your sentimental argument, my two relatives that served in the Red Army and died on the Eastern Front should have their own articles, despite them having no historical significance. After all, they sacrificed their lives and futures for their country and helped to save the world from fascism, right? Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ELApro two books written by his brother can't be regarded as reliable sources. It's not clear who published either book and I assume they were self-published. The Silver Star does not satisfy #1 of WP:ANYBIO. In relation to the monument, it seems that it was a memorial project by the 90th Division and so I don't see that it counts towards his notability. Mztourist (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would more useful to write about the statue and fold him in there.Nwhyte (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO Silver Star for gallantry - very prestigious award that has only been awarded to a little over 100k individuals out of the many millions who have fought for the US. The man is memorialized in a sculpture. we keep such subjects that easily pass ANYBIO. photo on commons Lightburst (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few newspaper articles that I have found so far. One, Two. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver Star does not satisfy #1 of ANYBIO. One newspaper story about the statue, one about his Silver Star don't satisfy notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good grief, a single Silver Star? By this rationale, are all 100K Silver Star recipients to have an article? Per Nwhyte, if the monument is notable, this could be a redirect to that article, but there is no way this guy meets ANYBIO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And also remember that that's only the US. If we added articles for every other recipient of a ~~second~~third-level decoration worldwide (e.g. the Military Cross), that would add millions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user:Necrothesp The argument which says, we cannot keep this because if we do, we have to create that, does not compute. And if someone creates a sculpture with your likeness and places it in a public space, I will ivote keep on an article about you. We have room, WP:NOTPAPER. Lightburst (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, given your main argument seems to be that he's notable because he was awarded the Silver Star, which you say is a "very prestigious award". Which surely means that everyone else awarded a third-level decoration is also worthy of an article, given that is indeed the only reason he's notable. However, we have deleted many articles on people only notable for being awarded a second- or third-level decoration, so there is great precedent for doing so. Les Quatre Braves is not a memorial to him specifically; it's a memorial to his division. The fact the sculptor chose to depict his likeness is really neither here nor there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A soldier who was killed and won a second-level decoration. I'm afraid that's not sufficient for notability. Millions of others worldwide would fit into this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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