Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 29

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omar & Salma 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced, stub article, non-notable film. Peter Ormond 💬 19:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - add some sources then and WP:Improve - done. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails NFILM. I do not speak Arabic but I looked for sources and Google translated them; only sources I could find were the usual comprehensive databases (which are not reliable), blogs, and the news articles were only passing mentions and not about the film itself. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks in-depth coverage to establish notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFILM and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 23:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as, while he is currently at a club in a fully-pro league, he hasn't yet made his debut. His other stints are at clubs in non-fully pro leagues. Fails WP:GNG as I could only find routine coverage. I would draftify until he makes his pro debut. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per nom - do not move back until he meets the guidelines Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per nom and per Spiderone. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify...wait for it... as per nom :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify, to add more than the per nom pileon, from news articles it seems he won't play until he gets his second COVID vaccine. This news article suggests he'll start playing mid-November when you do the math on when the second shot will happen. Jumpytoo Talk 22:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Creating separate discussion for Bric based on the suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anja Reinke. To reiterate, Bric fails WP:NPOL as a municipal politician who was not formally elected. He also fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON as the owner of a local diner that has received some attention from local/regional publications. If there is no consensus to delete, I would support a redirect to Burbank, California#List of mayors to preserve the page's history. Pinging the following participants from the last AfD: Eastmain, pburka, Bearcat, Beccaynr, and Enos733. KidAd • SPEAK 23:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As I wrote in the previous AFD, the subject fails "WP:NPOL and ... fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. The LA Eater review only contains two sentences that add to our understanding of Bric - that he served as mayor and that he owned the restaurant since 1993. This is far from significant coverage of the subject and I don't think the reviews would pass WP:NORG." --Enos733 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The notability of a mayor requires much more than just minimal verification that they exist as a mayor, and the notability of a restaurateur requires much more than just minimal verification that he exists as a restaurateur — but the sourcing here is almost entirely community hyperlocals that aren't widely distributed enough to count as WP:GNG-making coverage, and the one solid hit from a genuinely major media outlet isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Longwave. Content can be merged (if sourced) to an appropriate article from the history. Sandstein 06:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning what, exactly? Stereorock (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stereorock WP:N and WP:V. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Apparently we have articles about several longwave AM radio frequencies which are supposed to list all the radio stations that broadcast on those frequencies. However, there are apparently no longer any stations that broadcast on 177 AM. It would seem better to me to merge the various longwave frequencies into one article since there aren't many of them and most of them have no more than two stations associated with each frequency. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to an aritcle about longwave broadcasting. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Before any merge happens, we would need verifiability. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Longwave Broadcasting per Oaktree B. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We can't merge an unreferenced article per policy. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Longwave. So far, there are no stations existing in that frequency. Nothing to merge. SBKSPP (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete, no evidence that this frequency is notable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable musician. Fails both WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Sources are either primary, databases or interviews. The best RS found in the article is this: [1]. The second best is this [2] but it is a review of the soundtrack of a non-notable film that goes on to praise the 3 contributors a bit, so I don't think it counts towards GNG. Found nothing else online. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'll start by saying that producers do not usually get write-ups and so the music project should probably come up with specific critera for them (such as volume of work or awards) because we don't have anything other than WP:GNG to reply on. I was fully intending to say delete based on the article itself, but I did WP:BEFORE and was shocked to find that he had a bio at AllMusic, and it's longer than many bands who charted once and so are kept on Wikipedia: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/randall-dunn-mn0000402533/biography. There's also a write-up in a trade magazine: https://tapeop.com/interviews/114/bonus-randall-dunn/ and an interview elsewhere https://thecreativeindependent.com/people/musician-and-producer-randall-dunn-knowing-when-the-time-is-right/ > I stopped looking on Google's page 5, but the hits were getting low as there is a chartered accountant who appears and others, including a hymn writer: https://hymnary.org/person/Dunn_JR1 . Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These refs are very poor for a BLP. One is a profile, one is a interview in a fringe magazine. There is some passing mentions on him, but not much else. Fails WP:SIGCOV and no indication fo passing WP:PRODUCER. scope_creep^Talk 23:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That "fringe magazine" is The Stranger (newspaper). It is hardly fringe, but is a highly notable alternative press which has been in circulation since 1991. It has a circulation of >60,000 and a website that draws 5 million visits per month. Gaff (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Maybe new references were added since article was submitted to AfD? Seems like a notable producer in the "alternative music" scene, with a prolific catalog. Multiple interviews and articles cited from "alternative news" and "indie music" magazines/newspapers, like Seattle's The Stranger and others from different places, so not just a regionally important figure. Gaff (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has a substantial staff written bio in AllMusic and other coverage such as The Stranger and Pitchfork, and passing WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No demonstration of significant coverage nor any honorary or awards due to the subject's impact and contribution. Multi7001 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per source analysis by Atlantic306. There's enough coverage here to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable BLP with primary sources or other poor sourcing. Fails GNG – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of generation I Pokémon. Although the numbers are close (2:1), the arguments against keeping are stronger: the "keep" opinions do not substantively address or rebut the other side's arguments that there is not substantial coverage in reliable sources. I have to discount the IP comment because the IP was blocked as an open proxy. Sandstein 07:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable Pokemon with no real-world notability. Propose redirecting to List of generation I Pokémon. Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per nom - coverage is purely trivial in nature. The film, which seems notable, should be moved to primary and the former article/redirect moved to Haunter (Pokémon) instead._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per ZXCVBNM's comment Timur9008 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the nominator wants to have this article merged or redirected with consensus to List of generation I Pokémon instead of actually having it deleted, a merge proposal should have been made instead. No argument on whether it fails WP:SIGCOV and thus WP:GNG was actually advanced, and no analysis or review of extent coverage is provided, only an opinion of whether the subject should be notable. Haleth (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is sourced by reliable sources that indicate notability. The nom's comments that this subject has "no real-world notability" seems to be based upon subjective opinion, not policy; the sources and coverage in secondary sources establishes notability per WP:N and WP:RS. I also agree with the above comment that if a merge/redirect is being requested by the nom, that should be done via a merge proposal rather than AFD. — Hunter Kahn 15:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point me to some RS that indicate notability? I do not see that any of the references in the article show SIGCOV about this Pokemon, besides being an entry in the "list of best Pokemon" or a "list of ghost Pokemon", or game notes, etc. Most of the coverage is just trivial or mentions in list articles. Natg 19 (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yet another IDONTLIKEIT. Why area large number of users confused about notability? Dagana4 (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well, per Haleth's reasons. The sources that has been presented probably already meets WP:GNG, its just people who scrutinized Pokemon articles like this too much. 189.223.178.58 (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon. If you want to know why the nominator didn't make this a "merge" proposal, the above "keep" comments are why. I don't see a single source in this article that can be construed as significant coverage. The character is either mentioned as a routine Pokemon or in trivial detail from puff press. A redirect would suffice. Feel free to merge anything else you deem appropriate. czar 02:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon Just not seeing the needed detailed coverage here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - The sources are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Trivial mentions and Top X lists are not significant coverage. TTN (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm going to go against the grain here, but I feel that even with small mentions regardless if they're lists or not if there's enough people giving reactions especially given how large Pokemon's cast is, that shows a sign of notability. The article does need improvement and better resources and statements to emphasize notability, but I disagree that it fails WP:N outright.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect if Haunter's not notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, it should be redirected to List of generation I Pokémon. 🎧⋆JennilyW♡🎶 (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of generation I Pokémon. As I said before, few Pokemons meet GNG - most have just passing mentions in various lists, and information on gameplay in various games. No source cited is reliable and contains a wP:SIGCOV-meeting discussion of this, we get at most a sentence or two here and there, and the sources are low-quality click-baits, the best of which is "Pokemon: 10 Things You Never Knew About Haunter". I am increasingly despairing about the proliferation of such soft news in this topic area, which are IMHO no more reliable than blogs - I very much doubt such articles receive any editorial oversight, they are mass-produced and instantly forgettable, and little better than WP:DAILYMAIL. I think merging such content into a list is a valid compromise, least we get swamped by a flood of articles on minor video game or other fictional entities which contain no scholarly or criticial analysis, just plot summary, gaming 'how-to', trivia, and few sentences or the de-facto blogger's own opinion about the character. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments that the cited sources are unreliable have not been rebutted. Sandstein 06:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not sure this hits GNG. None of the sources cited are listed at WP:VGRS, which is never a good sign, and I didn't find anything better on a search. Metacritic has nothing.

