Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 5

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 04 December 06 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renslow, Washington

Renslow, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another ex-Milwaukee Road rail spot with nothing around except a really prime steel trestle crossing the interstate and carrying the John Wayne Pioneer Trail, which you can access here. Not for acrophobes though, and a trestle isn't enough to get notability. Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 5 December 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 23:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Vanuatu relations

Spain–Vanuatu relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. There is really very little to these relations, even the article states "Bilateral relations, both politically and commercially, between Spain and Vanuatu are scarce." The fact that Vanuatu was sighted by an European in 1606 is covered in Vanuatu#Arrival_of_Europeans_(1606–1906). LibStar (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Student Name Professor Writing 15 April 2024 FitOn FitOn is a digital fitness app that individuals can download on their phone on the app store, on a computer, or on a television. Lindsay Cook launched FitOn in January of 2019. Cook created FitOn to fix problems that she faced in her own life when trying to find time to workout. Owing to being a busy mom and having a full- time career, Cook felt as if she could never schedule a time to go to a gym in person and workout. Cook’s love for the world of fitness, health, and technology, allowed her to succeed throughout her career, including as a VP of Product Marketing at Microsoft. Cook’s passion and determination allowed her to also succeed in creating the fitness platform FitOn, which quickly grew to 6 million users in under 18 months (Robert). For any person looking for an easy to use and very detailed fitness and wellness app, FitOn is an incredible option. The purpose of FitOn is to allow consumers to easily access different workout classes, personalized meal plans, recipes, and articles, all from the convenience of their technological devices (Bell). Many classes can be completed without equipment and in the convenience of the customer's home, making FitOn easily accessible. Thereby allowing more people to work out when on a tight schedule. FitOn has many different workouts all in one place such as unlimited pilates, cardio, strength, and yoga, allowing many different types of workouts to be completed. The app has different motivational workout plans, calendar reminders, and features that encourage customers to want to use the app every day. The main reason that Cooks and others suggest using FitOn is that if an individual struggles with sticking to a fitness routine they should try out FitOn. The app allows you to workout with family and friends without any cost and focuses on the customer's experience. Most fitness apps retain 15% of users in the first 30 days and FitOn has been able to retain 4 times that due to focusing on the actual experience and lasting engagement (Robert). The app's ability allows users to sync their calendar to get reminders for when their workout class is starting. The classes require no or minimal equipment, making it easy for someone to join, and creating motivating ways to track a user's progress. FitOn markets the app in many different ways. The app uses many celebrities and trainers to host different workout classes. This includes Julianne Hough, Cassey Ho, Kenta Seki, Gabrielle Union, and many others (Bell). The app also markets and promotes it on social media platforms including TikTok and Instagram. FitOn has over 800,000 followers on Instagram, so the app uses this to consistently post and create new trends and hashtags. On TikTok, FitOn consistently posts fun and engaging workout videos that connect with people and convince them to join. The FitOn app caters to users of different fitness levels by allowing them to choose their starting level - beginner, intermediate, or advanced. This personalization ensures the workouts are appropriate and accessible for each user. The app also features a variety of instructors teaching the classes, making it easy for users to find an instructor they connect with and understand. Additionally, the ability to progress from beginner to advanced levels within the app allows users to seamlessly transition as they improve their fitness, keeping the workouts challenging but still approachable. This level of personalization and variety in instructors and difficulty levels changes the user experience, making FitOn an inclusive and motivating fitness platform. When a user downloads the app, the user is immediately connected and asked to choose what level they would like to start at, including beginner, intermediate, or advanced. The app then asks the user how many times a week the user plans to work out, and what type of classes the user would like to include dance, cardio, meditation, yoga, pilates, toning, kickboxing, and strength. FitOn allows you to automatically connect with community groups like meal preppers, newbies, yoga lovers, and private parties. Then, you can select what devices to connect with which automatically builds your personalized program and picks a program based on the user's interest. This allows for the user to begin classes right away, find a meal plan, and connect to the workout community. FitOn makes money in three different ways. First, through the subscription called FitOn Pro, secondly by selling FitOn merchandise, and lastly by selling exclusive courses. The FitOn Pro allows for users to gain access to exclusive programs, a larger variety of customized meal plans and recipes personalized for the user. It also allows for the user to access premium music, which allows an individual to connect to their own Spotify or Apple music during classes. The subscriptions also allow offline downloads, allowing users to see real time heart rates. FitOn Pro costs $34.99 for 6 months subscription or $39.99 for a year. FitOn Shop allows users to buy branded FitOn apparel and accessories at a cost of $20- $99. FitOn exclusive courses, which consist of 12 available courses ranging from classes on yoga and fitness to classes on nutrition, start at $19.99 per course (Rose). Lindsay Cook app is successful due to many factors including allowing the app to engage users right away, creating workouts that fit the user's interests, and meal plans that are right for that particular user. This allows the user to create a scheduled workout routine. Cook succeeds in getting users to keep coming back each week for their scheduled workouts and conveniently connecting the user with a routine. Right away, this app works on determining the user’s interest to ensure the best applicable routine, which allows the user to see what routine works best for them. Over time, this allows for the user to progress from beginner to intermediate, and finally advanced. By users having the flexibility to make a workout as long as they like and at whatever skill level, during whichever days' work best for them, the user has an opportunity to find a personal exercise routine, no matter how busy their schedule is. Success doesn't just come from the workout classes; it also comes from the personalized meal plans and recipes. By allowing users to answer a few questions, it creates a well-planned out meal prep for every day of the week. Hence, it makes it easily accessible for users to find what they're looking for during the week and what type of foods they should be having. Overall, the success of this app comes from the high-quality videos, free access to all of the workouts, easy accessibility, offline workouts with the Pro version, access on different devices, and meal planning. All of these options being available from the comfort of the user's home, demonstrate why FitOn is successful and popular. The FitOn fitness app has helped me in achieving my health and fitness goals and I am grateful for its contributions to my journey to a better life. By being involved in the matter for a period, I will boast three main aspects of its impact on my life with positive connotations. To begin with, the personalized nature of FitOn app was also the most essential aspect that helped me in attaining my goals of fitness. Once I have installed the app, I have seen that I have been asked to input my current fitness level, what kind of workouts do I enjoy and my main goal. Following these details, I received from FitOn a customized workout and meal plan, which were formatted in correspondence with my particular needs. "It may require altering previous patterns of eating and implementing new eating behaviors, which requires motivation for a healthy lifestyle and may also require participation in exercise programs (Franz pg.490)." This level of personalization is the vital point in the fact that it keeps me stripped and motivated as I believe that the workouts and nutritional advice correspond with my peculiar needs. Secondly, the app offers great convenience and accessibility, making it a game-changing tool for my fitness routine. As an individual who is quite busy, I often struggle to find the time to commute to a gym. Nonetheless, the FitOn app has helped me access high-quality workout classes that I can utilize for my training. It has brought the gym to my house and at times the workplace where I can train and workout on my own time. Gaur et al. (pg. 1554) backs this argument by stating “fitness apps have simplified our lives and enable users to record their regular activities. As a result, they become more dedicated to their workouts and overall fitness. "The ability to seamlessly integrate exercise into my daily life has removed many of the barriers and even increased my productivity in terms of my workout. Moreover, it has allowed me more leeway to maintain a consistent workout regimen. Lastly, the sense of community fostered by the FitOn app has been a significant source of support for me. It has made me feel inclusive in a community and has ensured I am accountable for my workout and fitness. Sulin Ba et al. , pg. (942) states that “many digital health communities have emerged to do exactly that: promoting a healthy lifestyle and encouraging people to exercise more.” Through the app, I have also been able to connect with like-minded individuals who share my passion for health and wellness. This community has motivated me at my lowest and been a pillar of strength whenever I feel unwilling to workout. The ability to participate in virtual fitness challenges, join specialized interest groups, and even connect with friends has cultivated a supportive network that encourages me to stay on track with my goals. This community aspect has been invaluable in my fitness journey, providing the motivation and camaraderie I need to push myself further. Nonetheless, with every app there can be challenges and obstacles that can cause a decline in growth or hold an app back from its true potential. FitOn has seen enormous revenue growth these past few years and an increase in user activity. However, due to the significant variety of fitness apps in the marketplace, it can be sometimes difficult to differentiate oneself from other competitors. FitOn picks the workouts for users based on the user’s interests, however workouts aren't customizable, which can be seen as a negative aspect due to other competitors allowing users to customize their workouts. Therefore, trying to compete and have the same options as other fitness apps can make it hard to see enormous growth. FitOn competes with free apps like Peloton or Nike Training Club which, even though FitOn is free, consumers end up wanting the Pro version later due to the added features. Although there are a few challenges for FitOn, sales continue to increase due to the impressive array of classes and that users never feel as if the classes are repetitive or boring. Users also like how the app improves their athleticism while still being easily accessible in the comfort of their own home, which makes users come back for more (Ferraro).[reply]



Works Cited Bell, Esther. “Finally-A Workout App That Makes You Want to Exercise Every Day.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 31 Mar. 2023, reviewed.usatoday.com/health/content/fiton-review. Ferraro, Kathleen. “My Honest Fiton Review after Taking 5 Classes.” Byrdie, Byrdie, 23 Oct. 2023, www.byrdie.com/review-fiton-app-5120926. Robert, Yola. “How Fiton Grew from Zero to Six Million Users in under 18 Months.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 16 June 2022, www.forbes.com/sites/yolarobert1/2021/01/25/how-fiton-grew-from-zero-to-six-millionusers-in-under-18-months/. Rose, Tristan. “How Does Fiton Make Money (Business and Revenue Model).” Entrepreneur 360, 9 Aug. 2022, entrepreneur-360.com/how-does-fiton-make-money-34815#google_vignette. Ritik Gaur et al. "Human Fitness Application." International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology (2022). https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.48263 Sulin Ba et al. "Digital health communities: The effect of their motivation mechanisms." Decis. Support Syst., 55 (2013): 941-947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.01.003. M. Franz et al. "Nutrition Principles for the Management off Diabetes and Related Complications." Diabetes Care, 17 (1994): 490 - 518. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.17.5.490. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.159.237.73 (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2024 (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 History of the Jews in Afghanistan. Sandstein 08:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tova Moradi

Tova Moradi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BIO1E - this is just a summary of a one-off human interest news story. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't her title as "last Jew of Afghanistan" make her notable?

