Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 1

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 21 (Sat) September 20 (Fri) September 19 (Thu) More...

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

< July 31	August 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Anyone wishing to redirect to the school district is welcome to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Portage Path Elementary School

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

Elementary schools are rarely considered notable (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) and I can't see that this one meets WP:GNG /WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable primary school. Onel5969 23:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Since the article is largely unchanged since Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Portage path elementary, my rationale from there continues to apply. Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Even though most elementary schools are not notable, this article seems to have enough quality references to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep, per Eastmain, there are several references cited here which establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Delete per Onel - Cannot find any evidence of any notability - No objections to redirecting if desired. –Davey2010 22:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Delete This is not the level of sourcing that shows that a school is actually notable. Just because there is some minor source somewhere that covers the opening of a new school building does not mean the school is notable. We need clearly reliable sourcing clearly about the school itself and giving indepth coverage to justify having an article on an elementary school and that is not what we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Akron Public Schools as is common practice for elementary schools. The current school has what appears to be quite interesting architecture as seen in Google Images, but I was not able to find any significant coverage of the design. The name comes from a historic Native American trail between the Great Lakes watershed and the Mississippi River watershed, but reliable sources barely mention it in connection with this school, and I had to do my own "original research" to make the connection. Coverage in reliable sources is run-of-the-mill. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I suppose we'll end up with a re-direct, in keeping with tradition. Personally, I think re-directs just lead to the relevant article becoming a directory, and (last I looked) we're not a directory, so I'd really prefer a Delete. RomanSpa (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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 result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Pau Torres (musician)

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

I've been going through the backlog on unreferenced BLPs and came across this one. While there is a name conflict with a sports person that makes source searching difficult, I still was not able to find anything meaningful on this musician outside of unreliable, not significant coverage sources like Discogs. I wasn't available to find anything, even with doing a non-public news search with Knowledge (XXG) Library databases. Silver seren 22:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. There's consensus that Leković is notable; any issues with the article's quality are surmountable and thus can be addressed through the editing process. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Edina Leković

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete Seems to be a promotional article done by someone who does not know Wiki policies on RS and references, etc. Since it has been sitting in this state for a couple of years, that's more than enough time for improvement. And it has not happened. It's too bad, I do think this person is -probably- notable, but the article is not up to it. Alaney2k (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey Alaney2k, thanks for participating. If you think this person is probably notable, I encourage you to identify reliable sources. In particular, the lack of improvement over time (WP:NEGLECT) and low/promotional quality of the existing article (WP:RUBBISH) are both features of the article that can be changed, and are not overly relevant to the AfD process. Per WP:AFD, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." In this case, it looks like the relevant WP:DEL-REASONs are, as usual, whether the article subject meets WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep - She seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. She has attracted coverage independent from her work as a talking head by a variety of national US news outlets, e.g. Reuters and NPR. Related coverage during the opening of a "women's mosque". She was listed in the inaugural The 500 Most Influential Muslims, although it's not clear to me how important that is. Other sources I looked at: Short profile as part of list in a local magazine. Coverage of her as an expert in UT Austin's student paper. An interview at the Center for American Progress, so not independent. Suriname0 (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons Suriname0 has already stated. She's clearly notable. WestCD (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Solomon, Daina Beth (2015-01-31). "In Los Angeles, Muslim women find empowerment in female-only Friday prayers". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-08-02.
"Muslim Women Challenge American Mosques: 'Now Is The Time'". NPR. Retrieved 2021-08-02.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/1st-female-mosque-opens-us/story?id=28725435
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/keeping-faith-inside-americas-first-women-only-mosque-n307721
THE 500 MOST INFLUENTIAL MUSLIMS – 2009 (PDF), Edina Lekovic is an outspoken Muslim advocate and communications director at the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). She is prominent for her appearances as a spokesperson on major media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, BBC, FOX News and various print publications.
Arnold, Shayna Rose (2015-09-16). "10 Most Inspirational L.A. Women of 2015". Los Angeles Magazine. Retrieved 2021-08-02. She delivered the inaugural sermon at the nation's first women's mosque.
"Expert says women honored in Islam". The Daily Texan. 14 April 2006.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2010/02/02/7243/connecting-muslims-and-the-media/