Source analysis:

• Bonus Stage - in-depth but questionable reliability - looks like a blog, only one staff member listed
• SwitchWatch is a defunct blog, not RS
• GMA News - unclear reliability, frankly a lot of it looks like marketing copy/press release with no actual review content
• Gaming Boulevard looks okay reliability-wise, and I've started a discussion about it at WT:VG
• NintendoReporters is merely a database listing with copy from the dev's website, no independent content
• Nintendad is a defunct gaming blog, not RS
• Dev's own defunct site - not RS for notability purposes

I'm fine to withdraw if people feel the other review sites I've marked as questionable are actually RS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I wasn't able to find a single reliable non-trivial coverage of this game. It's also quite a feat for a Nintendo Switch release to be ignored both by Nintendo Life and Nintendo World Report (who are very active reviews wise), but this one did it. Cited references seem to be all from unreliable/questionable at best sources, spot on analysis by the nominator. It's simply a clear fail of WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found one piece of non trivial coverage for the game here but it's definitely not enough to put it over the edge in terms of notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Found nothing on this one. Neither on Newspapers.com or elsewhere. Timur9008 (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources from Bonus Stage, Gaming Boulevard, Touch Arcade and GMA News are reliable. The latter is a major local media outlet like ABS-CBN News and The Philippine Star. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the game: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 18:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What would you say makes Bonus Stage reliable in the face of what I pointed out above? As for the sources you list - WeThePvblic is a low-impact two-person blog (not reliable) and of the gaming-focused other sites, DiceNDPads, Unpause.Asia, HappyGamer, Noypigeeks, GadgetPilipinas are all absent from VGRS and none have any of the hallmarks of reliability. Notpigeeks and GadgetPilipinas in particular are basically all marketing copy ("this game has X and Y features!"), not critical commentary. TouchArcade is reliable but it's a scant paragraph. If the best source available is a scant paragraph on TouchArcade, I'm satisfied that this fails GNG badly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with Premeditated Chaos, pretty much spot on everything (will add that GMA News while reliable isn't anything more than a trivial WP:ROUTINE "now out" release coverage). I'd recommend Astig to look at WP:VG/RS before calling random blogs as reliable. If we were the include all these sources mentioned, almost all games would be notable for Wikipedia. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources pointed out and presented by Astig. They're non-trivial and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the blogs linked by Astig above meet WP:VG/RS or project reliable source standards. No reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, no journalism experience, no educational pedigree. czar 20:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 19:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentation in petrochemical industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a clear article, and unclear how it meets WP:N/ Boleyn (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's very clear how it meets WP:N – there are entire books on the topic such as Instrumentation and Controls in the Oil and Petrochemical Industries or Instrumentation in the Chemical and Petroleum Industries. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I feel like we should just keep copy-pasting "Keep per WP:BEFORE", "Keep per WP:BEFORE", "Keep per WP:BEFORE" over and over again until particular editors finally get the message. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the article is not clear then I suppose it could be tagged suitably but it would be far better to raise the difficulties on the talk page. Please do this. It is certainly not a criterion for deletion. Personally, I think the article's text is adequately clear. I am staggered that anyone might think that notability is not clear since there are multiple in-depth independent reliable sources. Because I find the rationale so weird I am unable to rebut it. Thincat (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep. The topic is clearly notable: the article is about the complex equipment used to monitor oil and natural gas extraction, storage, transportation and refining processes. There is a bit of a problem with the article as it stands, in that it doesn't provide a clear explanatory framework for the topic, doesn't clearly explain to non-experts why this is a notable subject, and doesn't put the instrumentation requirements in the context of the processes that they monitor. Does Wikipedia have a Wikiproject on Control Engineering? If so, this is clearly an article for them to work on. If not, can we encourage the main engineering Wikiprojects to get a couple of experts to look at this? Anyway, clearly notable and important topic. Needs a lot of work, but should be kept. RomanSpa (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is a bit odd as far as wiki article goes as it is basically a descriptive list, but sometimes that's what is called for. It is still noteable, is sufficiently cited, and there aren't any other articles that would render this redundant. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 05:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; very awkwardly written, to be sure, and some of the content needs to go. Nonetheless, a lot of what's here is quite well-cited, and it's obviously a noteworthy topic. jp×g 10:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Value Wine Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Some coverage, but not enough significance to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Canadian Wine Annual and/or create Wine Magazine (Canada) and merge both there. I think both are probably notable, but more work is needed Star Mississippi 00:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough content to even merge, & too promotional to be worth trying. . I would have considered this a viable speedy. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 19:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grimm's Hollow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

De-PROD'd with two references added, but in my opinion, coverage is still insufficient to pass WP:GNG. KeenGamer is unreliable per WP:VGRS, and Medium is red-carded unreliable on WP:RSP as a blog-hosting service. So those two references are out.

