Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 17

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

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

Grip (auto racing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. When you encounter a dead reference or external link, you can often find an archived version of the page at the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, http://web.archive.org/ That's what I did just now, and I also added some other references. Another option would be to merge it into Glossary of motorsport terms. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - On the one hand Wikipedia is not a dictionary and in it's current form that is all this is. On the other hand, this subject is essentially two concepts in one - mechanical grip and aerodynamic grip. These two terms, at first glance, do seem to be suitable for an encylopic entry, and putting them together in one article, or two articles where Grip (auto racing) is a disambigation could both be potential ideas.SSSB (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Glossary of motorsport terms. The entire text of the article is already there word for word. There is no reason to have a stand alone article that is an exact duplicate of the content located on another page per WP:Content fork. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a convincing argument.4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, this is really just a dictionary definitionJackattack1597 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Glossary of motorsport terms#G. --Coolperson177 (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Yadav (cinematographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. major award, many major films. Most of the films weren't there 12 years ago. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - another from the same nominator, again less than 5 minutes after unrelated edits. Absolutely zero change WP:BEFORE was considered. But given the question was asked, keep per DGG too. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DDG.4meter4 (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE as cinematographer for multiple notable films. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Jaramillo is definitely notable, since he has trained very well-known tennis players and other athletes such as Maria Sharapova, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Monica Seles, Pete Sampras, Anna Kournikova, Kei Nishikori, Marcelo Rios, Max Mirnyi, Mary Pierce, and more. TunaLongfin (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To establish this as a fact, you'll need to provide an actual reliable source. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it was your job WP:BEFORE. After a quick search on the internet: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kmehta/2020/10/14/inside-the-mind-of-elite-athletes-who-become-outstanding-business-leaders/, https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/roger-federer-backs-itf-for-handing-maria-sharapova-two-year-doping-ban_sto5641417/story.shtml -GorgonaJS (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep subject is notable, as evidenced by being mentioned in a number of articles over a period of more than 30 years. Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ultimately, "mentioned" (as above) seems to be the extent of it. The Forbes article looks promising but is not a Forbes-vetted piece and is from a contributor so wouldn't seem to be subject to the same editorial oversight as we expect from a reliable source. The other article provided above says the following about the subject: "But in an interview with BBC World Service, the US-based star's former coach Gabe Jaramillo said a comeback was possible." That's it. It's such a brief name-check I can quote it here in full. This isn't the sort of significant coverage we require for the subject to meet WP:GNG and I'd have serious WP:BLP concerns about any article built on such scant sources as that. Certainly happy to consider other sources, but I couldn't find anything else (during my own search) that would meet our requirements. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP: SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the association with players such as Sampras appears to be that he was a teacher at Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy at the time they were students. Beyond his own repeated claims, I see no evidence that he was particularly prominent as an influence. There also isn't enough significant coverage about him to meet WP:GNG. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Besides what Stalwart111 said, the Forbes article has very little in the way of biographical details on Jaramillo that can be used in the article. Essentially, it is an interview, and the claim of having coached famous players cannot rest on Jaramillo's own statements alone. That would be a WP:BLP issue for the players concerned. SpinningSpark 17:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Whispers. Based on the comments, this appears to be a compromise most of the participants would be comfortable with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note - The earlier AfD listed here was for a different person of the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He was an important member of the band The Whispers. If he were not an important person, his death would not be mentioned in several newspapers around the world. I believe the article needs to be better developed. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Whispers. In response to the previous voter, the reason Caldwell's death made the news is because he was a member of the Whispers. I can find no evidence that he did anything notable outside of that group, and those obituaries make no mentions of such things either. His accomplishments with the group can be (and are) described at their article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The only argument I can think of for keeping a separate article is the fact that he wrote original songs for The Whispers. The associated categories with composers/song writers is impacted when we remove articles on individuals and redirect them to musical groups. Regardless, I agree that a redirect/merge is probably best in this case.4meter4 (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although he was mainly notable as part of a band, he is still a notable musician.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