What makes Zablon Simintov, formerly believed to hold that title, a notable subject? What about Shimson Kleuger, the last Jew to live in Auschwitz, or Alfred Schreyer, the last Jew to live in Drohobych? Moonswimmer Mooonswimmer

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Beccanyr's suggestion of a merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think History of the Jews in Afghanistan could also work as a Merge/Redirect target - I have worked on the civilian exodus section of the 2021 Taliban offensive article and can plan on updating the section after we sort out what is happening with this article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:52, 12 December 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 23:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Mercier (engineer)

Pierre Mercier (engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sitting unsourced since 2006, I don't think Pierre is notable.

He seems to have at least existed, per this 1941 patent, so likely not a hoax: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2477637A/en?inventor=Mercier+Pierre&assignee=Pierre+Mercier&before=priority:19440101

I couldn't find anything else worthwhile that proved notability, but Google results are seriously smudged by mirrors and other people with the same name. wizzito | say hello! 22:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Uruguayans

Bulgarian Uruguayans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. Small group; some people with a Bulgarian name does not an article make. Geschichte (talk) 22:39, 5 December 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 23:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel on Rivington

Hotel on Rivington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This hotel exists, and was briefly up for purchase by Jared Kushner. That generated many name drops of the hotel, but there is no significant, in depth coverage that establishes notability for the hotel. It does not appear to be architecturally distinct, or any other element of notability. It was in the news, yes, but if you look at the results, they're not about the hotel so much as the potential sale. Star Mississippi 22:34, 5 December 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 23:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KitFox Vineyards

KitFox Vineyards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:29, 5 December 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 23:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Griffin

Joseph Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of an actor, with no strong claim to passing our notability criteria for actors. As always, every actor does not automatically get a notability freebie just because he's had acting roles -- the notability test requires evidence of the significance of his performances, such as notable acting awards and/or the reception of reliable source coverage about him. But this just says he exists, lists a bunch of roles (virtually all supporting, at that), cites absolutely no referencing for anything whatsoever, the end, and that's not how you make an actor notable. And even on a ProQuest search for referencing that may not have Googled, I just can't find any sources that would turn the tide here. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 5 December 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Money

Constance Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So this has superficially good sources but they turn out to be junk. Imused the internal search on google books and it turns out that source 2 Rutgers includes source 3 and that source 3 is, according to searching constance money, a pure name check and not about her. 4 is an interview and therefore not independent, in short we have 2 academic sources being claimed to justify this article but it turns out they have absolutely no substantive content about the subject. So a BLP without proper sourcing with overstated sources and otherwise just the usual porn ecosystem noise. I did save everyone the time by directing but was reverted so here we are. Recommend a redirect to the AVN HoF after this is deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 21:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is the nominator serious? One of that era's most famous actresses. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've removed the duplicate of Linda Williams's book chapter and expanded the article using sources already present in the page, notably The Rialto Report, and adding an article in Playboy by Toni Bentley and a book by Barry Forshaw, both not only to document the significance of the film in which she co-starred, The Opening of Misty Beethoven, but to supplement Rialto as sources for her birth name. We had a paragraph that included that name and some information about her but was removed as unreferenced in December 2009—prior to any reliable sources other than Williams' book, which is only analyzing the plot of the film. I had some qualms about expanding the biographical content of the article, since she tried to distance herself from adult film, preferred to use another acting name, and has since left acting entirely, but I consider the lead role in a significant film, her subsequent Playboy coverage, and her adult film awards make her notable, her real name continues to be published in association with this alias, and she revealed it herself in Playboy in 1978. Accordingly I've sought to serve our readers by covering her biography. I have, however, reduced her birth date to the year since it has not been widely publicized and is sourced to one or more adult film databases. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caution: The Rialto Report is a self-published unreliable source. I also notice that you are citing Luke Ford's book. While he was active, Ford published gossip, leaving the fact checking to others. His blog was blacklisted and purged from Wikipedia. His book has multiple demonstrable factual errors, Nikki Charm being a prominent example. Luke Ford is a contributor of freely-licensed content, but not a trustworthy reference for facts. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two part coverage in the Rialto Report shows evidence of reliability, such as it being based on careful analysis of many original documents. The Ford book may have errors as most books do, but it was published by Prometheus Books, a very reputable company. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Metzger, Juliette; Feldman, Caryl; West, Ashley (April 2, 2017). "Press Release: Radley Metzger, pioneering filmmaker, dies at 88". The Rialto Report. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
  2. ^ Hopkins, Brent (June 3, 2007). "Porn: The Valley's secret industry". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on July 23, 2018. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
  3. ^ Rohit, Nitesh (June 6, 2008). "The Opening of Misty Beethoven". WindsFromThe East. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
  4. ^ Mathijs, Ernest; Mendik, Xavier (2007). The Cult Film Reader, page 517. Open University Press. p. 517. ISBN 978-0335219230. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
  5. ^ Bentley, Toni (June 2014). "The Legend of Henry Paris". Playboy. Archived from the original on February 10, 2018. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
  6. ^ Bentley, Toni (June 2014). "The Legend of Henry Paris" (PDF). ToniBentley.com. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
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 23:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roza, Washington

Roza, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Named after the daughter of a railroad official" means it came into existence as a rail station, and while the siding is long gone yo can still see a trace it in the form of an extra bridge over Roza Creek. It's the usual case of a rail spot out in the middle of nowhere with no settlement, so non-notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drilon Ajeti

Drilon Ajeti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ardihaliti2000: please do not make multiple !votes. Comments are fine. GiantSnowman 19:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
note I have mentioned this and the claim they are now fully professional Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Football_Superleague_of_Kosovo so the football project can decide to update or refute. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in terms of GNG, the sources offered do not meet the requirements. Please see my comments below and let me know if you disagree with anything:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/drilon-ajeti/profil/spieler/858949 No No Unreliable source No Stats only ✘ No
https://topsporti.com/artikulli/llapi-e-rrezon-ballkanin-nga-kreu Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://topsporti.com/artikulli/formacionet-zyrtare-malisheva-ulpiana/ffk-superliga-e-kosoves Yes Yes No Squad list mention ✘ No
https://topsporti.com/artikulli/ulpiana-ilaci-per-skuadrat-e-medha-mposhte-ballkanin-me-permbysje/ffk-superliga-e-kosoves Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://topsporti.com/artikulli/superliga-formacioni-i-javes-15/ffk-superliga-e-kosoves Yes Yes No No detailed analysis of Ajeti specifically ✘ No
https://topsporti.com/artikulli/merlaku-siguron-piken-te-rrezikuarit-barazojne/ffk-superliga-e-kosoves Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://ulpianapress.net/portieri-i-ulpianes-ftohet-nga-kombetarja-e-konfirmon-klubi-lipjanas/ Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/drilon-ajeti/leistungsdatendetails/spieler/858949 No No Unreliable source No Stats ✘ No
http://www.ffk-kosova.com/llapi-fiton-kupen-e-kosoves-siguron-daljen-ne-evrope/ Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:00, 6 December 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) 16:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Brittle

Vicki Brittle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing any significant coverage in outside sources—a few passing mentions, but none of the stuff that guarantees notability. No special WP:NSINGER requirements are met, either, so I don't see a reason to include. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boston university academy clubs

Boston university academy clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial and unsourced list of school clubs Dexxtrall (talk) 18:33, 5 December 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 23:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Even

Back to Even (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Action (film)

Direct Action (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFO and WP:SIGCOV; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems it was direct to video. I looked for any reviews by notable critics and found none. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:19, 6 December 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 16:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Football Championships

National Football Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not independently notable from Santosh Trophy or Senior Women's National Football Championship. Too vast a subject title to not be a disambiguation, there are hundreds of National Football Championships globally. Attempts to revert to disambiguation page have been reverted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominatior. (non-admin closure) WikiJoeB (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dependables

The Dependables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. However, I did find on my WP:BEFORE search a link from Google Books. Nevertheless, the article needs more coverage and the moonstonefilms.com link is a dead link. The Film Creator (talk) 15:53, 5 December 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 23:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farendj

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

Fails WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFO and WP:SIGCOV; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search. The Film Creator (talk) 15:03, 5 December 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. Consensus is that there is not sourcing to meet notability. @Sammi Brie: no objection to a redirect when/if the target is created but at the moment there's nowhere to point it. Star Mississippi 21:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Aura HD

Astro Aura HD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:RS. Behind the moors (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge. No proper reliable source and nor your link is working. Behind the moors (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Behind the moors: The idea is that a lot of these stubby Astro channel pages can be amalgamated into some sort of list page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am buying your points but I would say redirect is the better option ateleast here as there is no content from any reliable source. Behind the moors (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice but please show those sources. Behind the moors (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Behind the moors:, all sources was here in Malay language. Harimua Thailand (talk) 00:04, 05 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reject, this channel not just music video but some of Indonesia drama. Harimua Thailand (talk) 23:23, 07 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repeats of those soaps. Never originals, which is why I stand by my 'rerun farm' rationale. Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the Astro channels commission original programs, @Harimua Thailand? There are so many and most seem to be devoted to the business of being television middlemen, airing programs from other broadcasters and elsewhere. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G7. XOR'easter (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Military units and formations in Bloemfontein

Military units and formations in Bloemfontein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Accidentally created in namespace when it was intended as a category. I can't move it. Erik de Wolf (talk) 13:10, 5 December 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. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naura HD

Naura HD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete No WP:RS. Behind the moors (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to merge, The content of two channel are not same. Harimua Thailand (talk) 23:25, 07 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Bleed (film)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Simran Kaur (makeup artist)