Keep as per sources provided above. Suonii180 (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Naomie Katoka

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS. Katoka did not compete at the Tokyo 2020 Games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep: plenty of coverage of her near-miss Olympic status. PamD 08:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep the article but remove the Category:Taekwondo practitioners at the 2020 Summer Olympics. --RonaldH (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought the same about the category, but had second thoughts. She was "at" the Olympics, and is listed in the databases etc. The category is not "competitors in"...". I removed the category, but reinstated it. PamD 13:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep Being ranked 172nd in her division and being awarded an Olympic spot by the Tripartite Commission (as opposed to actually qualifying by tournament success) isn't the strongest sports resume. However, she likely did receive a fair amount of coverage in her home country and received even more worldwide with her disqualification (and the reason reported). Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep Has sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep Has a good deal of coverage, and was selected to compete in the olympics.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Generic object of dark energy

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

Fails WP:NEO: While there may be a notable topic being described here (possibly the same as Dark-energy star), there is no significant usage of the term independent of K. S. Croker (Kcroker (talk · contribs)) aside from churnalism-type coverage. Possible WP:SYNTH issues as well. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: Forgot to mention that there are concerns across the respective talk pages that Dark-energy star, Gravastar, and Generic object of dark energy are confusingly similar to each other. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

KEEP - The "Generic object of dark energy" article seems very well sourced with WP:RS at "Generic object of dark energy#References" - and also - well discussed on the related talk-page at "Talk:Generic object of dark energy" - Comments Welcome from other eitors of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Four hits in Google Scholar. Three of them are Croker. Only one of the four even mentions Gliner. Impossible to search for "GEODE", for obvious reasons, but a search for "GEODE, gliner" returns only 6 hits. I find it extremely suspicious that the article claims that these things were hypothosised in 1966 when dark energy itself only became a topic in the 1980s. Are these topics really linked? Surely Gliner did not propose them under this name? Anyway, the notability seems to be missing. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

DanielRigal (talk · contribs) Drbogdan (talk · contribs) Gliner did not use the term GEODE, he just demonstrated that such things could and very likely should exist. See and discussion therein. Again, I take no position since I am maximally COI here. What I will say is that the GEODE page, as it stands now, is, well, awful. You can see my original comments in the Talk page. I could re-write it so that it is factually correct, and thoroughly referenced, but again our team originated the "catch all" name GEODE, so I felt it was inappropriate that I act in that role. Statements like, "As of now, they remain speculative with no supporting evidence" is not correct at all. The same could be said about minimal supersymmetric models, but there has been an industry working on that for over 50 years, so that particular breed of "speculative with no supporting evidence" is *extremely* notable.

The fact is, the community has not yet paid any attention to our base ApJ papers. The acronym, though it refers to diverse works since the late 1960, has not caught on. If notability/popularity is what determines wikipedia presence, I must agree that the acronym GEODE is not notable.