AIR Users Blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:WEB and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete content is G11 quality. Notability not demonstrated. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: WP:G11 ––FormalDude talk 11:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Masterhatch (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Brendan Graham Dempsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Support inclusion and reject deletion: The subject of this article is notable, since he has published several books and has appeared in many podcasts and videos. The article includes some unnecessary biographical information in the Academic Studies. That section should probably be removed.Brandonlee25 (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete The sourcing is a mix of non-RS and primary sources including student newsletters, the subject's own works, and podcast interviews. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - initially impressive number of references does not stack up to more detailed scrutiny, as per GPL93 above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and GPL93.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Masterhatch (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:WEB.4meter4 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG. Masterhatch (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of George Cross recipients. In case any content needs to be merged it can be found in the page history. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living recipients of the George Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Redirect to main list per above. This is an identical situation to the list of living medal of honor recipients that just got deleted. Dronebogus (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to main list, as it's redundant. The secondary table of those who have died in the past five years is arbitrary, as well as annoying to maintain. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per the logic of the closer of the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (2nd nomination), pointless, duplicative, diminishing list. Mztourist (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above.4meter4 (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above Masterhatch (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Miguel Arcángel Roscigna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nominator's rationale: There is not much sources or information about this person. Myself and other have expanded it, but weren't able to do much. If it can't be expanded much more then I don't think there is much point in keeping it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Keep. I have now expanded it as much as I can with the information that I have found. Anyone who knows the language Spanish, please add the information from the Spanish article after converting it to English to this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand using the sources in the Spanish Wikipedia article, which are not yet used here. PamD 05:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Do you think that you can find someone who can convert the Spanish article into English. If this can be done then I think the article should surely be kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You only have to click on the word "books" above to find many sources, including, for example, extensive coverage in ISBN 9781849353199. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Phil Bridger, I have that book and did not see the subject indexed or mentioned, for what it's worth. czar 17:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the mentions is shown here. There are plenty more. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I confused that title with Suriano's Paradoxes of Utopia—my error czar 18:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty on the subject in Bayer, Osvaldo (2015). The Anarchist Expropriators: Buenaventura Durruti and Argentina's Working-Class Robin Hoods. Translated by Sharkey, Paul. AK Press. ISBN 978-1-84935-224-6. And since AfD is not cleanup, the existence of the source material is enough—there's no pressing need to translate the article from the ES.WP article (much of which is unsourced). This said, I'm sure you'd find an offer if you asked WT:@. czar 17:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Phil Bridger: Please see if you can expanded the article were more information. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, David, but I don't have the time or the inclination to so immediately. It has been shown here that more information is available in reliable sources, which is what counts for notability rather than the current state of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. just promotional gush. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Not much in terms of reliable sourcing and Wikipedia is not a resume service. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. She has penned some books which are quoted/cited by many others in google books. One source mentioned she was involved in education legislation in five states, but didn’t give details. Her books are in a lot of libraries, and she’s written articles for some education websites which are widely viewed. I get the sense that there may be some book reviews offline or behind paywalls given that they date to the mid 90s. If so, she might pass NAUTHOR with some digging.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. purely promotional, reads like a CV. a speech writer does not pass GNG unless there is literature written specifically about her. --hroest 21:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG Masterhatch (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Needs WP:RS. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have subscription access to the Los Angeles Times, and found zero coverage in the archives so the generic claim of coverage in that publication within the article is false. I did find one brief interview in The Washington Post, but as an interview it lacks independence. Of the other sources in the article, the only one that could be consider RS would be the book review in the climber magazine. However, this on its own is not enough to establish notability. All of the other sources are trivial mentions or lack independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Carnegie Mellon affiliated website for the Center for Iranian Music is the best reference, and it lacks independence as he is a guest lecturer at that school. It's clear he's talented as he has guest lectured at several important music schools, and there are some brief mentions of the subject in performances with some notable musicians (as a guest player) at important venues in reviews in The New York Times and The Washington Post. However, these are all passing mentions, and do not constitute in-depth significant coverage. Ultimately fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and 4meter4 fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG. Masterhatch (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll vote Keep since I voted that way in the first AFD, and my opinion hasn't really changed. I thought the article had sufficient coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability, and since notability is not temporary, I obviously feel the same way now. In fact, I was surprised that AFD ended with a Delete result, since it was pretty clear to me from the discourse that it was a No Consensus at best. That being said, I haven't been active on Wikipedia recently and I haven't edited this page since before that first AFD. — Hunter Kahn 01:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to either List of DC Comics characters: P or List of Batman family enemies. The character is clearly not notable enough yet for her own article, but she does seem to be popular enough to warrant inclusion somewhere. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this article should be merged to any of the articles listed by the user above or be deleted, because the character in the present is not notable enough to have her own article, the character is new and not completely developed yet and there is not enough information about her that can be sourced and be put into an article (example: powers and abilities publication history etc) and i think it's better to see if she will remain since it is possible that the character will not appear again in future comics lol! - Greasy mech (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete. The character still lacks sufficient sourcing after over a year, so it still doesn't need an article. TTN (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to List of Batman family enemies per WP:CHEAP.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Batman family enemies - The sourcing has really not improved since the last deletion discussion a year and a half ago, so the subject still does not warrant an independent article. The little bit of sourcing that does exist probably does justify her being included on the main list, though, and as she is not currently there, a quick, light merge would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Noteworthy in my opinion and in the industry. Sources in the New York Times [3] and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexcreatorz (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and return redirect to James Parr (politician) Generic travel blogger. All the 'sources' are the same as his website, and the MJS piece reads as a Sunday feature, not a neutral news story. Live at 4 CBS is actually just titled Live at 4, and airs only on WISC-TV, Madison's CBS affiliate. It's also likely he's on the show as an advertorial and not just as a 'travel/luxury expert' for free. Nate • (chatter) 00:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and TJMSmith.4meter4 (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Masterhatch (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Opportunity Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not finding significant coverage in reliable sources, and certainly not enough to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Withdrawal of the United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge useful stuff to Withdrawal of the United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021). Classic case of BLP1E. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and Peacemaker67. Mztourist (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - I'm not sure what's worth merging here to the article on the withdrawal from Afghanistan to be honest - this is classic BLP1E material. Some content might be worth including in an article on insubordination or political activity within the US military, but only if this turns out to be a noteworthy example of either. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable person.
• Merge per others above. And for the above voter, signing posts is a thing...Intothatdarkness 16:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all above.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is non-notable per BLP1E, and I don't think any of the information in this article that isn't already found in Withdrawal of the United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021) needs to be merged in. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete: I concur with the nominator's rationale. Normally I might have offered an opinion that this be returned to draft, but the editor who moved it to mainspace seems to be unwilling to follow our processes, to wit removal of the AfD notice. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry Sir i did it by mistake it wont be repeated again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70mmreels (talk • contribs) 04:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article has been in and out of draft several times. Doing so will not stop the discussion from taking place. Article is about an actress who meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films".-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:Article references has been attached from local sources also ^[1] (Asian Age)^[2](VijayaKarnataka)^[3](Indian Express)^[4](indiaglitz) Bhinna is a female oriented movie there is no hero in the movie it has bagged various awards ^[5] (India Express)^[6](times of India)