Moving on to reliable sources: the PC Gamer article is a few scant paragraphs, and RPS is only a sentence with a screencap. The Escapist article is quite lengthy, but it's the only source with any substance. Nothing else of significance found on the VGRS search engine.

With only one article of any substance about the subject, I don't think we can call this notable under the GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm gonna lean on the very weak side here. I agree with the nominator on pretty much everything said regarding the sources: PC Gamer one is not much at all, Rock Paper Shotgun is a mere screenshot thing, and I removed the mentioned KeenGamer + Super Jump from the article. However, I was able to find an actual PC Gamer magazine-only coverage that counts towards WP:GNG easily in [9], along with an article in The New Indian Express [10]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Jovanmilic. With the discussed sources, definitely passes GNG. I'd also like to add that the removed article for "non-reliability" was not just a random Medium blog but a gaming magazine with an editorial team._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The PC Gamer (for the website one, there is more than WP:100WORDS of analysis which in my view is enough for WP:SIGCOV), Escapist, and Indian Express articles are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 21:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. E. Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. Scolaire (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the most we can say about someone is that they wrote a handful of journal papers, sourced to bare citations of those papers, then they're not notable. Searching Google Scholar for "author:me-mitchell lichen" finds a few more papers, but with an h-index of 3 they don't pass WP:PROF#C1 and there is no sign of any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unref blp - minimal participation in last AfD 11 years ago. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don’t see any coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:BLPSOURCES --—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 19:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worthington-New Haven State Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no indication that this road even comes close to meeting our minimum requirements for notability. The only source is a random blog entry that has not been updated since 2003. I could not find anything else. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—unless someone can find any more sources, this fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 16:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. The seemingly self-published reference appears to be derived from an article, complete with map, in Columbus Dispatch's Sunday Magazine in 1968 (not available only, except for the article reproduced on roadfan.com). I added that 1968 article, as well as reference to the road in 1820 legislation and a 1917 book, History of transportation in the United States before 1860. Besides, we have lots of articles on other notable roads. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the improvements made by Eastmain -- what I am seeing now appears to pass GNG. jp×g 09:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. Improved significantly since nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since article is much better now, after multiple improvements.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No references in the article, the two external links are to the websites of ProfNet and its parent company PR Newswire. I can only find examples of trivial coverage and press releases on Google. Pahunkat (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per nom, fails WP:NCORP --Whiteguru (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google Scholar search isn't helpless. This looks reasonably independent and in-depth, as does this, and this looks okay. There's also a master's thesis from 2000 that I can't access at the moment, maybe not as great as a peer-reviewed paper but more than nothing. Between that and a Google Books search, it was easy to go from zero references to five, and I haven't tried JSTOR yet. Looks like a merge candidate at worst, and there's a ready merge target already suggested. XOR'easter (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McCarthy (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Had success, but doesn't pass the threshold. Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abid Ullah Jan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:BLPN. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find any good sources for this one. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Geschichte (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

non notable singer fails WP:GNG. References do not show the notability of the topic. also fails. JeepersClub (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, One of his songs appeared on national chart so, passing WP:MUSICBIO#2. Fekkup (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Nominator is now blocked as sockmaster. Geschichte (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom is a blocked sock. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotion of an Indian Fintech company. Lacks in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. References are anouncements or Press Releases. fails WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. JeepersClub (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:NOTABILITY. Article has been deleted three times via CSD A7. I want to reach a consensus once and for all. If Wikipedia:NOTABILITY is not met, then salting the page is suggested. A similar draft article exists at Draft:Sudip Lamichhane. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Two out of four references are completely wrong and one is dead. Could not verify if the subject really won the awards. Even if he did win, these are very small scale local awards and cannot be considered WP:N. nirmal (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not seeing anything in reliable sources. Article doesn't claim anything that would make the subject notable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG upcoming not notable as this point a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of India by education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:LISTN (and WP:V for the most part). I can't find any evidence that this is a common way to discuss this group in reliable sources through a quick search either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not demonstrated that this is not a trivial intersection. Geschichte (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete improper cross-comparison here, it's not demonstrated that the alumni status of Indian presidents (a largely ceremonial office, anyhow) is notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOTSTATS. Also has several WP:BLP, such as the lack of references for Pratibha Patil's entry. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:TRIVIA and mostly incomplete as well. Ajf773 (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:LISTN because it does not appear that educational backgrounds of Indian presidents have been discussed as a group in reliable sources. Edge3 (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any group of people can theoretically be listed by any number of parameters. However, most of those combinations of groups and parameters constitute WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. In order for such a list to make for a valid stand-alone article, there needs to be a good reason why that particular group should be listed by that particular parameter. Otherwise, WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that there is a good reason to list this group by this parameter. TompaDompa (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a WP:BEFORE yielded nothing. Geschichte (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nominator, article does not exhibit notability--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree, non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nice catch, user:Boleyn!--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York University in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nothing more than various lists of NYU in pop culture combined into one article. References for some items are given, but no references are given to show the notability of the topic as a whole. Zoozaz1 talk 15:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 talk 15:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 talk 15:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 talk 15:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even worse than some of the WP:IPC articles I've nominated for deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply not notable at all. --RamotHacker (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Some coverage, but I'm not convinced it is enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simply not notable at all --RamotHacker (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kotikalapudi Govinda Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject fails NPOL. Nothing were found on a WP:Before Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that there seems to be another misplaced article at the talk page, Talk:Kotikalapudi Govinda Rao. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - hardly any coverage in English and pretty much none in Telugu. Definitely not notable. MSG17 (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being president of a political party's local organizing committee in one municipality is not an WP:NPOL-passing role, and the sourcing isn't good enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu as it's referenced entirely to the party's own self-published content about itself rather than any discernible evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media independent of himself. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet NPOL and lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and is unelected so fails WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by AP1 TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The TV channel itself is barely Notable. So, I don't see why we'd need a sub-article or be able to support one with independent sourcing. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because WP:NOTDIR. Any notable programs can be merged with AP1 TV. nirmal (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above and per WP:NOTTVGUIDE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD, Fails WP:NFOOTBALL not having played at the required levels yet. The coverage seems to be transfer news about being a Bangladeshi signing for different clubs, in my opinion not meeting WP:GNG JW 1961 ^Talk 13:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 ^Talk 13:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 ^Talk 13:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 ^Talk 13:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, coverage about youths tends to be insignificant, seeing as his career in itself is very insignificant. Geschichte (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Agree that coverage is routine. GiantSnowman 21:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons already stated. It might turn out to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, that's up to him, but at the moment, he doesn't belong here. Montgomery15 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Born in Bangladesh and England? Finch14 (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

An article on a non-notable businessperson which relies exclusively on sponsored coverage. The DNA article has a disclaimer at the bottom that says "This is featured content". Other articles carry similar disclaimers/tags: Hindustan Times "Brand Post", Mid Day "Partnered Content", Zee News "Featured Content". APN News and Nestracklive are unreliable sources that are notorious for publishing paid-for spam. The previous AFD had four keep votes from IP editors and a rather suspicious non-admin closure by a newbie editor. M4DU7 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Nothing more to say. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ugh, I thought this was deleted already. Lots of paid for publicity but no actual independent coverage. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nomination non-notable businessman. Bapinghosh (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it was established in previous discussion that he is notable and meets guidelines. I don't know why to repeat the activity and sudden influx of Indian editors with grudge seems suspicious. Anyways, I stand with my point like previous discussion, he is notable businessman in his state and sources are local in his local language which we can't read. Gondulfo Cortesi (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG. A simple search in Hindi language brought a lot of coverage. For example, recently he has received an award, not sure if this alone can make him pass WP:ANYBIO, but sources are there. 82.129.105.133 (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP The person is notable and has featured in many news and magazines. One of the independent sources I found is here https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/outlook-spotlight-big-day-for-rohit-ugale-young-businessman-award-at-international-glory-awards-by-sonu-sood/393499 and easily passes WP:BIO Georgetgeorge 17:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another obvious undisclosed PR blurb (that too conveniently published less than 24 hours ago), taking this excerpt from it for example; "SATMAT Group has been consistently working on the way of development in the field of IT. They have been collaborating with investors and other companies for enhancing their work. Started in 2017 from a very small application today, SATMAT is a company providing IT solutions for people to make their work easy and quick."