Concerning related pages, Dark Energy Star (Chapline, et al.) Gravatstar (Mottola, et al.) are examples GEODEs. Again, we created the acronym to try to build some cohesion in the literature between all the existing implementations. We have clearly failed. >_< Kcroker (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete Knowledge (XXG) should not be pushing the use of terminology that has yet to be accepted. We're here to follow the scientific community, not to lead it. Nor should our articles be based on churnalism. References 3, 4, and 8 are the same press release, and it looks like the dead link reference 15 was another copy of it. (Reference 8 is listed as being from Science magazine, but it's not — it's a random website called scienmag.com.) Reference 5 is a lightly rewritten copy of the same press release. References 9 (Live Science) and 17 (Phys.org) look like journalism but aren't; they fail to even quote an opinion from anyone not involved in the research. This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's a portfolio for content-scrapers. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, the page is not just based on a press release, it's copied from that press release . XOR'easter (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- @XOR'easter, DanielRigal, LaundryPizza03, and Kcroker: Seems the possible copied from text ( at => https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Generic_object_of_dark_energy&diff=prev&oldid=921022123 ) was added as a reference quote by "User:J mareeswaran" - see => "Revision as of 07:04, 13 October 2019 (edit) (undo) (thank) J mareeswaran (talk | contribs)" - Such a reference quote would Not be considered a copied from concern AFAIK - may be worth knowing if otherwise of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  - No, it very definitely is a problem. In fact, all of the endnotes appear to have been copied directly from sources (of varying reliability) without any indication that they were quotations. That would be an automatic fail for any school writing assignment, and it's not something we should countenance here. Likewise, the article says Such GEODEs appear to be black holes when viewed from afar but, different from black holes, these objects contain dark energy instead of a gravitational singularity, while a press release says, These appear to be black holes when viewed from the outside but, unlike black holes, they contain Dark Energy instead of a singularity. That's so little modified that it doesn't even count as a paraphrase. XOR'easter (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    - Speedy delete per G12? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
      - LaundryPizza03, since it was edited by multiple users, I'm not sure a G12 would go through. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep I don't see anything in the content that falls foul of Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. The objection seems to be to the name. It can be renamed to Dark Energy Objects. J mareeswaran (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, the objection is not the name. The objection is that the content does indeed fall foul of multiple guidelines and policies. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Relies almost exclusively on primary sources and press releases. The concept was proposed as an umbrella term for several disparate objects, but clearly didn't catch on. Also, the article is in a terrible state, it's an incoherent mess, and has copyvios. Tercer (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Knowledge (XXG) should not be used to advertise O(1)-cited papers... Sources are insufficient and don't show notability. In Knowledge (XXG) one should report on a reputation already built in the literature. This reputation does not emerge from the page. --SimoneD89 (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete. The concept itself does not appear to be notable, demonstrated by very low citation counts (as of yet) for the primary articles, and the term is not in widespread or general use in the scientific literature. At present, the GEODE concept should not have its own article, but it could merit a very brief mention in the dark-energy star article instead. Aldebarium (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Snowball Delete per XO'easter, Tercer, SimoneD89, Aldebarium. To which I can add: we've deleted articles on far more notable topics, with far larger bodies of work behind them, for not being notable enough. The problem here is that the article, as written is incoherent techno-babble. For example, the intro says "GEODEs ... contain dark energy" which reads like nonsense, since dark energy is, by definition, the pressure term in the stress energy tensor, so its not something that is "containable". The "examples" section lists four unrelated things that are "examples of GEODEs" without in any way mentioning how they might "contain" dark energy, or how they would contribute a pressure term to the cosmological (general relativistic) field equations. Later sections seem to imply that they are repulsive, and yet they attract ordinary matter .. where's this repulsive force coming from? What field carries it? So, sorry, the article, as written, is technobabble. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Dark energy can also be a field or substance that has a repulsive effect (see Quintessence (physics) and Dark fluid). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Tristan Murail. ✗plicit 13:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Tellur

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

Minor piece that fails WP:GNG—unable to find even close to significant coverage anywhere. Aza24 (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge to the composer, Tristan Murail. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 _Work 19:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Tristan Murail. There is no content to merge. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to composer. intforce (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Author has already deleted it under G7 Star Mississippi 13:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Jed Abbey

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

Non-notable young footballer playing in English non-league; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, playing in the non-league, not much towards GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Note - article creator supports deletion. Giant Snowman 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Nom's analysis is essentially correct. gidonb (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was speedy deleted twice, but most recently by admin Alexf as WP:A7 (non-admin closure). St★lwart 05:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Abhimanyu Tyagi

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

Non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus fails to meet WP:GNG, a before search turns up trivial and gossipy mentions. Furthermore they haven’t won any significant award(s) thus they fall below WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy delete - copyright infringement WP:G12; see also history at Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Tyagi, also by the same creator. Spiderone 19:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Nouva Monika Wahlgren

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

Actress fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. KidAd • SPEAK 19:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete. I was hoping there'd be more to dig up, as actors who can work in Swedish often have notable roles that have been missed in English media, but I've failed to find anything to verify this article with; a search in the Swedish media archive gave nothing (the only hits for Monika Wahlgren was for the woman running the book fair in Örebro). /Julle (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Whatever notability there is here is far below the level that could meet the requirements for an article. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete. does not meet WP:NACTOR. Peter303x (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete - At this time it does not meet WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Speedying for 3 reasons: A) The nominator happily states this article is notable (so why we here?), B} This essentially is a merge proposal which isn't within AFDs remit. C) You have a plethora of sources here, here and here. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 22:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Partial cloverleaf interchange