(70mmreels (talk)

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.defcon5 (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:WP:NACTOR WP:GNG is there subjected to her movies both bangalore underworld and bhinna^[1] she has played a lead roles even Tharagati Gadhi Daati ^[2] Singapenne ^[3] U can get many references in loacal language as well Bhinna has go prestigious Dadasaheeb award subjected to notability movies has all .. 70mmreels (talk)

@70mmreels: about that prestigious Dadasaheb Award … read WP:DADASAHEB. defcon5 (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not meet NACTOR or GNG. No critical reception of her work and the awards are non-notable. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: below are references regarding awards and reception on her work as it is kannada movie she has done as lead in all movies has muliple primary and secondary sources as per WP:NACTOR have mentioned independent coverages with significant roles in multiple movies ^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]} U can see the full movies bangalore underworld hindi dubbed ^[15] Bhinna which is uploaded in zee5 ^[16] Singapenne in zee5

^[17]

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

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

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

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

• @70mmreels Double voting is not allowed at AFD. I struck your vote above per AFD policy.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Person who ran for political office and didn't win (placed third). Fails criteria at WP:NPOL. Don't see anything else about the subject that would warrant a Wikipedia article whatsoever. I'm frankly more interested in reading about the woman in Cornwall who won a Fitbit in a walkathon mentioned above, to be honest. ExRat (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Additionally, this is arguably an inappropriate WP:Content fork as the content is pretty much a paired down version of what is in the Lev Tahor article.4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. @Mikeblas: I found several references at this Google News search and added some of them to the article. Google search allows a user to focus the search on news or books, for example, and a nominator should search each of those options as part of WP:BEFORE when they are considering nominating an article for deletion. I think that notability is now demonstrated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that WP:N requires significant coverage. While you've added a few references, they're to articles that make ancillary descriptions. A review was done of a car that had equipment made by this company, for example, but does not describe this company. One reference simply happens to mention the president of the company. Anohter just mentions the company in the title, nothing further. Despite your edits, notability is not established because these references are superfluous and not significant -- not even direct, really. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria including those added by Eastmain which all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per HighKing and fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - you got to this nomination before me. Subject doesn't appear to pass WP:NBIO, WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. Per the talk page, the article was created with a pile of non-RS sources, including the sponsored-content sections of otherwise-RSes. I went looking myself and could find zero biographical coverage actually about Surasky - a few (surprisingly few) RSes quote his opinions on things, and he goes on TV occasionally, but this is punditry and the biographical coverage is just what he says on his website - which, as you note, turns out to be quite difficult to independently verify. The thing he seems to do is to appear in crank sources of the sort that Wikipedia deprecates; but this doesn't rise to the level of being of note in RSes.

This is not a comment on Surasky's expertise as a doctor; I am noting that we don't have the material to justify a Wikipedia article.