Simran Kaur (makeup artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing more than PR, not having independent coverage. Behind the moors (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 04:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There are sources, but all are placed/PR content. HT article - "Brand Content", ANI - from a PR agency, Mid-Day - Partnered Content, Asian Age - "No journalist was involved". The Outlook article in "Spotlight" section also seems PR. --Hemanthah (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Two of the "references" here replay the same advertorial PR ("Your search finally comes to an end as we have got a reputed makeup artist who can fulfil all your needs." etc.); there is also indication of PR-driven article placement: [14]. No notability is inherited from performing a service function for any individuals, nor does the Ravishing Wedding Awards award appear inherently notable. A person with a trade, but nothing indicates attained biographical notability (WP:BASIC / WP:ANYBIO). AllyD (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: plain PR article ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Robins

AfDs for this article:
Zoë Robins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No wp:rs, not having multiple lead roles fails wp:nactor. Behind the moors (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need 2 lead roles, not 2 roles. Behind the moors (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On'es definitely a lead role (and pretty high profile), the other's...I dunno, a power ranger...and there are sources. Good enough for me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Power Rangers was definitely a lead role. Antientropic (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great - well that's two lead roles then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please share a source which says that she is a lead actress in "The Wheel of Time". Behind the moors (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the Spinoff article cited: "Three years ago it was announced that New Zealand actor Zoë Robins would be taking on a lead role in Amazon’s massive production of The Wheel of Time." And from Variety: "The “Wheel of Time” series at Amazon has found its main cast. Josha Stradowski has been cast in the role of Rand al’Thor, with Marcus Rutherford set to play Perrin Aybara and Zoë Robins playing Nynaeve." Antientropic (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds cool, but still confused as while nomination I saw her as a side character in some journal. Waiting for some experienced people to understand about it. Behind the moors (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 5 December 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) 12:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadananda Goswami

AfDs for this article:
Jagadananda Goswami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC as well as WP:ANYBIO due to lack of notable work. No assertion of notability. Can't find independent source supporting notability for this religious teacher. Being a disciple or a teacher of someone does not make a person notable. Venkat TL (talk) 11:10, 5 December 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. Without prejudice to renaming or possible merger. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bose home audio products

Bose home audio products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined a PROD by Skyerise with the rationale falls afoul WP:DIRECTORY, points 5 & 7, and WP:PROMO, point 5. There are certainly problems with this article, however it seems to me there probably is enough coverage of some Bose products to justify some form of stand-alone list. But I'm not sure there is; I consider myself neutral for the vote. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similarly structured lists of Bose products:

Bose portable audio products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bose shelf stereos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would certainly not object to renaming the article in this manner, although I'm not certain if this AfD discussion is the best place to propose it. Maybe on the talk page once this is closed? Fieari (talk) 06:46, 7 December 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Sister (film)

Mister Sister (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, film has not received significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. Social media posts, primary sources, and passing mentions do not constitute WP:SIGCOV, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incubate or delete. I think that this has the potential to gain more coverage once it releases outside the film festival circuit, but the notability isn't really there just yet. If anyone wants to incubate this, go for it. I don't mind keeping it in my sandbox, but I don't get on nearly as much as I used to due to work and a broken home computer so I may not be able to keep up with it as much. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if you read those sources. The Deadline article only says, "The closing-night film is Mars Roberge’s Mister Sister, set inside the underground world of New York City drag and including a performance by the late LGBTQI musical icon Ari Gold, who died in February." I highly doubt that the uploader owns the film poster, and proof would be needed anyway. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now see that you added sources to the article including the Deadline source. Websites such as Medium, The WOW Report, OriginalRock are unreliable sources. I'm not sure if BroadwayWorld is reliable because readers can submit news. SL93 (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the poster submitter, I can verify that I own the rights via a legal artist release contract. Just let me know where to email it and I will do that. As for Broadway World and WOW Report being an unreliable source, Broadway World is the largest publication in the entire world with several branches regarding coverage of theatrical events such as Broadway Plays. Whereas WOW Report is one of the largest LGBTQ entertainment sources in the world and is created by World of Wonder who produce and distribute Ru Paul's Drag Race, the most popular LGBTQ show on television. OriginalRock.net is an online branch of Vive Le Rock which is one of the largest music magazines in Europe. I'm not sure where you are getting your information on or being the overall judge for what goes on here as legitimate sources. I can pull up readership and journalists from all the aforementioned sources I listed. Let me know what else you require.Theskeletone 04:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The sourcing here is not adequate to establish notability. As for Locomotive's question, Wikipedia has rules about what is or isn't a reliable source, and articles are required to follow those rules rather than making up their own. The overwhelming majority of the footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability — for example, the notability of a film cannot be referenced to YouTube videos, social networking content on Twitter or Instagram, corporate blogs, user-generated "anybody can publish content about any topic of their choice" platforms like Medium.com, the studio's own self-published press releases, or the self-published websites of the film festivals it was screened at.
    Broadway World can be a useful source sometimes, but it's problematic and has to be looked at carefully -- in this case, of the two Broadway World cites, one just briefly namechecks the film's existence in an article that isn't about the film in any non-trivial sense, while the other betrays its provenance as a press release from the studio because if you look carefully, it's worded precisely identically to the TheBuzzMag.ca hit even though they appear to have different "author" bylines on them. So no, those aren't helping at all: one isn't about the film, and the other is a press release from the film's own studio.
    Which means the only acceptable sources here at all are the two Deadline hits (#4 and #12) and Film Threat (#23) — but the two Deadline hits are also both brief glancing namechecks of the film's existence in articles that aren't about the film, which means they're not doing very much either, and while Film Threat is getting somewhere as it's actually a real review of the film, a film still needs more than just one of those to clear the bar.
    And even when it comes to the awards, NFILM is not just agnostically open to just any award that exists, sourced solely to the award's own website about itself — notability because awards only accrues to a certain narrow tier of high profile awards, like Oscars, BAFTAs, Césars, Canadian Screen Awards or internationally famous film festivals on the Cannes-Berlin-Toronto-Sundance tier, which are sourceable to media coverage that reports those awards as news.
    It's certainly possible that the film might clear the notability bar in the future — but based on the content and sourcing present right now, it has not cleared the bar yet as of today. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:09, 5 December 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 SNOW keep (non-admin closure). Sceptre (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes

Murder of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence of lasting importance.

Written as a tabloid article with emphasis on the lurid details. If it proves notable in the paassage of time , it would need to be completely rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 11:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- It's been a widely reported on crime in the UK with vast amounts of source material.Llewee (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.116.107 (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • if the small number of wikipedians intereste insist on turning this arad of wp into tabloid coverage, and the great majority do not care to engage them, they will get their way. All I ask it that they remember this mutual tolerance when it comes to esoteric topics of serious import. Nomination withdrawn' DGG' ( talk ) 09:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A highly controversial topic in the UK that is creating a lot of discussion at the moment, and possibly will continue to be. Grandtubetrains (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A very high profile crime that is clearly notable in terms of coverage and there are also signs of impact on policy discussions. Dunarc (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's arguments for deletion are fundamentally flawed per WP:NTEMP. 92.29.169.65 (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is very difficult to know (at this point) which side of WP:NOTNEWS this falls on. That being said, this story has gained a substantial amount of coverage. Secondly, I would dispute the delete rational, because there is an investigation into his death, which will (as all investigations of this kind do) recommend new safe guarding measures. The investigation into the his death will ensure (most likely) that it does have long-term notability. If the result is delete (as unlikely as it looks now), I would strongly recommend that there is no prejudice against recreating once the investigations has completed when we will have a better idea of notability. SSSB (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – In my view this is the most strong "Keep" of any AFD nomination I have seen for several years. There has been widespread coverage in numerous reliable sources, such as BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and broadsheet newspapers. There have been public reactions to the killing from the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the Home Office and other senior government ministers such as the Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi. There are future potential policy or law changes when a full national serious case review of the boy's death is published, led by the National Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel.
  • I'm sure the nominator posted this AFD with the best of intentions, but this is one of the most high profile crimes in the UK for years. The nominator's userpage indicates he may be an American man and if that's the case he may (through no fault of his own) simply be unaware of what a huge news story this has been in the UK. There were several consecutive days of substantial news coverage on the main BBC TV News bulletins – the killers being found guilty, then the next day given their jail terms and in the following days reports of a serious case review, further reactions, a vigil for the boy and football supporters paying tribute. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:36, 8 December 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. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dix

The Dix (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 collaboration fails WP:MUSICBIO, if that even applies to a fictional band, and WP:GNG, as I can't find any coverage of the group or their album. Multiple members of the group have articles, so there's no valid redirect target. Lennart97 (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:58, 5 December 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. There is consensus that improvements to the article show that the subject meets notability standards. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moira Smiley