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

Unsourced cruft article, better redirected to Interchange (road)#Partial cloverleaf interchange. Tried redirecting this garbage heap, was reverted. arguments to keep or delete should be based solely on whether this needs a standalone article; the topic is inherently notable, but so are blades of grass - Floydian _¢ 18:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to accept that the topic is notable (which it is), does not propose deletion and does not provide a valid reason to do anything else. Instead, we mainly have insults – cruft, garbage, &c. Note that the page has been separate since 2004 and that there is no recent discussion of the supposed issue(s) on its talk page. See WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:BEFORE, WP:CRUFTCRUFT, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep: A bizarre nomination of literally one of the most common types of interchanges in North America. A WP:BEFORE search would have provided the nominator with plentiful sources. Curbon7 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

John Wilkinson (American colonist)

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

No indication of notability in his own right. I can't trace the 2 refs given but it would appear they relate to his son John Wilkinson (Syracuse pioneer), indicating father's existence at best, not notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:A7. There is no credible claim of significance here. And no actual coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:A7. The article doesn't even make a claim for the subject's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Soft-delete is not available and, due to very low participation despite two relists, this is the only close option I have. Daniel (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Natalie Minardi Slater

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

One non-notable occupation (writer) for one show (The Young and the Restless); no indication given of any real NOTABILITY. Article has remained un-cited for over 15 years, sourcing does seem to exist, but doesn't indicate substantial coverage. GenQuest 00:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GenQuest 00:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. GenQuest 00:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GenQuest 00:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO. She's won some notable awards (including a 2021 Emmy that's missing from the article), but all as part of relatively large teams (around 8 people). It'd be a stronger keep if I could find some press coverage or books providing biographical information beyond awards. pburka (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Still, she's possibly on the edge of ANYBIO, but there remains nothing found showing any significant coverage. GenQuest 19:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nytendoz (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Seethi Sahib Memorial Polytechnic College

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

I would have thought this would meet the threshold for notability, but I couldn't find the sources to prove it - and neither has anyone else in the 12 years it has been in CAT:NN's backlog. Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete-- DaxServer (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nytendoz (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Susi Bensch

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

PROD removed but without any reason being given. Rationale was Competing in the Summer Universiade, a student event, does not satisfy WP:NTENNIS or WP:SPORTCRIT. Best achievement otherwise is being a finalist in a 10K event. I can't find any coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG either, more importantly. As far as I can tell, this remains valid. Spiderone 21:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nytendoz (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Doesn't pass any SNG and no sources to pass GNG either. Iffy★Chat -- 11:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Setareh Hosseini

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

No sources to establish notability. Was probably created by someone with close connection. Trillfendi (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete: The article needs clean up, but Hosseini has articles in the Persian and Arabic wikis. The Persian article cites additional sources: (photogallery, not an RS); Iranian Students' News Agency (RS, interview with director of the project, only a passing mention), (passing mention in tv guide), (seems to be down...), (her personal blog...), (doesn't seem to mention her...). It seems that, so far, she's only been involved in one notable project, Inversion and she played a minor role in that (according to . So... I'm inclined to say that she fails WP:NACTOR at this stage. Furius (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nytendoz (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Steve Hildebrand

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

Run-of-the-mill political advisor fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL KidAd • SPEAK 23:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Being deputy director of somebody else's political campaign is not an "inherently" notable role per se, floating a trial balloon about potentially running as a candidate in an election that he didn't actually run in does not bolster his notability at all, and the sourcing is a mix of glancing namechecks of Hildebrand's existence in coverage that isn't about him in any non-trivial way, a blog entry and one-shot coverage of the pseudo-candidacy that just makes him a WP:BLP1E at best. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nytendoz (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete no campaign managagers are default notable, and the coverage here is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Modanlı, Ağın