FWIW, the creator did comment on the talk page on his relationship with Surasky: "I do not have a 'close relationship' with the subject. I am a colleague who knows Dr. Surasky from medical school & residency training." - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, that talk-page comment was added by an IP editor, and then messed around with by a different one to include a (failed) ping to me and to the creator of the article, Canes Stains. I've no idea whether that's the same editor or a different one; I am however sure that the Canes Stains account has not responded to my request for clarification. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to the request: I do not have a COI. Also that IP editor is not me. Canes Stains (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It appears the page creator did respond to the request to disclose any COI at Justlettersandnumbers's talk page. See diff. ––FormalDude talk 20:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Thanks, FormalDude, that is indeed correct, and I'd overlooked it, my careless mistake. Canes Stains has denied any COI or PAID connection to the subject; as above, an IP editor has disclosed a COI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete David basically took any words I could have said away. Subject fails WP:GNG. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 01:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was very uncomfortable reviewing this page, and spent time on the talk page following the threads. I tagged it for COI as that request had not been answered and put it on my watch list to reconsider after a week. With all the edits and reverts taking place there were 2 days of no editing, and not much left in the body of the article. My gut feeling was the page was going to come here. As per above, David has captured it all. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I think all that needs to be said has been said. Clearly this was not a good AfC acception by me (I will be more careful with my reviews going forward). All I can add is that the page should not be salted as the subject could always become notable at some point in the future. ––FormalDude talk 11:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that he could reach Wikipedia-notability in future, just doesn't yet - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He could potentially become wiki-notable in the future, but he isn't there now. XOR'easter (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep – but with no prejudice against the current article being WP:TNTed. Consensus is that the topic is notable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it passes WP:GNG. If it reads like a guide or manual it should be rewritten (maybe a WP:TNT). A Google News search yeilds reviews from TechRadar, Softpedia, and Windows Central. There are also dozens of listicles that include the software such as articles by The Windows Club, Digital Trends, Windows Report, Windows Report again, and again, Windows Central, Windows Central again, Gizmodo, MakeUseOf, and LifeHacker. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per TipsyElephant. Passes WP:GNG. WP:AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly enough reviews for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. The nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Also notable as a knight of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Biographies of living people have to have actual references. Rathfelder (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Then they should be added. A lack of in-article sources is a poor justification for deletion when the subject is notable. And a lack of in-article sources doesn't exempt a nominator from WP:BEFORE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eastmain and WP:BEFORE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain. Passes WP:GNG. Additionally, the foreign language wikis have other sources which can be used to prove notability and expand the article.4meter4 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, is now clearly notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain passes WP:GNG after WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. She appears to be a professional rather than an amateur. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastmain, I've fixed it. Htanaungg (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter (see WP:NMMA) or kickboxer (see WP:NKICK) with a total of 2 pro kickboxing fights and 1 MMA fight. I see no significant independent coverage, just routine sports reporting and an interview. Papaursa (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sulit TV has its draftspace, but it was created at the article page. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Can't see any sources to qualify this article to meet GNG. Riteboke (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can easily be recreated if sources showing notability appear in future. Mccapra (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as per WP:TOOSOON. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Locked redirect to Cignal TV#Pay television It's probably going to come out...but looking at the product page, it's either an Android TV clone box or just another interactive TV platform that would be a miracle if anyone else supports outside Cignal and TV5. In a year this is likely done, and it probably won't establish enough GNG to have its own article breakout. Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cignal TV#Pay television per Nate's argument. A case of WP:TOOSOON. SBKSPP (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Currently WP:TOOSOON, recreate if meets WP:GNG. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON, currently.----Rdp060707|talk 13:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article now has a reliable referrence. Myrabert01 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources added there. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:HEY. Meets WP:GNG with sources added to the article by Myrabert and Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasoning above and newly added sources. Koikefan (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Seemingly passes WP:GNG now. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SBKSPP, Koikefan and CruzRamiss2002. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:HEY. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY.4meter4 (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article now has multiple reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze. The page history is retained for anyone wanting to merge content and references. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It could be redirected back to Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze where the correct title currently leads to though I'd move the edit history there in any case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze, and leave the history for a selective merge. A lot of the content needs a TNT deletion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom lacks WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet WP:PW/Notability. ––FormalDude talk 11:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep but with no prejudice against a merge, which was even suggested by the nominator (just a reminder, you don't need to send an article to AfD to merge it). There is clearly a consensus against deletion so the article can either be expanded with more sources or merged to David Narcizo. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has lots of good reviews to establish notability. Even if someone else has tagged the article for notability, the nominator still needs to do a thorough WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of the refs you put in, needs a login. I suppose from a historical viewpoint, if they were popular, the article would have been worth keeping, but they were fairly obscure even back in the day. They are really quite good. The reviews are from blogs. They're is no mainstream reference amongst them, i.e. reliable. They're SPS sources. scope_creep^Talk 13:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Austin Chronicle does not appear to be a blog. Plus as the project has been inactive for years it is likely there were sources at the time that are now inaccessible or lost. NemesisAT (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to David Narcizo. There is no reason to have a separate article as the Narcizo article is rather short.4meter4 (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to CNN Philippines. MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Philippines Headline News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with CNN Philippines as a section. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Waddles Mccapra (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by CNN Philippines#News. I don't see viability for the content to be merged with the second article. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @A.WagnerC: List of programs broadcast by CNN Philippines#News is for current programs only. All former programs are at List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network, inclusive of the era when the TV channel was known as 9TV. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @JWilz12345: I thought the list only housed radio programs. So yes. I also agree with the redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @A.WagnerC: Radio Philippines Network, or RPN, was a TV channel that was the precursor of CNN Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by CNN Philippines#News Generic morning newscast. Nate • (chatter) 06:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mrschimpf: maybe you meant List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network, as it is already defunct (no longer in broadcast). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network. Fails WP:TVSHOW per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with CNN Philippines as a section.4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with CNN Philippines as a section per nom.--ERAMnc 06:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with CNN Philippines Masterhatch (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with CNN Philippines.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete outright. Beyond that, there's no real agreement on whether to redirect, merge, or keep as is, but that can be worked out on the talk page. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge It is quite normal for classical topics to be based on one of the limited number of histories that have survived. As a princess of early Rome, we should find some place for her, as she appears in numerous works and so readers may wish to know more. Even if we have to disappoint them, we should record what there is. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except no histories have survived, her name is only even known because that's the royal family's name, and she doesn't play an active role in any event. Does she really appear 'in numerous works' or are you making stuff up? Avilich (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would he be making stuff up exactly? There are probably hundreds of plays, paintings and novels based on the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, not hard to believe that she would have a role in some of them. Why do you have to be rude to other editors that don't agree with you all the time?★Trekker (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because a wp:before already reveals that no such coverage exists, and because this isn't the first time I see someone inventing sources or page numbers in an AfD. Avilich (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, the subject appears briefly in Robert Graves' King Jesus. As Graves' work is the subject of extensive scholarship and is based on history, readers might well want to know more about the historical figures that he mentions. Their names should therefore not be redlinks. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for a moment that it's a passing mention with no coverage like any other, there is no evidence that Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus) (exactly like that) is a plausible search term (many/most titles with parenthetical qualifiers aren't), which is the requirement for a redirect. Your argument may be applicable for mentioning the character in a dab page without either a redlink or a blue link. But a passing mention in a random novel has nothing to do with establishing notability or whether a redirection is adequate. Avilich (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any history that states that Brutus was the king's nephew would be a valid source for Tarquinia's existence, since his mother would have to have been the king's sister (otherwise he would have been a Tarquinius). And passing as the mention may be, a classicist refers to the works of Robert Graves as "random novels" at his own peril—but I digress. I'm not arguing—and neither is Andrew Davidson—that Tarquinia is necessarily notable enough to justify a stand-alone article. Merging into the other articles concerned involves nothing more than noting her existence, or anything else worth knowing about her—potentially including whatever Robert Graves says about her—with appropriate citations, in the articles about Tarquin the Proud, Brutus, the Tarquinia gens, and perhaps one or two others (not necessarily all of the content or sources in each one—a single source may be sufficient for her existence, but all of them might appear under her entry in "Tarquinia gens"). Keeping the current title as a redirect seems prudent precisely because it is a plausible search target, whether or not we conclude that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit a stand-alone article. P Aculeius (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (as unlikely search phrase) or Redirect to Lucius Tarquinius Priscus or Lucius Junius Brutus. Classical histories surviving is no basis to have permastubs on any name merely mentioned in them. Without significant coverage and her name only known for familiar relationships, better to cover in the actually notable person's article. Reywas92^Talk 14:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lucius Junius Brutus, with no malice towards recreation if more sources, miraculously, are written. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the articles about the notable persons in her immediate family. There's not enough known about her specifically to justify a separate article, but she should be mentioned in relevant articles. We do have reliable sources, and even those that don't name her directly do support her existence, since that is implied by the simple fact of Brutus being the king's nephew. P Aculeius (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There doesn't seem to be any content to merge which isn't already mentioned in related articles, and it's a sufficiently implausible search term that I don't see any compelling reason to keep it as a redirect. (And on the off-chance that someone does search for it, they will find Lucius Junius Brutus, Tarquinius Superbus, and Tarquinia gens at the top of the search results.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what makes it implausible. If you mean, "what are the odds that someone will type this exact phrase without any idea whether such an article or redirect exists", then it is at best improbable, but hardly implausible, which means that nobody would be expected to come up with the phrase, rather than "people looking for the topic are likely to search using a different formulation". There are indeed several possible titles that would logically point to this subject. But someone searching for "Tarquinia" would probably find this title in the search window before typing further, or by guessing there might be some parenthetical disambiguation—and by clicking on the proffered link, they would arrive at whichever article contains the most useful information (based on the discussion, probably either "Tarquinia gens" or "Lucius Junius Brutus"). So it would still be a useful redirect, since its appearance when searching under the subject's name would help readers locate whatever information we have. Otherwise, they might guess between several possible articles, and potentially choose one with less information, not knowing that a fuller discussion is in another article. That's the argument for keeping this as a redirect, wherever the content is merged to. P Aculeius (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Destubify -- This is a very short article, but it is not properly designated as a stub, for the simple reason that there is nothing (and can be nothing) to add, because we only know of her existence from what Livy says of her. What else we do with the article I am not sure. There might be merit in merging/redirecting, but to which of her relatives? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She should probably be mentioned in the three articles identified above, since she was Tarquin's sister, Brutus' mother, and a member of the Tarquinia gens. However, Livy alone is probably the only source it's necessary to cite to, if the only historical material is the assertion that she existed in the aforesaid relationships. Under her entry in "Tarquinia gens", any other details—such as whatever Robert Graves says of her in his novel—can probably be mentioned, together with citations to other sources supporting her existence. Entries there are limited to two or three lines, but it sounds as though it should be possible to summarize all of the relevant facts in two or three short sentences. P Aculeius (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Graves says nothing at all, it's just the usual filler "Brutus, son of Tarquinia" when saying how he's related to the King. Avilich (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary to say "again" when this is the first time you've said something. You can't remind someone of a fact that hasn't previously been mentioned, as though they should have been aware of it the whole time. P Aculeius (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no sources support WP:GNG other than passing references and WP:NOTINHERITED. Arguments for keep seem to just boil down to WP:MUSTBESOURCES without pointing to any. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man argument. Nobody has said that "there must be sources" that nobody has identified; there are sources, and they are well-known and reliable. Notability is only at issue insofar as the only facts that we have about the subject are her relationships to notable persons; but the correct procedure in a case such as this is merger into articles where whatever materials there are may be adequately documented. It is beyond dispute that the subject can and should be mentioned in those articles; there is no argument whatever for erasing all mention of the subject from the encyclopedia.