Moira Smiley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mild promotional article of a non notable singer who unfortunately at this point do not meet any criterion from WP:SINGER and a WP:BEFORE shows they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus an overall GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More content and references have been added. Colliedog (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Awards section added. Meets Wikipedia:Singer criteria no.9 "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliedog (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Added independent, verifiable references that substantiate WP:Singer criteria 1 and 4. Please note: Colliedog has not received any compensation in any form for writing this article. I'm a college librarian practicing and upgrading my Wikipedia skill since it has been several years since I participated with a Middlebury College class in the Art+Feminism: Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (hence my interest in improving Wikipedia's coverage of women by adding an article about a female artists). Colliedog (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already listed the criteria met earlier in this talk page. Content and references I added that substantiated this were removed (not by me), including very legit independent reliable sources. For example, I'm not sure why the reference to a substantial interview from the Burlington Free Press was removed, especially since it verified a lot of basic bio and performance info. It is a very reliable source - it's the newspaper of Vermont's largest city, with the largest circulation, and was started in 1827. It's an official newspaper of record for VT. I'm also not sure why the text stating she performs with Tune-yards was removed. She is listed as one of the musicians they tour with right on their wikipedia page, so I thought linking to notable musicians pages on Wikipedia that list her as a performer helped substantiate that. She sang on the TV appearances with Tune-yards that I had listed, but those also got removed. Artist in residence at Yale University was removed as were other less notable ones (their removal makes sense). Her band VIDA won a national championship for a capella (criteria 9) and that got removed. So I'll re-add these and be as explicit as I can in the comments about the rationale. thank you. Colliedog (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colliedog ”I'm not sure why the reference to a substantial interview from the Burlington Free Press was removed” [an interview isn’t reliable material] I'm also not sure why the text stating she performs with Tune-yards was removed [because you were using the article to promote her thus all promotional statements that were unverified by the inline sources were all removed as promo and fake referencing]. She sang on the TV appearances with Tune-yards that I had listed, but those also got removed [because it was Promotional and an archetypal example of WP:NOT]. Her band VIDA won a national championship for a capella (criteria 9) Not quite, read this from #8 of WP:MUSICBIO Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition [the competition they won isn’t a notable one. So please Do not include promotional material in that article, further attempts to violate our TOU and I’m afraid you leave me no option than to officially report this. If you have a WP:COI with the subject please indicate so, how exactly did you get the image of the subject of your article? Furthermore you predominantly still using unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Above: "the competition they won isn’t a notable one". This is about Harmony Sweepstakes A Cappella Festival, which as you can see has an article. I'd say that the article is very feeble, but it does make the festival itself sound non-trivial. What are the criteria for festival/award notability? (Incidentally, MS seems also to have won another award.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 "the competition they won isn’t a notable one. So please Do not include promotional material in that article, further attempts to violate our TOU and I’m afraid you leave me no option than to officially report this." Before adding the Harmony Sweepstakes award I searched to understand it's prominence independent of the festival website and I found this article which I thought established it as a notable festival https://www.marinarts.org/organization/harmony-sweepstakes-a-cappella-festival/. (I also saw the festival has it's own wikipedia article - hence I've been trying to do due diligence with the articles I've found. Colliedog (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I just found this article on Harmony Sweepstakes festival which is from a more reliable source https://www.marinij.com/2014/05/15/lib-at-large-with-harmony-sweepstakes-marins-the-heart-of-a-cappella-universe/ Colliedog (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 "how exactly did you get the image of the subject of your article?". I was going to add a photo of the musician and the WP add image editor had a checkbox that said I had to own the copyright / have taken the photo itself or have written permission I can submit from the copyright owner. I checked wikimedia creative commons but there was no photo of her there and I couldn't find one online elsewhere using google image advance search. I knew I couldn't grab one from the artist's website so I used this photo I had taken when I ran into her on a local hiking trail so as to abide by WP policy. I tried to get a photo of her at her last concert but venue didn't allow photography. Please understand I'm trying to follow WP guidelines. Colliedog (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I double-checked and verified each performer mentioned and other information with corresponding citations from reputable sources using library databases that have standards for publications indexed. In the opening paragraph I removed anything that might be construed as promotional, such as general mentions of concert venues and media sources and determined that this met the criteria for removing the promo label at the top. While searching for better sources for verification I found a few other reputable sources for background to strengthen opening paragraph. I believe the article now meets Wikipedia's standards and I invite WP editors/admins to weigh in about the merits of retaining this article. thanks Colliedog (talk) 03:31, 10 December 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. This has been on AFD for over a month and there is no real consensus on what to do. This closure does not, of course, preclude anyone from taking normal editorial actions such as merging, either via making a consensus on the talk page or WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raising Atlantis

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

Including:

Three articles about books in a series, all with the same problems: completely unsourced; article consists of only plot; there's no significant coverage to be found about any of them; and the author lacks a wiki entry, doesn't seem to be notable himself. Lennart97 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel like there may be more out there, but I can't seem to really locate it. There are some reviews through Publisher's Weekly, but I'm not entirely comfortable keeping on that basis alone. I'll leave this up to others. On one hand trades don't review everyone and aren't always going to be positive, but on the other this is all fairly weak sauce. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Assuming RotP is right, my preference would be to merge all of this into the series article, preserving the redirects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No analysis, no list of characters, and a single review. Not enough to establish notability. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge into a single article that covers the whole series. The current articles appear to be in a decent shape and are sufficiently backed by secondary sources. I think if they are merged, the series article will certainly meet GNG. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Colonestarrice: While it's possible that the series as a whole could meet GNG based on coverage that we haven't found yet, the assertion that the articles appear to be in a decent shape and are sufficiently backed by secondary sources can't be quite right; all three articles consist of only plot (well, almost only plot in case of the first one), and only the first article is backed by secondary sources (only one of them in–depth) while the other two are still completely unsourced. Lennart97 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's weird, I checked your nomination on the WP app, and I was certain to have seen sources on all three articles. Either way, I stand corrected, and would thus only support keeping Raising Atlantis. "All three articles consist of only plot (well, almost only plot in case of the first one)" – per WP:ATD, articles can improved and expanded; this is not a reason for deletion. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't imply that the lack of anything but plot is a reason for deletion. It just shows that the articles are not in fact currently in a decent shape. Lennart97 (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: I haven't found any more reviews, unfortunately. I will note, however, that the third book landed on the NYT bestseller list for mass market paperbacks. It was at position 15, which isn't terrible - the books were never released in hardback so the main list isn't going to have it on there, since that's hardback only. That said, this is really, really light for a book series. Like ridiculously light. Technically this does have the two sources, but honestly it's a little too light for my comfort. If anyone else can find something I can work on a series page, but I didn't want to do that before those sources were available. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a new article on Greanias. Here's what I found on the series itself: Chicago Tribune (book 1), Publishers Weekly (book 2), Booklist (book 3). It barely scrapes by. But if you also consider reviews of some of Greanias's other books: Booklist (The 34th Degree), Publishers Weekly (The 34th Degree), AudioFile (The 34th Degree), Kirkus Reviews (The Chiron Confession), I think there's a compelling case that Greanias meets WP:NAUTHOR #3, and if we're going to merge somewhere, having a centralized article on Greanias incorporating all of these sources makes sense to me. DanCherek (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that's the best we can get. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge, but I'm opposed to using merge as a soft delete. The metadata of each book and such in the infobox is useful material. The RS and Notability criteria are barely enough to merit the keep, but they do. It may be that the N criteria are only met for the series, and not for the books, or only for one book, but I'm not going to quibble that. It's a group nomination, I'm making a group Keep SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 09:15, 6 December 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. I find that the argument that this article does not confirm with BLP1E and CRIME to be both sufficiently supported, and not refuted adequately. This means that consensus exists to delete. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Giri

Davide Giri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence of lasting importance. DGG ( talk ) 10:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • HOLD. as promoter of the article I can only express that this is kept and not canceled. Do you want to erase the remeber of a young scientist who contributed with publications, studies and research to the development of computer science? In this encyclopedia there are more Football players than scientists, also other useless articles. It's sad people die every day from dramatic cases, but some deserve to be remembered, and Davide should be one of them. This article is important for Italy, for me and because it can be useful. No one will ever kneel for Davide. Or maybe you prefer to remember these Italians, Genovese crime family instead of Davide.--Peter39c (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You dare to reject this article when you accept articles like this one !! just one line of article for an unknown cricketer, Puran Giri. Nothing against this Puran Giri, but it is just an example. --Peter39c (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Puran Giri clearly passes WP:NCRICKET, Using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. WWGB (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peter39c: Yes, the rules of Wikipedia are crazy in the relevant "notability" requirements for sportspeople (one professional appearance) and academics (WP:NPROF: not enough to have a list of publications and an appointment as professor, but a real high-flyer). But those are the rules at present. If you can find reliable sources to show that Davide passed WP:NPROF, then please do so. Plenty of brilliant young scientist's articles are deleted as "too soon", though sadly he will not have a chance to build the scientific status which would have supported an article. PamD 08:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This kind of strikes home, given that I lived about two blocks from there when I was myself a CS grad student at Columbia. But I don't see evidence of the lasting interest in this event needed to pass WP:CRIME and WP:BIO1E, and it was obviously too early in his career for other notability criteria like WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, my position, even if reasonable, is a minority, the article must be expanded and completed in its parts, there are other relevant information. Davide was also a discreet football player. I have little time to complete the article and with the certainty that it will be canceled I don't have many incentives to go on, I counted on the help of others, colleagues, friends, relatives but also other academics. But it seems that destiny or fate has already decided, and only I appeal so that it is not forgotten. --Peter39c (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hold. There is ample evidence of the notoriety of the crime being on at least the same order of significance as Murder of Tessa Majors, not all of which has been integrated into this very early stage article as references yet. This crime remained front page news on Italian national newspapers of record for two days on both Corriere della Sera and La Stampa. A direct comparison to the current state of Murder of Tessa Majors is not yet fair given the freshness of the crime itself. Perhaps we should consider a comparison to that article at a snapshot closer to that crime. It was also front page news on national papers in the United States like the New York Post[1] and NY Daily News[2]. It also was referenced on the front page of the NY Times even though the article itself only appeared in the first section[3]. Given the shared foreign nationality of two victims, this crime's profile borders on an international incident in Italy-US relations (cf. Murder of Mario Cerciello Rega). Taken together, this exceeds WP:CRIME. Regarding his notability as an academic, only a fraction of his works have yet been added to the publications section of the article as of yet, and, respectfully, so far no Wikipedians with domain expertise in computer architecture and system design have commented on the importance of and novelty in his experimental and theoretical work in largely understudied area of cache coherence in specialized accelerators (the specialized portions of integrated circuits in modern SoCs that are letting everyone read this discussion right now). The works are all at most three years out from publication, but the recentness of a scientific contribution does not rule out its notability. At this stage, I concede, there is a question of whether the subject of the article should be the career of the victim himself or the crime, which is a valid matter of debate. That said, it is wildly premature to delete it altogether. The article needs more time to be expanded to capture its notability. —trepetti
— trepetti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