    The Outlook magazine CEO has also admitted to entering into agreements to provide paid news coverage (and attempted to defend it), so there's that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Two WP:SPAs and an IP editor who has never edited. That is non-notable business award. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This appears to be a promotional advertorial article with sources that seem like paid PR "news"placement. WP:GNG fail. The SPAs do not help credibility here. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the last source says it all: Know more about Tamas Boruah, the man behind verd media. Byline: BrandMedia.01:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, as no one has been able to provide WP:THREE sources towards WP:GNG. I also want to add a request that regardless of result, only an admin close this nomination, in order to avoid any possible appearance of irregularity. BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marie Ahanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP subject does not meet WP:NARTIST- notability is largely inherited from his former band Les Têtes Brulées. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gangaraju Gunnam. czar 00:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just Yellow Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about a film studio that doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. The only link in the article is from LinkedIn which is obviously not reliable. This is the second nomination. Riteboke (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per the nomination. The article clearly fails WP:NCORP. The previous AFD was also a delete. --Sreeram Dilak (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gangaraju Gunnam, its founder/owner. Organization may not be notable on its own but can be covered in the target article. Preferred over deletion per WP:ATD-R. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Agree, redirect to Gangaraju Gunnam as per ATD HighKing⁺⁺ 20:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Devika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable as per WP:NACADEMIC. The subject is merely a university teacher with some publications. doesn't fulfill the wiki criteria. Also, many of the sources indicated in the article is not independent of the subject Arjunashokj (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 in a low citation field. Some strange behavior by nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Please revert from personal comments and abuses. we can argue logically, i suppose. (Arjunashokj (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Enough published reviews, of both her original books and her translations, to pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Repeated deletion attempt amounting to vendetta and vandalism. NPOV to be preserved. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 06:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Citations are quite high for the field and she has an h index of 20 https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=8b1xY5oAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra Lainx (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The case for WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reviews of multiple works brings me to a weak keep. While the case for WP:NPROF C1 would not necessarily convince me on its own, it certainly helps support the NAUTHOR case, and me to a solid keep. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes NPROF and NAUTHOR Furius (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep J Devika is a notable writer and academic from Kerala especially feminist point of view. But mainstream lefts will not agree with this. --Vicharam (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there's sustained coverage.Acrols (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. Don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH Asketbouncer (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Asketbouncer (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article about a defunct British community radio station has very few citations and is not of high quality. It does not establish notability. It also appears to be attracting a large number of contentious edits along with other vandalism and inappropriate content. Flip Format (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The station now appears to broadcast under the name Beat 103. The Preston FM article is attracting fairly significant amounts of vandalism apparently from people involved with the station. The whole thing needs to be deleted or cleaned up significantly. Flip Format (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Licenced radio stations are usually notable. I added some references. The source of some of the news references, Blog Preston, despite its name, appears to be a reputable news site. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Plenty of independent references and, as said by Eastmain, licenced radio stations, both current and former stations, are usually notable. Rillington (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the work put in by Eastmain. NemesisAT (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as having met the WP:GNG—which, per consensus, is the appropriate guideline for determining radio station notability. As a note, information on the Beat Radio/City Beat era, if belonging to the same licence, would also belong here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does the article potentially need a move to Beat 103 and an update to include information on the current station operating under the licence? I can confirm that it's the same licence as the former Preston FM, CR000158. Flip Format (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Flip Format, yes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, Sammi Brie, I withdraw this nomination and will work to update the existing article, as I have just done with Your FM. Flip Format (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Looks like an advertisement. Do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG DMySon (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*I Withdrawn this nomination after improving the article and added new references by Beccaynr. DMySon (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at minimum per WP:NMUSICOTHER; I am still working on adding sources from ProQuest, but per sources added to the article, she appears to be frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture, and per WP:NPROF, she has several honorary professorships in addition to her current role as an Associate Professor at the College of Charleston. On ProQuest, there are multiple reviews of her performances from a variety of independent and reliable sources that support WP:MUSICBIO#1 e.g. Reinthaler, Joan. "Boris Slutsky's Piano Poetry". The Washington Post, 21 Oct 1998: D08; Kristin E. Palmer "THREE STARS, ONE FINE SHOW". Anchorage Daily News. 19 Nov 1996: F.3.; PHILIP MUNGER "VIRTUOSOS EARN TITLE, AUDIENCE EARNS SCORN". Anchorage Daily News. 27 Sep 1995: F.1.; Haskell, Loretta. "Final Charleston Music Fest concert uplifting" The Post and Courier. 30 Mar 2009: A.2.; Hubbard, George. "Symphony's 'Women' delightful". The Post and Courier. 18 Feb 2007: A2.; and there is Review: Natalia Khoma commands Bach Cello Suites (Post and Courier, 2015), Music Review: National Symphony of Ukraine hits the right balance (Telegram & Gazette, 2020), as well as coverage that supports WP:MUSICBIO#9, Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition, e.g. Ashley, Dottie. "Bard's characters come to life" The Post and Courier. 21 Oct 2007: I2. (e.g. "A native of Ukraine, Khoma won top prizes at the All-Ukrainian Competition in 1981, the Budapest Pablo Casals Competition and the Belgrade International Cello Competition. She has performed with leading ensembles throughout the world."), Review: Bach cello suites get virtuoso treatment from Natalia Khoma (Post and Courier, 2013, "Among her accolades are wins at the Budapest Pablo Casals Competition (1985), the Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow (1990) and the Belgrade International Cello Competition (1990)."). Beccaynr (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable person; does not meet WP:GNG. Htanaungg (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - could not find anything other than the one article already cited indicating a WP:BIO fail. Strong COI surrounding this person. See also Liakat Ali (Artist), MD Liakat Ali, Liakat Ali and the numerous versions in user and draft spaces. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable by given criteria, reliable references can't be found.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as an A7, "he tries to express his feelings through outstanding compositions and colors" is just a load of promotional bollocks. Loafiewa (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Anderson Creek (Pennsylvania). Daniel (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Run (Anderson Creek tributary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not pass WP:GEOLAND. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Anderson Creek (Pennsylvania). Most of the content consists of run-of-the-mill geology, natural history, etc which is best covered as part of the larger article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

non notable news website fails WP:GNG. Can't see the enough reliable References to prove notability. DJRSD (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

*Keep DJRSD Take a look at some of the international sources quoted by this media --Journalistiran (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)^[1][2][3][4] Blocked sockpuppet of Mostafa.amiri.62. ✗plicit 08:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, there were insufficient sources for me to be sure it was notable Mardetanha (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Censorship_in_Iran. Media in Iran is controlled by the government, and nothing in the article is indicative of independent notability. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It is well known according to the linked sources--Mohammadjournalist (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of Mostafa.amiri.62. ✗plicit 08:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I use Vananews as one of the honest sources in Iran. It is working for more than 7 years and also provides RSS in different categories. --Amirvahidroudsari (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of Mostafa.amiri.62. ✗plicit 08:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I know Vananews since 5 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostafa.amiri.62 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This website has much numbers of viewers from variety countries based on Alexa rank and audience geography. H-Pianist (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of Mostafa.amiri.62. ✗plicit 08:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Possible sockpupetry in this discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an SPI. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of reliable sources indicates article is not notable.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-notable news website.Mahdiar86 (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Successful person, but doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While he seems to be above average in some parameters among Russian scientists in his field, it's not clear that his contributions to the field as a whole are notable. I am not sure how we handle "locally-above-average" when it comes to scholarly impact; I would be disinclined to keep despite his comparative advantage against his coauthors since I feel this would be equivalent to considering only a very narrow subfield. However, I'm not that confident in my perception of what the field-at-large averages are so input from someone adjacent to it would be welcome (Hannes Röst?).