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

One of many Turkey geostubs sourced to the unreliable Koyumuz. My redirect was reverted because this article has "more info" which consists of "The village is populated by Kurds of the Modan tribe." I would argue that this is insufficient for a standalone article and should be redirected to Ağın district. –dlthewave ☎ 17:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't soft-delete this due to the revert, so relisting to try and obtain consensus on what action to take.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Certainly exists. Appears on the map. Passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment WP:GEOLAND sets a higher bar than simply appearing on a map. Modanlı fails both #1 (legally recognized populated place) and #2 (case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources). It's currently sourced to Koyumuz, a weather website which is not reliable for geographic information, and Nisanyan Map, which is based on user contributions.

This and similar sets of stubs were discussed at ANI, AfD and Wikiproject Turkey with consensus that they were inappropriately mass created and should be deleted or redirected. This article contains no information (other than the unreliably-sourced presence of Kurds) that is not already present in the redirect target. –dlthewave ☎ 01:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete No apparent evidence of notability in article or searches. Claims that it passes GEOLAND are not borne out by sources per Dlthewave. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nytendoz (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The source states a population which would probably mean it passes GEOLAND but I'm not sure that the source is reliable? Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Main Line Method

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

Appears to be a non-notable band. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete Sources are primary, and I can't find anything else that is even close to meeting WP:BAND or WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Vanity page by SPA of, as near as I can tell, a couple of high school kids with a band who thought it would be cool to have their own wikipedia page. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Their only accomplishments are third place in a talent show and self-releasing an EP, and those are only visible in their own social media and Bandcamp page. Whoever created the article soon abandoned it, leaving us in suspense about whether that new album came out in 2018. (However, kudos to the dudes for their clever name, which combines a marijuana growing technique with the name of a notable railroad in their area of Pennsylvania). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete it's nice that they are (or were) enthusiastic about their band but Knowledge (XXG) just isn't the place for that, something like Instagram is. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Lightchild

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

No explanation in the article about why the subject is notable. No evidence given of passing WP:MUSICBIO criteria. The sources consist of the subject's own website, two interviews, and a trivial mention about being nominated for an award in sound editing. As such, it almost seems like a candidate for WP:A7 speedy deletion (no assertion of notability, no sources supporting notability). Finding sources may be difficult as the subject is known by three names: Lightchild, the stylized llghtchlld, and Mitsuko Alexandra Yabe. User:Skdb reviewed the draft and approved it for moving to main space, but it doesn't seem to be ready for main space. I wouldn't object to the article being draftified again instead of deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep. The GNG-qualifying sources that led me to move the draft to mainspace were:
1. Jones, Dom G. (July 6, 2018). "How music editor Mitsuko Alexandra Yabe helped Boots Riley and Tune-Yards create the sonic world of Sorry To Bother You". Fact. Retrieved April 27, 2021.
2. Feld, Rob (June 12, 2018). "She's Got the Music in Her: Mitsuko Alexandra Yabe". CineMontage. Motion Picture Editors Guild. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

For the first source, Fact (UK magazine) looks like a perfectly reliable music magazine; its article mentions that it was named "music website of the year" by The New Yorker in 2007. The article includes an extensive Q&A, but it's labeled as a feature and the questions the author asks were clearly tailored for Yabe; those kinds of feature interviews are very different than "this person was interviewed once as a subject expert for an article on something totally different". The second source was the cover story for a 2018 issue of CineMontage, the journal of the Motion Picture Editors Guild, authored by a New York University professor. It includes 650 words of profile before it even gets to the Q&A—that alone would be enough to count as WP:SIGCOV. The nominator's claim that this is nearly A7able is perplexing, given that A7 is a much lower standard than GNG that's supposed to be only for pages that lack any credible claim of significance. The fact that she was nominated for a Golden Reel Award alone is enough to dispatch that, even if it wasn't sourced. {{u|Sdkb}}  17:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not arguing about the reliability of the sources, just their independence from the topic. The Fact piece has zero coverage of the subject other than a mention in the intro, and a brief quotation in an interview of multiple people. This is not significant coverage, and constitutes a primary source, therefore not independent. CineMontage is published by the Motion Picture Editors Guild and the article is about one of their own members (or so it seems); hardly what I would consider independent. WP:GNG requires significant coverage that is independent of the subject. I'm just not seeing that the subject meets either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:CREATIVE. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting "brief quotation"—there's a lot more than that, as indicated by the headline "How music editor Mitsuko Alexandra Yabe helped Boots Riley and Tune-Yards create the sonic world of Sorry To Bother You". It is an interview, but as I said above, one in which the interviewer has clearly done some background preparation; see WP:INTERVIEW. For CineMontage, it is plausible that Yabe might be a member of the guild (I can't find any confirmation), so it's not ideal, but I don't see any indication she has any ties to the article author, who as an NYU professor has some amount of authority.