  1. ^ https://nypost.com/cover/december-5th-2021/
  2. ^ https://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny-new-york-daily-news-front-pages-2021-jul-20210714-7abgiz4virgtxg5e6d4g74flje-photogallery.html
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/issue/todayspaper/2021/12/04/todays-new-york-times
  • Comment: see WP:BLP1E (yes, it also applies to people "recently dead") and the Guideline WP:EVENTCRITERIA, in particular point 4: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance., which explicitly mentions wide coverage at the time as not substantiating notability. PamD 10:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PamD: Thank you for your explanation, but would it be possible to clarify why then this article ought to be deleted when the Murder of Tessa Majors occurred in the same era, 30-acre park and academic institution, had the same potential effect on race relations in the most ethnically diverse city on earth, did not have an international element, and had a victim whose academic career only involved graduating secondary school? As someone largely an outsider on this site, this rule seems to be applied between these incidents (and probably others) in an arbitrary manner. -trepetti
  • To clarify, in this case, it seems reasonable that the article be converted to one on the crime (out of scope for WP:BLP1E) rather than the person, but in this case does such an article get deleted entirely and restarted from scratch? My issue here is with the topic (person or crime) being completely removed from the encyclopedia. -trepetti — Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is unfortunate that he died, but many people (including students) are stabbed to death everyday, receiving almost no coverage. This has some coverage, but there's no consequencial fundamental policy change etc, so this is not notable. WP:NPROF definitely isn't suitable for a grad student. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 20:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a news site. If there is some long-lasting subject here, maybe an article could be developed on, say, a rise in violent crime after a year of COVID or somesuch. Being a victim of a crime does not make the person notable by encyclopedic standards. One test I like to use is: if someone reads this article in ten years, would they agree the person had a lasting impact? W Nowicki (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of course you don't give a damn, it's not your compatriot who was murdered and if you keep one-line articles of unknown cricket players, this article can definitely stay in the encyclopedia. It would be his birthday in two days. And I want to give him this gift, not relegate him to the memory of only relatives and close friends. It deserves to be in the encyclopedia among the most deserving and brilliant Italians. In addition there are his numerous researches, studies and publications. --Peter39c (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: You want to keep this Wikipedia article as a gift to the subject? I don't want to sound insensitive, but this would not pass WP:POV/WP:IMPARTIAL and other bias-related policies. Their scientific work doesn't fit the notability criteria of NPROF. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 14:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold it for now. I am well aware that there are not enough reasons to keep it but if that guy published something useful / important and more over if he was a promising figure in that field (computer science), why not keep this article for some more time (e.g. a couple of months) just to see if there is something more notable? What does not convince me is the title; maybe that page could be referenced by another article about innocent / casual victims of crimes (killed without a real reason); in practice the title should be something else than just Name Surname, maybe something more specific such as Murder of Name Surname (New York). That guy was italian but I have not found an article about him in italian wiki so maybe an article might be written there. At the end of the day even if I totally agree with the fact that maybe the dead person was not notable enough to gain an article in (en) wikipedia, that wikipedia is not a news site, etc. I have to add my personal opinion in order to show a different perspective on this subject. GreaterPonce665: It is unfortunate that he died, but many people (including students) are stabbed to death everyday, receiving almost no coverage. (ok, it must be "the silence of lambs", temporarily without a shepherd, ... as usual). Do you want to know why these kind of murders are notable? It's because they happen because of the fact that too many souls have been far from God for too much time and so its enemy can do, directly or indirectly, these kind of evil things (murderer was filled with immeasurable hatred and distorted thoughts); yes, deaths attributed to COVID have the same cause because evil kills in many ways. ade56facc (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold it. My 1st search for his name took me on the wiki page here and I finally *knew* who that guy was. Isn't wikepedia out there to globally share knowledge? If instead the goal is the discussion on formal categorization or missing professional achievements I am afraid that something is not working (besides the obvious fact that a killed person has no chances anymore to improve his or her skills even if he / she desired to do that). The point is that hate and ignorance which took to this absurd murder without reasons, like too many others unfortunately, must not make us think it's normal. It's an increasing serious problem we must take into account and that we can't forget. Deleting knowledge is to first step to accept violence and possibly be violent as well. Many references could be made to this page one day as there was a young man striving to make a better world on one hand and on the other one there is the social problem of people far away from human beings, and this must be documented and remembered. /c.f./ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.44.16.101 (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— 151.44.16.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I read the linked policy references you provided but I do not see how BLP1E or WHATABOUTX fit here. There are scientific results achieved by that man albeit limited in number by a premature death. References to those results and to the author should be kept in his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.36.7.95 (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their scientific work doesn't fit the notability criteria of WP:NPROF. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 16:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierItzm: See my post of 10:17 am, 6 December 2021 above. PamD 16:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to ponder, Pam, is that the media considers the killing of Davide Giri and of Tessa Majors to be related.[3][4] In fact, The New York Times says the killing of Giri is a reprise of the murder of Majors.[5] You can't argue against the sources.XavierItzm (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: his death not her death.
IMHO, as I already (partially) stated before/above, hold/keep it if and only if: 1) title of article is renamed to "Murder of Davide Giri (NYC)" (or something like that in order to match that of Murder of Tessa Majors); 2) article is improved in that direction (more murder details); 3) someone is willing to improve article Crime in New York City (History, 2010s, 2020s) also by splitting it into sub-articles and adding links to articles about murder of people like Davide, Tessa and others that received extensive media coverage; this not because those people were better than other but just as examples that those kind of deaths are always a great loss for society and that maybe there is something really wrong in how certain trends are left evolving. If at least those 3 conditions are not met (within a few weeks or at most a couple of months) then I am not against deleting article. ade56facc (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.corriere.it/esteri/21_dicembre_07/davide-giri-new-york-times-vincent-pinkney-46f8b334-56c6-11ec-a4e5-d793da90387e.shtml
  2. ^ https://www.lastampa.it/esteri/2021/12/06/news/omicidio_di_davide_giri_viaggio_nella_new_york_dei_campus_violenti-1134445/
  3. ^ NANCY WARTIK (10 December 2021). "Morningside Park and its two cities: Davide Giri, Tessa Majors and the surrounding community". New York Daily News. Retrieved 11 December 2021. thinking of Tessa. Then last week: another terrible thing. Davide Giri, a 30-year-old Columbia grad student from Italy, was knifed on the edge of the park, coming home from soccer practice
  4. ^ https://patch.com/new-york/harlem/columbia-stabbings-revive-morningside-park-safety-concerns
  5. ^ Ginia Bellafante (10 December 2021). "Have Urban Universities Done Enough for the Neighborhoods Around Them?". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2021. Tessa Majors was murdered during a robbery in Morningside Park [...] in an eerie reprise, another student from the Columbia community — Davide Giri, who had been working toward his doctorate in computer science — was fatally stabbed just outside the northern tip of the park
  • Delete. One event applies. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ultimately, I find the "known for only one thing" and "Wikipedia is not a memorial" lines of argument convincing. Sources comparing this event to a previous event (in an obvious, surface-level manner) don't really amount to persistent interest in this event. Frankly, there are better ways to honor the dead than Wikipedia pages. XOR'easter (talk) 00:32, 14 December 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. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Flagstaff, Arizona mayoral election

2022 Flagstaff, Arizona mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Electioncruft. This election in a 75000-people town is as insignificant as to fail WP:IMPACT. Geschichte (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Where is the 75,000 limit listed as the guideline? I created this from a redlink on 2022 United States elections and figured it would be a good place to move info on the candidates since Paul Deasy was deleted (which I agree). Anyhow, looking at Flagstaff, it is the county seat of Coconino County, Arizona so I do not see it as "cruft". The county is the 2nd largest county in the country by area and has a significant native American population (25-30%). Probably best to get some inputs from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums since I am seeing cities with smaller populations having similar pages.Patapsco913 (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename I have thought quite a while on this - came here from watchlist/edits to the Flagstaff, Arizona article. Flagstaff isn't, as the nom claims, some insignificant town. It is a city and the county seat of the second largest county in the US; including metro area it is over 100,000 population, which is surely where a cutoff would be if we made arguments on simple math. Factor in that it is a surprisingly old city for the Southwest, and a very singular one, the article about the city (despite my best efforts to improve it and others coming along) is quite long and still incomplete. The red link to the mayoral election existed as what was presumably a recurring elections template, so it has been previously understood at least by the elections WP that there is assumed notability - or a random city mayoral election wouldn't be a red link in the template in the first place. However, as articles go, it is lacking in just about everything and so it seems impossible to determine whether it is worthy to include in an encyclopaedia before it has happened. Do we keep it and wait until the election to make it a decent article/wait until something otherwise changing the situation happens? Do we delete it and either remember to revisit the subject or forget? Do we merge to the messy politics section of the city article, since there is some WP assumed notability of the elections, not just results? Or - since keeping gives it a free pass to not improve, deleting gives legitimacy to not recreate if appropriate, and merging would necessitate an over bloated undue election dump at the city article - I suggest an article about elections in Flagstaff, starting it by renaming this. Kingsif (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to consider Kingsif's comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Took another look and I'm changing my vote. San Francisco as an example has pages for all of it's elections (e.g. 2019_San_Francisco_mayoral_election). I believe that the 2022 Flagstaff election is notable. However, no one bothered to create any articles for previous Flagstaff elections, and I have little faith this page will ever be expanded. So I suggest moving it to draft, on the off chance someone does chose to take on the work. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I very much doubt that a settlement the size of Flagstaff has elections which are significant enough to warrant standalone articles. Flagstaff doesn't even make the ten largest cities in Arizona, and it isn't nearly big enough to appear on List of United States cities by population, which has over 300 entries. San Francisco is vastly bigger (the metropolitan area is 34 times bigger than Flagstaff's) and not comparable. The article barely has any content, just a list of candidates sourced to an extremely short local news article. I can find some coverage of the results of prior elections, but writing articles on them on that basis would violate WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#NEWS. Nor is there any useful content to draftify. Hut 8.5 19:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a large enough town to get non-local coverage. The one source is to a local TV news organisation. Fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Butler (priest)