As a practical matter, since the subject is already mentioned in some of those articles, the only differences between merger and deletion are 1) double-checking to make sure that all of the relevant details are moved to the appropriate places, and 2) changing the current title as a redirect to the most appropriate of those articles, so that people who search for information on this subject can still find it, and so that the page history is preserved. These are not insignificant or unimportant steps, but they take very little time and effort in a case such as this. Let's not muddy the field by ignoring them, just because skipping the proper procedures might save five minutes and 100 Kb. P Aculeius (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from above: There are probably hundreds of plays, paintings and novels based on the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, not hard to believe that she would have a role in some of them. This article is three sentences. A quick search of Tarquin the Elder, the Proud and Brutus' articles show that the scant information in this article is already given there. The idea of someone searching specifically "Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus)" rather than "Tarquinia" is pretty unlikely and I'm not sure worth spilling any pixels over so I'll stop here.Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not unlikely at all if you've read any early Roman history. "Tarquinia" without disambiguation is the modern name of the ancient Etruscan city of Tarquinii; all daughters of any male member of the Tarquinia gens would have been named "Tarquinia", and according to most sources the wife of Servius Tullius (the sixth king of Rome) was a daughter of Tarquin the Elder, who would also have been named "Tarquinia". Readers searching for more information might reasonably guess that any of these would be found under an article beginning with "Tarquinia"; when using the search window the first ten options beginning with that title appear, and only the parenthetical disambiguation makes it possible for a reader to tell which of the possible topics to visit (as it happens there are currently two formulations for the subject of this article, but both are plausible). P Aculeius (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why not she was Queen mother? VocalIndia (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• do you even know what that means? Because the subject of the nomination is not one. Avilich (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Lucius Junius Brutus. Suggestion. Just a thought, but we probably could use a Tarquinia (disambiguation) page. Tarquinia Tarquini, Tarquinia Molza, Tarquinia gens, could be located there. A brief description of Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus) as well. The fairytale Bertuccio and Tarquinia from the The Facetious Nights of Straparola could go on that page. Then there is also the city. This would seem to meet Andrew Davidson's need for us to help reader's locate content on the historical Roman princess by identifying who she is and directing them to the article on Lucius Brutus page, and would simultaneously address Avilich's concerns. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: uuh, merge what exactly? This is an unsourced permastub, this shouldn't be more complicated than a simple 'keep, notable' or 'delete, not notable'--yet I keep seeing people, includig you, throwing around unnecessary complicators such as the merger of nonexistent content, false assertions of her being a 'queen mother', and suggestions of article creation (for which this isn't the venue). Avilich (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. Your tone is becoming uncivil. In response, some of the content on Tarquinia is not so overtly stated in the article on her son. The content in the article is easily sourced to a host of references in a google books search (which you would know if you did a WP:BEFORE); hence why a merge and redirect are fine. Just because the stub is unsourced doesn't mean its content isn't easily verified. Lastly, a dab page suggestion strengthens the argument for deletion/merge because there is a viable alternative to some of the problems highlighted in the keep arguments. As such, the suggestion was of use to this conversation in building consensus. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There was nothing wrong with the suggestions that 4meter4 made. He made no indication of her being queen mother, that was another commenter above, and left a helpful suggestion of how we could better clarify a topic with many same/similar names. While there is no mergeable content left, as both her motherhood and her relation to the Tarquins are both included in Lucius Junius Brutus, there is no need for you to always take things so personally and aggressively, Avilich. This is a recurring pattern of behavior with you and I am quite frankly sick of your hostility. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While there may be little biographical details on her, she has appeared as a character in a number of fictionalised works. These include notable plays by John Howard Payne and Richard Cumberland (dramatist) which gives a direction for possible expansion. Livy's History of Rome is essentially a political handbook for the Roman ruling class so basically it's all fiction anyway. SpinningSpark 18:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lucius Junius Brutus, due to WP:NOTINHERITED. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Walter Dunhan Claus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable, independent sources are cited. Peer-reviewed journals with the subject in the byline are not reliable, independent sources, as they are merely self-published work with editorial oversight. Multi7001 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It should be Walter Dunham Claus, as in the text, not "Dunhan", as in the title. At least one of the sources cited is reliable and independent, though I wouldn't call it "in depth". Some other sources are available, and I've begun incorporating them into the article. Wiki-notability might depend on whether fellowship in and presidency of the Health Physics Society meet WP:PROF. I'm inclined to say "yes", when comparing him to other researchers of the time period. (WP:PROF is mostly geared to evaluating scientists and other academics who are alive and active today; mid-20th-century American physicists most known for work during the Eisenhower era are a little outside our typical "look 'em up on Google Scholar" methodology.