Regarding WP:MUSICBIO, that's an alternative to GNG, not something required in addition to it, so either path is sufficient. But looking at those criteria, she meets #8, "Has won or been nominated for a major music award", with her nomination for a Golden Reel Award. {{u|Sdkb}}  18:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hm, I am not sure what I saw there. You are right, the interview in Fact is more extensive, although still an interview. Given that the award seems notable (and I missed the fact that a nomination qualifies, not being awarded the award), I'm withdrawing this. The article barely squeaks by. Thanks for your feedback. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was merge to Crocus Technology#Products and technologies. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thermal-assisted switching

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

I was unconvinced by the sources I could find that 'thermal-assisted switching' is a notable concept. Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Crocus_Technology#Products_and_technologies, where it is mentioned. Merging of refs could be useful, too. This is a verifiable topic and seems of due weight at Crocus_Technology. Per our WP:ATD policy, for verifiable material, alternatives to deletion are preferred. A redirect to the company that commercialized this technology seems reasonable. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect per Mark viking. All primary sources plus a passing mention fails WP:GNG. Widefox; talk 16:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle 15:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

1977–78 Syracuse Orangemen basketball team

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

Does not meet WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTDIR as it is only statistics and lists of players, and is not a a national championship season at the top collegiate level or national championship season at a lower collegiate level. CodeLyoko 15:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko 15:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep per NSEASONS point #4: "For programs considered elite in a sport (for example, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome". They aren't listed in the example, but Syracuse is a longtime basketball power, and this easily meets that point, without question. Not to mention it was Boeheim's second season, so his HoF career definitely justifies this article as a 'see more' point for his own article. Additionally it looks like there's broken code in the infobox that needs repair, as the 76–77 and 78–79 articles are blue in Template:Syracuse Orange men's basketball navbox, but not in the infobox for some reason. Nate • (chatter) 02:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It's because most basketball team infoboxes default to gender types, and at the time the team were the "Orangemen" as opposed to the latest one. Therefore, the successive links don't work. The 2004 renaming helped; those prior got redirects to fix the links. Wylie pedia @ 09:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep. The team advanced to the NCAA tournament and compiled a 22–6 record. The team received abundant WP:SIGCOV in independent and reliable sources, easily surpassing the WP:GNG threshold. Here are a few examples: , , , , . Cbl62 (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep - The article needs prose/references but the season meets WP:GNG. Knowledge (XXG):NOTCLEANUP applies. Rikster2 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep; article needs expansion and sourcing, but the subject is clearly notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep Meets GNG, per above. Teams that reach the NCAA Tournament are generally presumed to be notable. The article needs work, not deletion. ~EDDY ~ 16:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep, per all the above, plus the article is fairly new (around a month at time of nomination). Wylie pedia @ 09:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep the article with no expressions to the contrary, even after a 2 week listing period. (non-admin closure) Bungle 15:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

International Theatre Vienna

AfDs for this article:

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

Please see last AfD - no consensus due to low participation, though no one arguing it is notable. Hoping we can get this resolved one way or the other this time - it has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep. The theatre closed in 2012, and I can't find any reviews of its 100+ professional productions on google, or much published info to verify the descriptions of the theatre's operations. There is no German language article about it to draw from. However, footnote 1 is an archived version of the theatre's old History page, which gives some useful information. Footnote 2 leads to archived versions of the theatre's old website, which is long gone, but if you click back to 2012 or earlier, you can find most of the old official website of the theatre, which includes several useful pages beyond the History page. Footnote 3 is a very good article from Radio Wien, which gives quite a bit of good content. A professional theatre company that produced more than 100 productions over 38 years is, on its face, notable. The only difficult part is finding more references that describe it and can verify the (not badly written) material in the article. If someone can access some books about theatre in Vienna, it seems very likely that we will eventually be able to verify the information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep, per above this is a theatre in a major city and there is clearly a lot to write about here. I've added a reference since nomination and I agree with the above commenter that it is likely that there are enough sources out there to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep Passes GNG with significant online coverage available. Zackdasnicker (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep per comments above. Kuatrero (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those advocating keep seem to either assume or expect that sources exist, yet where are they? The keeps don't seem too convincing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 15:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment I pondered whether this could be a non-controversial keep closure, given the lack of deletion expressions either on this AfD or the previous, however even the keeps here to me are mostly weak and not really convincing. Boleyn seemed to suggest that there has been a question mark over notability for some time but consensus on that doesn't seem to be clear. Bungle 15:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep, It can be presumed to be notable as it was a major theater company with over 100 productions, and has a few online sources available, but finding more offline sources may be difficult.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Pradeep Thapliyal

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

Fails WP:GNG. When it was at AFC, I had left a comment asking whether he'd won any elections. They've elected to move it to mainspace, without demonstrating that he has. Based on my search, he's lost an election, but not won any. Fails WP:NPOL. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Thapliyal is not the assemblyman for Rudraprayang, that is Bharat Singh. This subject merely lost the election for that constituency. Fails WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Does not pass NPOL as they are not elected and lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete. People do not get Knowledge (XXG) articles for running as candidates in elections they did not win, and falsely portraying their loss as a win is not the way around that issue — but the article doesn't even attempt to claim that he would have preexisting notability for other reasons besides an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete He fought election for Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly but defeated. Fails WP:NPOL. DMySon (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The Confession of Freddy Krueger

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

Future short-film with no indication of notability. I can't find a single reliable source about this film and also nothing about its director Xavier Priadko. See WP:NFF for the criteria for future films. I wouldn't even support draftifying unless anyone can come up with at least one decent source for this. Spiderone 14:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete Not passes as per WP:NFF. DMySon (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Appears to be an amateur fan film, and not one that has gotten any coverage in reliable sources. Its a bit strange, as this article is describing a movie that is not out until October of this year, however it seems upon searches that it actually was released on Youtube in 2015, and has a cast/crew for that is completely different than what is described in this article. So, I can't tell if this is article is on fan-remake of an already existing fan-film, or if its just filled with incorrect information. But, that's all rather a moot point as no version of this comes close to passing the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Ary Pratama

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

Played only 1 minute of football over 9 years ago and apparently never kicked a ball again. Clear consensus in these cases that WP:GNG is necessary to have an article as any presumption of notability from playing so little football is weak and often invalid. I found nothing about him in Google searches or even an Indonesian source search so can't see how this footballer would meet GNG or that this article can realistically be expanded beyond the one sentence WP:BLP stub that it is. Spiderone 13:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, clearly insufficient coverage to pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and NFOOTBALL (per concensus) --Assyrtiko (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Woodland Heights, Delaware

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

Apparently entered into GNIS is part of some cleanup effort, for reasons that are quite obscure, as it is actually an early suburban subdivision of Laurel that has somehow managed to stay outside the town limits though it has been indistinguishable from the town proper for decades. Not notable, an d if it were actually in the city I would have just done a merge. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep because it's not part of Laurel and because Domino's launched its delivery robots there, in a way that suggests that it is recognized as a community. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I see that as a clause in the Domino's article, not justification for an article in itself. Mangoe (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete I've reverted Eastmain's ridiculous hasty edit, the Domino's article clearly states that's in Houston, Texas...... obviously no sign of notability for this generic subdivision. Reywas92 04:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable subdivision, fails GEOLAND and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 20:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete - newspapers.com results confirm this is a subdivision dating back to the early 60s. Some coverage, but it's primarily trivial (I don't think articles with titles like "Woodland Heights Teen-Agers Hayride" and "Good Old St. Nick Will Visit Kids at Woodland Heights" are going to be useful for notability). GEOLAND has been held at AFD not to extend down to the subdivision level. I've read the press release mentioned by Eastmain, and the Domino's mentioned there is in Woodland Heights, Houston, so that does not help for this AFD. Hog Farm _Talk 00:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was merge to Misumi USA. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Misumi Group Inc.