Richard Butler (priest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of many similar historical biographies created by a now blocked editor where the only available information is basically that a person lived, died, and held a particular office in the church. This does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. So the question is, does holding that kind of office (here Archdeacon of Northampton) in and of itself make a person notable? WP:CLERGY seems to suggest not, but I have not been able to find clarity on this, hence this nomination. The criteria that is applied to biographies of living people would seem to suggest that holding a role in a notable organisation does not make a person notable (WP:NOTINHERITED), and I'm not seeing why historical cases should be treated differently. Melcous (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to review changes from Arbitrarily0
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:48, 5 December 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. Discarding a couple of policy-deficient contributions, the overwhelming sentiment is that the article should not be in articlespace currently. Daniel (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Murphy (American football, born 1998)

Kyle Murphy (American football, born 1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Undrafted, and never appeared in game. He was as in the practice squad, inactive on active roster, and on injured reserve. [25] Mvqr (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This is routine preseason coverage any UDFA gets." I disagree. Routine coverage applies to events and not people, besides articles like "John Smith signs with the Eagles". What I have presented is beyond routine in my opinion, and I believe he meets GNG. The articles from The Providence Journal, The Sun Chronicle, and The Telegram are significant enough IMO, convincing me of a notability pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any non-local reliable sources? Because pretty much every borderline NFL prospect goes through the "preparing for draft/'hopes to hear name called'"-"signs with team"-"involved in X transaction" cycle of coverage from their respective local media. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the "presumed" part of the guidelines are to evaluate sourcing critically, including looking at where the coverage is coming from how far-reaching the coverage goes and determining if such coverage is commonplace or not. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The Sports Illustrated article is a team-specific blog within SI.com and appears to be part of a series in which each preseason roster member is analyzed, so not super notability-lending, and Empire Sports Media, NFLDraftDiamonds, & yurview do not appear to be reliable. The rest appear to be the incredibly standard coverage that every UDFA receives ("local player signs with team"). Keeping the article in the draft space is probably a good alternative to deleting given the subject is currently on the roster (albeit on IR) and could make his debut at some point, at which point it can simply be moved back into the main space. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could use some work, but it appears that there are enough sources here to meet GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per GPL93. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep ugh I personally do not like keeping articles that need such work. The text is good I suppose, but th reason to keep is the subject is techinically passing WP:GNG with feature article coverage. Someone could argue that those feature articles are "transactional" in nature so common to pro football and they might be right and I would be wrong--and I would (almost happily) accept that. Maybe the subject just has a great press agent... but overall I would prefer that an enthusiastic editor take the article to draft or otherwise quickly beef it up with editing advances so deletion is no longer a question.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. As I looked this over, I flipped between a "weak delete" (no notable accomplishments are presented and the article is in poor condition) and a "weak keep" (a surprising amount of coverage given the accomplishments) and ended up a "meh". In the end, I don't think deletion leaves Wikipedia a lesser place. Cbl62 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I expanded and tried to cleanup the article and found that he was named All-American by Associated Press, meaning he meets WP:NCOLLATH. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of All-America status are often inaccurate. I checked the actual sources for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 AP All-America teams and he was not included on the first, second, or third teams. See 2017, 2018, and 2019. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Was he on the Little All-America team or something similar? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but lower division AA picks don't get presumption of notability under NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the Little All-America archive (here) and didn't find him there either. Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an All-America team for Division I FCS? That's the only other thing that he could be in. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably so, but I wasn't able to find it. Cbl62 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an AP All-America team for every NCAA level, including FCS, as well as for the NAIA. However, from previous AfDs I've taken part in the general consensus has been that WP:NCOLLATH is only passed if the player is a consensus first team All-American at the FBS level. GPL93 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I listed don't really seem to be "hyping transactions". BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing is hyper-local and WP:ROUTINE, which does need to be considered because Wikipedia:Notability (sports) mentions routine coverage multiple times. Murphy has basically no reliable referencing outside Rhode Island or outside transactions/the pre-draft process. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GPL93, I see five mentions of the word "routine" on that page, none of which do I see exclude this type of coverage. The first says "Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage." Don't see sources covering Murphy being excluded there. The second says "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." Still don't see exclusion there. The next two are in the section about high school players/coaches (this is about a professional player), and the final is talking about individual games. So I see no reason why the coverage Murphy has received should not be considered when evaluating for notability, and therefore he meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 13 December 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) 12:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamkeen Insurance Company

Tamkeen Insurance Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not having indepth, independent coverage. Fails wp:org. Behind the moors (talk) 10:22, 5 December 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) 12:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Metropolitan Police Stations

List of Metropolitan Police Stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial / unencyclopaedic list. Only a very small number of the list entries point to actual police station articles. Not much referencing, but even if it were fully referenced it would not be encylopaedic. Per WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia is not a directory, we do not have to exhaustively list everything and just because we can build a list it doesn't mean that we should. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AdamWikiPeedo (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The sourcing and citing on this is abominable, but it's coming across as a research project. I'm not seeing how this is going to avoid synthesizing various lists and even resorting to primary documents. It's not like the list of closed stations; it's more like a list of all parish churches in England. Mangoe (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete: AdamWikiPeedo's argument is the strongest, but I still don't think it quite holds water. The list would be okay if the subject were okay, but the subject isn't the Metropolitan police, it's closed police stations, and while the Met are worthy of an article (test: people write books about it), I don't think closed police stations are (books on closed police stations don't seem common; there are loads of sources about the decline in numbers of police stations, but they're talking about the changes in policing, not about these places as places). Closed railway stations, on the other hand, have a huge inherent interest to the public. I'm not quite sure why, but I think it's the romance of it: these are places where lovers parted, children flew the nest and went to University, where friends met and hugged after decades, where tired people got home from work, where bright and exciting days began with a coffee at dawn; they are the venues for novels and short stories, they are inextricably entwined with our lives. For most of us, police stations are not. So as an encyclopaedia furthering human knowledge in all those areas where humans want to know things, train-stations count, police-stations are at best an awful lot weaker. Elemimele (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • note: I wasn't concentrating, and got myself confused. Of course this is a list of all police stations, not closed ones, that was merely the example AdamWikiPeedo gave as an example. But nevertheless, my feeling is that individual police-stations generally lack the interest that railway stations have. There will obviously be some police stations that are exceptions, with long histories or interesting architecture, and they firmly deserve articles. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm with Elemimele on this one. Sad as we are to see these places close, that's not about architecture (mostly completely without merit) but function and "boots on the ground". The places are nearly all non-notable as buildings, and the list is similarly non-notable as a list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have some sympathy with the keep arguments, but do not think that police stations in themselves are automatically notable. Moreover is a list which just basically gives the code and open/closed status for these stations particularly encyclopaedic or useful? It does not tell us when these stations were operational, or if any of them moved over time for instance. Dunarc (talk) 00:11, 11 December 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 Noise from the Basement. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke & Mirrors (Skye Sweetnam song)

Smoke & Mirrors (Skye Sweetnam song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG. Could not find any instance of chart history or any reviews independent of the album. Redirecting to Noise from the Basement was reverted by the article's creator. Anarchyte (talk) 09:19, 5 December 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 Automatic 7. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Mehlbaum

Ray Mehlbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This musician is not notable outside of their involvement in their band; fails WP:MUSICBIO. Turning this article into a redirect was reverted, so defaulting to AfD to determine a consensus. Anarchyte (talk) 07:33, 5 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niger–Spain relations

Niger–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable relations, therefore no notable information. Philosophy2 (talk) 07:14, 5 December 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 14:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

São Tomé and Príncipe–Spain relations

São Tomé and Príncipe–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no real relations between these two nations. Philosophy2 (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senegal–Spain relations

Senegal–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Philosophy2 (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Ford, Bell County, Kentucky

Laurel Ford, Bell County, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Going back through some Kentucky ones I flagged as possibly problematic earlier this year, but never got around to looking into deeper. This one's from our old friend User:Vanished user 7b1215e7ef746ac20682e3dbe03f5b84. Not in Rennick's 369-page PDF of Bell County places, which has Mt. Laurel and Laurel Fork, but no Laurel Ford. Newspapers.com not bringing up anything useful, Google books turns up this 1980s USGS publication that calls it a locale. Best I can find is a passing mention here that logs crossed the river here. No indication that WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG is met. Hog Farm Talk 05:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peak, North Dakota

Peak, North Dakota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Difficult to search for, for obvious reasons, but topos are just showing a passing siding here and searching is just bringing up the expected noise, aside from a single statement in unreliable Find A Grave that someone was supposedly born here in 1922, I cannot really find anything here that would indicate a WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND pass. Hog Farm Talk 05:11, 5 December 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. ✗plicit 05:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Drought (theologian)

James Drought (theologian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject appears to fail WP:NBASIC Headphase (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hard Keep He was a celtic researcher, was extremely influential in Ireland during his life. He was so important he is interred "in" the Abbey at Bath. I have found multiple sources. I will work on improvements.Super (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh that would be excellent, thanks for the input Supercopone. Apparently the Algorithms©™® were not in my favor- a brief search only yielded results for the American author. Some solid and specific references would be perfect. - Headphase (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As Regius Professor of Divinity in the ancient university of Ireland, he certainly meets the criterion for keeping an WP:academic#5. "Regius" implies endowment by the king, probably as part of the foundation. The problem with the article is that it is a mere stub, not showing what his academic importance was, apart from holding the chair. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes WP:PROF with reliable book sources in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 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. ✗plicit 05:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biennial of the Americas

Biennial of the Americas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable event (or possibly this is an art gallery?). Article not updated since 2013. I don't see any substantial coverage. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:26, 5 December 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. This discussion was open for several weeks, with nobody, including nominator, suggesting outright deletion. If there is further desire for a merge, discussion can occur on the relevant talk pages. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Wismilak International – Singles