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for finding and adding sources as well as catching the spelling error in the title. I went ahead and moved the page to fix the spelling error. I'll take s look more closely at your additions later today to evaluate whether or not to withdraw this nomination. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the remark that "Peer-reviewed journals with the subject in the byline are not reliable, independent sources, as they are merely self-published work with editorial oversight." alarms me considerably. I think it's contrary to WP:PROF which indicates that writing highly-cited papers is a route to notability, and I worry that it doesn't reflect the nature of peer-review, which is highly selective and independent of the author. The whole point is that editorial oversight is what converts self-publishing into publishing. And the editorial oversight of a good peer-reviewed journal is ferociously strong. Just try publishing something in Nature! I haven't looked at the citation rates and impact on Walter Dunham Claus' publications, but his publications, with proper evaluation, should be taken as a potential measure of his notability, in that they reflect the impact he made on his field. Elemimele (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Elemimele, I agree with you. However, I think what Multi7001 was trying to get at is that sources which are authored by the subject lack independence per the written guidelines at GNG; no matter how much editorial oversight there is. That's important in this case as a large percentage of the cited sources in this article were written by the subject. What we are really lacking is any source material which covers this person in depth in an independent source. To quote GNG. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." We are currently lacking a source which provides significant independent coverage on Walter Dunham Claus.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 4meter4 But please do have another look at WP:PROF. The point is this: notability can be achieved by authoring highly-cited works. It's in the specific criteria notes, section 1(a). A citation is an independent recognition of the author. There are basically two ways it can work. We can either find an independent review article that says "Smith's method is used by absolutely everyone", or we can find that a million everyones have cited the paper in which Smith originally described his method. The second situation still makes Smith notable, but obviously we can't list all million times Smith got cited; instead, by convention, we give a reference to Smith's highly-cited paper as evidence of Smith's notability, and it is independent because Smith didn't, and couldn't force anyone cite him. The only thing we could reasonably add to this would be an indication of how many people actually did cite Smith's paper, by reference to some citation index. Conventionally we don't do this because most academics would regard it as superfluous. Incidentally, we also regard academics as notable if they've held a named chair or been chief editor of a high-ranking journal, and neither of these necessarily generates independent coverage. Again, the point is that you can't get to either of these situations unless someone independent of you thinks you're worth it. Elemimele (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Elemimele, I can see some merit to the rationale that the subject would meet criteria 3 or 8 of NPROF per User:XOR'easter. I'll admit I was a bit biased against the article to begin with because it was created and largely written by InfoDataMonger (an undisclosed paid editor who is now permanently blocked), and the article title misspelling threw off my BEFORE search. I am happy to change my vote to Keep based on that rationale. Unfortunately there can be no withdrawal because another editor has voted delete.4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4meter4, oh, no, sorry, I'm just confusing the issue here. I don't have any particular opinion on Walter Dunham Claus, and I'm not trying to change your opinion; I only took objection to the idea that widely-cited peer-reviewed papers didn't indicate notability, and particularly I didn't like the term self-published (you may well be right that I misread that editor's intent; I think I took it too personally; I work an an academic field). If you don't think the subject of this article is notable, by all means stick to your guns! Elemimele (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Elemimele No harm done. I was already contemplating changing to keep, and this little side trail helped me make a decision. Ultimately I do find XOR'easter's comments convincing. I'm currently getting ready to submit work to a journal for publication myself; so I can understand why you took offense to the label of self published for academic journals. Anybody who has ever gone through the scrutiny of a peer review process, an IRB board review, followed by an editorial board review would object to that label.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: Seems notable. Let it go through AFC process. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete searched in English and Malayalam and found no RIS. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant coverage found. Fails WP:SINGER.defcon5 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete searched in English and Arabic and found no RIS. Mccapra (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; "media influencer" as a description is basically admitting he's not notable. Apart from his own social media I don't find anything. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: Non-notable. The creator is blocked for using multiple accounts. Fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't think just winning a prize in an online short film competition makes this film notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. The press coverage mentions the film in passing and seems to be a rehashed press release.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NFILM Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable short film; can be speedy deleted per WP:G5. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFILM and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Michigan Technological University#History, selectively. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women at Michigan Technological University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