• delete I dont see a reason to treat scientists within a purely local context, a scientific contribution is equally important no matter who and where in the world it is made. Also looking at his MA profile I do see many publications but few with a strong impact as per analysis above (already the 5th paper has 28 citations only and a total of 220 papers are listed for the subject but an h-index of 17 speaks to a lower number of quality papers). I cannot see the argument here for WP:NPROF#1. Even the most cited paper Colao et al on double pulse LIBS is included as a listing in a review of LIBS as a key paper but not singled out, so probably not truly a landmark paper: "Fortunately, several very informative reviews and key papers have been written by leading groups in this field [double pulse LIBS], in addition to a few modeling papers (see, for example, Babushok et al., 22 Noll et al., 307 Scaffidi et al., 325 Mao et al., 317 Colao et al., 301 Corsi et al., 306 Piñon and Anglos, 335 De Giacomo et al., 26,333 Bogaerts et al., 165 and Rai et al. 167 )". --hroest 11:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tokugawa Ieyasu. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bio of a child who died aged six and has no claim of notability other than being a son of Tokugawa Ieyasu. A previous redirect to that article was undone, but I think that was probably the best alternative to deletion. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Tokugawa Ieyasu. no notability stand alone. Peter303x (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with above, subject alone is not notable, yet it can be merged and redirected to mentioned article.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a historic figure so there is no WP:BLP concern. Member of a major noble ruling family and heir of the great ruler Hiraiwa Chikayoshi, and he did stuff, as witnessed in our article. Noble politics and intrigue, but that does make him notable. Moreover his tomb is now a historical interest landmark in Japan [11], [12] and also featured in a Japanese newspaper as offline see [13]. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VocalIndia: I’m not sure what you mean. He didn’t “do stuff” because was a child of six. The newspaper articles you’ve found are for a different Matsudaira Senchiyo, more commonly known as Matsudaira Tadanao, who definitely did stuff and was notable. Both born in the same year but not the same individual. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I'm not sure for offline paper because I can't read it. According to this entry (used machine translation), " A samurai figure from the Azuchi-Momoyama period.", "Senchiyo became the adopted son and heir of Shinkichi." and "If Senchiyo is a long-time life, it is unusual for his brother to become his brother's family elder, so there is a possibility that there was a change in the relationship between the Owari domain Isthon and the Ierohiraiwa family." It is showing that he is significant for Inuyama Domain even he was a child. VocalIndia (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok the link in your comment above is to the correct Senchiyo, but it’s to someone’s blog. Mccapra (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and the quote you mention says that Senchiyo’s younger brother Tokugawa Yoshinao later became Lord of the very powerful Owari domain (notable), and that if Senchiyo had lived, he would possibly have been made Lord of Owari instead, because it would have been unusual for a younger son to be favoured over an older one. That is an interesting piece of “what if” by the blog author, but it isn’t a claim if notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Exists, but I couldn't find that they meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND from a Google search, or from their articles in other languages. Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No hits, no awards, only passing mention in reliable sources and almost none of those. Yappy2bhere (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find nothing beyond the usual streaming/retail sites hosting some of their songs. No evidence of any significant media notice. Note that the group's frontman can also be found at Laserdance and Koto (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NBAND and WP:GNG after a thorough search. gidonb (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above. I also can not find anything to guarantee band's notability.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that the provided sources do not constitute independent coverage of this topic is convincing. A merger has been proposed, but does not have clear consensus; if independent sourcing of any sort is found, I would entertain draftification requests for the purposes of developing content towards a merger. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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