2002 Wismilak International – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a Tier III tennis tournament, so this doesn't pass WP:NSPORTSEVENT. I also don't see WP:NEVENT-level coverage of this tournament for it to qualify as notable; it doesn't look like there was sustained coverage nor that the event had a lasting impact. Even if it were notable, it would not be notable separately from the 2002 Wismilak International page. Thus, I propose that this article be made into a redirect to 2002 Wismilak International, where all information in this article could be covered adequately. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There are singles pages for all other events at Bali, including for 2001 and 2003; I think that this page should be kept. Otherwise you should delete all the other singles events pages at this tournament.Alexxbrookss (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tennis tournament articles have always split off the draws in to separate articles so that they stay within the WP:SIZERULE guidelines. This level of tournament is equivalent to a modern WTA 250 tournament, a level at which WP:NTENNIS presumes notability for all participants, there is no notability issue here (NSPORTSEVENT only applies to individual matches). And finally, redirect is not an appropriate outcome for this AFD; the singles draw is a major part of the event (the other major component is the doubles draw), so at worst this article should be merged in to the parent article (Ideally this would be agreed at an RFC instead of a single AFD, given the large number of pages that would have to be merged). Iffy★Chat -- 21:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a number of issues I take with the above:
      1. WP:NTENNIS does not confer notability on any events; events do not inherit their notability just because notable people were there.
      2. If the argument is that participants in an event that would make them presumed notable renders the event itself notable, the argument is less than convincing. This would be akin to saying that every NFL football game is notable because WP:NGRIDIRON confers notability on all people who played in them. It would also be akin to saying that every single tier-1 soccer match is notable because of how WP:NSOCCER confers notability on players who participate. Both of these are pretty clearly rejected by the community as way too much of a stretch of then WP:NSPORTS guideline; I see no reason to treat that differently here.
      3. Holdin objection #2 aside, there's nothing in NTENNIS that actually would confer notability upon all participants in this event; the guideline confers presumed notability on the participants only in the highest-level professional tournaments, while this was a Tier III tennis tournament (Tier I is the highest level). Other tournaments might confer notability only on victors, but surely this would indicate that the tournaments are less likely to be notable than those which confer notability on all participants.
      4. WP:SIZERULE would actually be met even if the entirety of this article were to be merged verbaitm into the 2002 Wismilak International article. Doing so would actually render the merged article to be under 40 Kb. In this case, per WP:SIZERULE Length alone does not justify division.
      5. There's also no explanation above for why this would meet the ordinary event notability guidelines; the critique of the reference WP:NSPORTSEVENT is a red herring.
    At the end of the day, I don't see any valid reason to keep above, nor anything that would indicate that a redirect/merge is not feasible. If you'd like to propose a merge, then that could be evaluated in its own regards, but I see no reason to keep this as a separate page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your 2nd and 3rd points are so completely off the mark that I must correct them. I am not claiming that every tennis match in a top-level event is by itself notable, but that the tournament where the matches are held is. The equivalent for football would be a league article like the 2021–22 EFL Championship, not a specific match in a notability-conferring league (and nobody's seriously contesting the notability of those articles, even at the bottom of whatever level confers notability to participants). Your claim that 2002 WTA Tier III tournaments are not notability conferring is false, the top level of women's tennis is the WTA tour, and in our article for the 2002 tour lists all the tournaments played at this top level (plus some top-level ones organised by the ITF) for that year, the WTA Tier I - V tournaments. WP:NTENNIS also helpfully links to WTA International tournaments to clarify things, which clearly says that WTA Internationals replaced the previous Tier III and Tier IV categories. Iffy★Chat -- 13:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Tunisia relations

Spain–Tunisia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable relations and fails to provide useful information. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 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 04:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Uganda relations

Spain–Uganda relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like many other articles that this user has created, not notable. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 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 08:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Zimbabwe relations

Spain–Zimbabwe relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Many other articles similar to this one have either been deleted or are currently nominated. The same reasons apply to this article: The relations described are not notable enough for their own article. There doesn't seem to be any true relations between Spain and Zimbabwe, only things that you would expect any two countries to have. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:47, 5 December 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 04:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rye, Washington

Rye, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having fixed the coordinates (they were originally those of a "Ryan" in another county) we find ourselves in a desolate area north of the Yakima Training Center, where the old Milwaukee Road mainline grade is impressively visible still as a series of cuts and grades (and occasional tunnels) across some pretty rugged terrain. And that is basically it. There is no town here, and there almost certainly never was a town: I found this 1956 map which shows that land ownership is still divided up in the original checkerboard of railroad land grants. The topos show a single building at the west end of a passing siding, which presumably is the station that the place name citation describes this place as being. Searching found nought else but references to the grain. The old rail roadbed has been made into a 250-mile (400 km) long state hiking trail, which I expect would be awesome for the prepared in the right season, but a settlement at Rye? No. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 5 December 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. There are no objections to the deletion. While there has been limited participation, the arguments for deletion are reasonable and I don't see the point in continuing to relist. Aervanath (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bruckmann

Justin Bruckmann (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:MMABIO critera on all counts, no fights in top tier promotions, never highly ranked by fightmatrix or sherdog. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 07:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of generating some further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 03:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Closure request: permalink – (non-admin closure) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 22:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strategies and skills of Jeopardy! champions

Strategies and skills of Jeopardy! champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTHOWTO / WP:GAMEGUIDE. Gameplay details are covered in Jeopardy! parent article. Several sections are case studies on strategies used by successful champions. Includes some but not all strategies that have led contestants to successful championships. Although article is sourced, content fails guidelines listed above. AldezD (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Article is also in large part a duplication of List of Jeopardy! contestants. AldezD (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW as nominator. The discussion here and the improvements to the article during this AFD have made the impact that I now feel the article should be kept. I'll help improve it in any way I can. Thanks. AldezD (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This AfD is specious as there hasn't been a single attempt to discuss, criticize, or improve the article on its talk page. The nominator basically states (because WP:NOTHOWTO / WP:GAMEGUIDE does equal "Gameplay"), inadvertently, that the Jeopardy! article, if one were to really speak the truth, violates NOTHOWTO far more, as it has a whole, very large, section on "Gameplay" (and that would violate NOTHOWTO), whereas this sub-article only describes certain strategies and skills, with almost no instructions on the rules. In fact, I can't even find the official rules anywhere. Does anyone know where they are located? Gameplay is not really a major subject in this sub-article, at least not in the way the main article does it, so if NOTHOWTO forbids gameplay, then delete it from the main article...NOT.
The Jeopardy! article only has two paragraphs that mention "strategy/strategies", and one only discusses two aspects of the Forrest Bounce. There might be more, but it's so scattered throughout the article that it's worthless for someone seeking to learn more about this subject without reading every word of the article. This sub-article improves Wikipedia and provides good information to those interested in this great game show. Feel free to improve it. -- Valjean (talk)
  • @Valjean: "...So scattered throughout" doesn't mean there should be a separate GAMEGUIDE article here to help people "to learn more about this subject". It's picking and choosing some but not all strategies used by "successful" champions. AldezD (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, "there should be a separate GAMEGUIDE article here" per WP:Summary style, as adding all this to the main article would create an undue size situation. My glances at RS mentions of the topic give me the impression that this article has the potential for becoming easily twice as large, so inclusion at the main article would very wrong.
  • Anyone is welcome to add more strategies they find. There has been no "picking and choosing" in any improper sense. I added what I found and, in the process, realized there's a huge amount of more information like it that can be added. There is no requirement that an article has to be "complete" before going public with it. Other editors should be given the opportunity to contribute as they see fit. That's what we do here.
  • I don't know why I should have to repeat this again and again, but it's apparently necessary to do it once again: "THAT'S WHAT WE DO HERE." Why is new article improvement being treated like a wildly odd concept for Wikipedia?
  • GAMEGUIDE is accurately dealt with below by XOR'easter, and there is no violation. Even if there were, then discuss it on the talk page and WP:FIXIT. -- Valjean (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to point to the same page as NOTHOWTO. It is problematic that the nominator's assertions about the amount of strategy content in the main article appears to be false. -- Valjean (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article lede contains the quote "Although contestants possess exceptional abilities they are born with and skills they develop, they must also use certain game strategies to become real champions.". What are exceptional abilities they are born with and a real champion? What is not a real champion? Someone who has/has not won X number of games/$$$ in winnings? This is WP:OPINION. Text removed after AFD created. Re: "This sub-article", the sub-article details some but not all strategies random individuals employ to achieve success as a contestant. WP:NOTGUIDE applies because this article is nothing more than a myriad observation of behaviors exhibited by some but not all successful Jeopardy! champions. AldezD (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is call for improvement, not deletion. -- Valjean (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Feel free to improve it."/"That is call for improvement, not deletion."—@Valjean: You created the article. Why are you arguing others should improve it? AldezD (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because that's what we do here. Our first impulse should be to respect PRESERVE and see if we can save and improve a new article. Article's do not have to be perfect or complete. They never are. Even STUBs are kept and improved. If the topic clearly lacks NOTABILITY, that's a different matter, but that's not a problem here. I do not own the article, so others are welcome to improve it, and I'll certainly take heed of suggestions and criticisms and be part of that improvement process. If you just want to destroy, you're at the wrong place. At Wikipedia we try to build and improve. Normally, an AfD should only happen (assuming NOTABILITY is okay) after attempts have been made on the new article's talk page to bring it into line with PAG. You didn't do that. The very first sign that anyone had discovered the article had finally gone public was your AfD notice at the top of the page. That's really an uncollegial and unwikipedian way to behave. -- Valjean (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • What irks me most about this is that WP:BEFORE seems to have been ignored, especially parts C.2. and C.3. AfD should not be the very first option in this type of case. -- Valjean (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know why I didn't notice this before (now I see it was added later, but the nominator's exaggeration at the top doesn't exactly strengthen their argument. So far, and many more could be added, only the top five (depending on how one figures that) champions are mentioned here with their own short sections, yet the nominator writes: "Article is also in large part a duplication of List of Jeopardy! contestants." There are 48 people on that list. In what world does five become a "duplication" of a list of 48 people? That's just weird. Jeopardy!#Record holders and Jeopardy! The Greatest of All Time#Contestants are better places to look, and they need to be updated as they don't mention Amy Schneider yet. Any editor who finds some strategy mentioned by a former champion is free to add them and their strategy to this article, and, depending on whether they and their strategy are significant enough, to have a section with them added to the current list of five. Otherwise, a paragraph mentioning "Other...." past champions could be created if relevant. I can imagine that there are some strategies we haven't mentioned that were used by former champions. -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Valjean: I mention duplication because some of the strategies in this article could be/are covered in the contestant article for those specific contestants. Your reasonings and those of additional editors here have convinced me otherwise that this article should stay. So I'll make a second edit after this one to withdraw the nomination, and help where I can in this new article. Thanks. AldezD (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been well covered by sources even if the article needs improvement. The subject, as a whole, is less of a guide but more of weird deep dive everyone from random viewers during a good run to full-on fanatics discuss. Attempting to stuff it in to an article on the show alone could overwhelm it. GNG appears to be met and the opportunity should be given to build on the article as is.Outdatedpizza (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GAMEGUIDE actually says, Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (emphasis added). Jeopardy! has certainly been prominent for long enough that how to play it is a topic discussed at large. Remember how mad everyone got at Arthur Chu? There's an encyclopedic topic here, under the fannish tone. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the article, I found a ComputerWorld article that adds an interesting perspective on incorporating human Jeopardy! strategies to AI plus an academic paper on the same; an article in The Economist that discusses Jeopardy! champion strategies in general as well as specifically about Holzhauer; and multiple articles about individual champions' strategies. The independent significant coverage of Jeopardy! gameplay strategies meets WP:GAMEGUIDE. Schazjmd (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:GAMEGUIDE are intended to keep out articles with no encyclopedic merit; however, the abundance of coverage regarding Jeopardy! strategies indicates that the topic is notable and merits inclusion here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The article is about an Australian local politician and columnist who is apparently somewhat regularly in the news in Australia for provocative or controversial acts or statements. There are reasonable arguments on both sides: WP:NOTNEWS on the one hand, and WP:GNG on the other hand on account of the repeated media coverage of his antics. As such, I can't discern a rough consensus here either on the basis of numbers or strength of argument. Sandstein 08:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barclay McGain