• If the sources can be put inline, a fraction of this can be merged to Michigan Technological University. Otherwise, delete. BD2412 T 20:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Michigan Technological University#History, probably to a new subsection. The only useful sources seem to be the 2004 Nordberg article (which I can't access) and this 2019 Riippa article. Given the lack of independence of the "Alumni News", this is probably not enough to support a full article that meets WP:GNG. (There may be high-quality independent sources available in the Copper Country Historical Collections, which is mentioned in the existing sources.) The details about Nada J. Fenton seem interesting and notable, if they could be verified; unfortunately, not much came up in a search. Suriname0 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge to Michigan Technological University#History per Suriname0.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Michigan Technological University#History.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Rost (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

• I no longer believe he passes GNG per my reasoning below. – ².O.^Boxing 23:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@Beckyrose233: I don't doubt Rost's popularity, but popularity isn't the same as notability. What is it that makes him notable? Being a professional boxer is not noteworthy. – ².O.^Boxing 23:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: as I said, I think rost has gained recognition in the boxing industry and for that, I think he quit notable am not even from Germany and I believe have watched a couple of matches featuring rost he has amassed popularity and notability status for him self in the last couple of years Beckyrose233

@Beckyrose233: he definitely doesn't have recognition in the boxing industry; his only real achievement is winning the WBF International title. The WBF is not considered a notable organisation and the International title that Rost won is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment. Additionally, he's never been listed in any of the rankings (top 10, 15, or 40) by the organisations listed in criteria 3 at WP:NBOX.

Again, I do presume he satisfies WP:GNG, however, in situations such as this I think it's more than reasonable to have a discussion (beyond "passes GNG") to determine what actually makes this individual worthy of inclusion. – ².O.^Boxing 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question/Comment Where is the coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG? I did an admittedly quick check, in English, and found lots of routine sports reporting and promoting but little that convinces me the WP:GNG is met. It's clear he fails to meet WP:NBOX, so meeting WP:GNG becomes important. I think that if GNG is met, then the question of why he's notable is a bit irrelevant because, in my opinion, the world at large would have indicated he's WP notable and that trumps any editor's viewpoint. Papaursa (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa, your comment just reminded me of the very first statement at GNG, Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time (bolding mine).

So, the sources I found are in German. The results I get in a standard German-language search all relate to a single fight with Felix Sturm, which received wide coverage in Germany, but basically WP:1E. When amending my search to "before:2020", I get results like: Westdeutsche Zeitung, Rheinische Post, Remscheider General-Anzeiger. I stopped there as I'm using Google translate and am on a mobile device (terribly tedious), but they're outlets that serve the North-Rhine Westphalia region of Germany, so the coverage doesn't appear to be by the world at large after all. I believe this is comparable to a subject only receiving coverage in the Yorkshire region of England or New York State, which I don't think satisfies GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 23:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He definitely fails the notability criteria for boxers at WP:NBOX. My own search of both English and some German sources did not show what I consider sufficient significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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