Barclay McGain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E, received some brief media attention but no significant coverage Ivar the Boneful (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've already been discussing this at length with the creator of the article on the talk page when I first nominated the page for deletion. -- Tytrox (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I and the initial reviewer of the page already have said the subject has made headlines in different occasions for different topics, which makes this article ineligible for Wikipedia:BLP1E (since popular for one event seemed to be the concern). Tame (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unfortunately. There are multiple events, so single event does not apply. While not much bio depth, there is reasonable, reliably sourced, depth about the subject's activities, and is sustained over more than a year. So notable, even if for not the best reasons. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for deletion. Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I stick to my original comment. While the most coverage is indeed about the video, there is clearly more than just that. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 12:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with the above, both videos and McGain himself have been widely covered by the media and publicly commented on by politicians and celebrities.Rybkovich (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems a low bar for significance for McGain the individual. I feel the schoolies video would be best represented as a 'Controversy' on the Young LNP page.--Houmanumi (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unfortunately, the subject has made headlines in multiple occasions spanning over 2 years regarding various incidents, hence its fo-shizz not a case of Wikipedia:BLP1E. 103.126.20.210 (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)— 103.126.20.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete While the subject has been the topic of couple of articles and controversy, the subject himself is not of significance to warrant an article. Much of the content appears to be self promotional.--froomey999 (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)— froomey999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    @Froomey999, as @Aoziwe stated earlier: "WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for deletion" Tame (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This passes WP:GNG Swordman97 talk to me 19:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At a stretch this passes WP:GNG, however this definitely of very low significance. If it is to be kept then the trivial information needs to be excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.6.25 (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FEI The subject has recently made headlines again regarding Halloween costume and is making more for whatever he does. Even if you discard all the previous different incidents and citations, even with the newer headlines, WP:BLP1E surely surely is ineligible. -- Tame (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is wholly unnotable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that an event an individual has been involved in has been reported in the press is not evidence in of itself that either the event is notable or the individual is notable. Notability within this discussion seems to be predicated on a minor news story that is intermittently re-reported on. Barclay is not even the only student from this specific University that is intermittently flagged by the media for being controversial, nor is he the most prominent within the Liberal-National Party at the University. Other individuals include a former Young National Party Vice-President that claimed he would have been a nazi, and a former president of the UQ chapter who led the transgender protest discussed in Barclays article and then committed suicide after receiving abuse immediately after. Barclay is less prominent within his former political party than those individuals were. Outrage about conservative students behaving like conservatives is entirely unnotable, and too widespread a reported phenomenon to be considered uniquely notable for this individual. Importantly some of the events discussed in Barclay's article are merely unnotable events he attended, and news coverage does not mention his involvement. They cannot be used to avoid Wikipedia:BLP1E. Notability on the articles talk page seems to be predicated on the false assertion that he is a politician, or head of a local political party, neither of which are true. Finally Barclay himself has publically commented that he paid for this article to be written about himself [1], which calls into question the motivations of the original editor. TheDownUnderEditor (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Oscar De la Rosa

Oscar De la Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability. Only political office is city councilman. MB 01:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to add that would maybe be best work as a redirect to Oscar De La Rosa, but that's completely unrelated to him and to be honest it might be better to have the article deleted and then create from fresh as a redirect to not have an incredibly confusing history. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 03:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this article were kept, one of the two really would need to be moved. Capitalization would not be enough of a detail here to permit different titled articles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. If this article is kept then it should be at Oscar De la Rosa (politician) and maybe keep Oscar De La Rosa where he is or move to Oscar De La Rosa (musician). It's arguable whether or not the musician Oscar is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 18:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. City council is not a level of office that gets an automatic notability pass under WP:NPOL — the notability test for a city councillor is not "he exists", but "he has a strong and reliably sourced reason to be considered markedly more notable than most other city councillors". But this doesn't even attempt to articulate any reason whatsoever why his city council career should be seen as a special case, and the article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. City council is not notable and it seems the article was created after winning the relevant election in November. – The Grid (talk) 02:29, 7 December 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. Also, the article has been rewritten; a new discussion would be needed if it is still considered deficient. Sandstein 08:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social protection in Armenia

Social protection in Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no sources whatsoever. It has only been minimally edited throughout its history on Wikipedia, and the original editor has not returned. User:Vanjagenije suspected it of copyvio in 2015, to no answer from the original editor. The Armenian-language WP version of this article dates to 29 January 2015; the text of that article is identical to this Armenian government website, first crawled by Wayback on 14 August 2017. It's possible that an Armenian government ministry wholesale copied a wikipedia article, but I think it's more plausible that the page simply wasn't crawled by the wayback machine until 2017, or that it existed in a different place and was moved to this URL in 2017.

The only link to this page is a "see also" on Demographics of Armenia.

This was suggested for deletion in 2015 and appears to have survived on the grounds that it "has possibilities". Only minimal edits have happened since. Given that it seems likely to be copy-pasted wholesale from another website, I think WP:TNT is a better choice than WP:NORUSH.

This article was once Armenians social protection system: Historical Review and was moved here; if this is deleted, so should the old redirect be.

tl;dr: looks like machine-translated copyvio. asilvering (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it does look like a copyvio but it can be improved if some sources are added and maybe it's written differently. it's definitely worth having on wikipedia so id suggest it slowly be improved(which i am trying to do) than delete it all together. Avast rumali (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Slowly improving" a copyright violation is still copyright violation. And it's not a wobbly paragraph or two. It's the whole thing. -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:25, 5 December 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 Infor. ✗plicit 05:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CERTPOINT Systems

CERTPOINT Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. The article is sourced to press releases. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 02:09, 5 December 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 Xavier University of Louisiana#Institute for Black Catholic Studies. Now covered there. Can be spun out again per WP:SS if there is more sourced content for a subarticle. Sandstein 08:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Black Catholic Studies

Institute for Black Catholic Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual graduate programs within universities are not notable, except for the most famous. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and is that our criterion for articles? DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

力 , I just now made a section on special programs/institutes, and I moved the existing description of this and another special program to that section. As pointed out, this article says nothing mroethan is already present in the main article DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 5 December 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. The relevance of the sources referred to by Spinningspark has not been contested, even though I have to discount the "it's notable because it's by Peter Jackson" opinions; these are not based on our policies or guidelines. (This closure has been changed after a discussion on my talk page.) Sandstein 20:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the Line (2008 film)

Crossing the Line (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG — 07 ● 💬 15:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for discussion of sources presented, but not added to article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It might be a promotional test film for a new camera type, but at the end of the day it's still a Peter Jackson short film that helped Red get off the ground, and passes NMOVIES despite being made for a niche. Nate • (chatter) 03:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Okay, the fact that it is a work by Peter Jackson does not necessarily mean it's notable, no, but it's a pretty big hint that it is. To use an extremely exaggerated illustration (I'm not saying these two people are on the same level), the mere fact that a text was written by William Shakespeare does not necessarily make that text notable, but with some people, anything they touch is bound to be scrutinized and examined by a lot of people-- the association isn't enough, but it's a huge hint that there exists enough if you just look for it. So on that point, this film is referenced and noted for the camera used, and the influence that brought. These references are sufficient to meet notability guidelines. Spinningspark's references alone are enough to establish WP:GNG. Fieari (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For numerous reasons already listed. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by editors such as Spinningspark that show a pass of WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per some good work by Spinningspark passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1882394242149901&id=100011380290444
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_5&oldid=1060231995"