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

Fails WP:GNG promo content Impeeriumalo (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

So add some more content. This company is huge - literally anyone in industrial space knows it. It's shocking it's not present. Deletionists off Knowledge (XXG)! SHAME ON YOU! prat (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The question is whether its notable, not whether the article is good. Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Impeeriumalo (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge with MISUMI USA - seems to have a lot of overlapping content and sources, I think they would be better as one article. Niftysquirrel (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

An interesting idea. The problem with that idea is that it is US specific. If merging, I suggest MISUMI USA and this article should be merged in to a Misumi article which describes overall international corporate structure and operations. prat (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep and Merge MISUMI USA here (different discussion). There is "overlapping content and sources" because they are the same company. A worldwide company that includes Suruga Seiki, Dayton Progress Corporation, Anchor Lamina America, Inc., and many others, so the notability would be hard to question. Promotionalism can sometimes be edited out especially on such a short article. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Süleyman Luş

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and fails WP:SIGCOV as the given sources are not significant in-depth coverage, just WP:ROTM, and why would they be anything else about such a young player? I'm a bit concerned about the bar for SIGCOV being set very, very low - much lower for footballers than for businesspeople, politicians, academics, artists, actors or musicians. Geschichte (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete - I agree that the sources presented are not significant enough. I did also find this, but it looks like a Galatasaray fan site so probably doesn't meet our requirements at WP:RS. Turkish source search didn't yield anything better. Spiderone 15:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of Singapore MRT stations. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

List of Singapore MRT stations by planning area

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

Non-notable list, have not been able to find any reliable sources discussing the list topic. R22-3877 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge into List of Singapore MRT stations. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
~~Merge~~ to List of Singapore MRT stations. While a grouping by planning area may not meet WP:NLIST, adding the planning area as a column to the tables seems reasonable. --Kinu /_c 00:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Changing to delete as redundant, given the information about the Location column indicated below, but no prejudice against a redirect. --Kinu /_c 19:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete List of Singapore MRT stations is now sortable by location, so there's nothing really to merge. Reywas92 04:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Merge planning area column only into List of Singapore MRT stations. Ajf773 (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete/redirect per above. The "Location" column already matches the stations to their planning area, so there's no need for an additional column. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to List of Singapore MRT stations per above, unnecessary to keep this list since their scope broadly overlaps each other. JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete all. Daniel (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Belarus at major beauty pageants

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

Additional articles:

On 31 July Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Belize at major beauty pageants closed as delete as a non notable list. This list was part of a series of articles about nations at major beauty pageants. Since these are, in my opinion, exactly the same notability wise I'm nominating all 146 articles that are part of that series (see Category:Nations at beauty pageants) for deletion in sets of 10 with a set per day to avoid overloading AFD with these articles. Pinging particpants to previous AFD: @JBchrch:, @LaundryPizza03:, @NavjotSR:, @Richie Campbell:, @Steve Quinn:, @Johnpacklambert: -- Asartea 10:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea 10:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea 10:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea 10:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea 10:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment Brazil has blue links to articles, but those I clicked on are just unreferenced stubs. If any list are valid navigation list that make a list of those logically categorized together, then it would be worth keeping. If the only links are to articles that will get deleted for not being notable, then the list have no reason to exist. Dream Focus 10:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 10:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete, this kind of indiscriminate collection of information is not Knowledge (XXG) is for.--Chuka Chief_talk 14:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete per precedent, WP:NOTSTATS, and (according to Steve Quinn (talk · contribs) Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Albania at major beauty pageants) WP:SYNTH and WP:FANCRUFT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete per wp:synth. References do not explicitly support the specific topics (WP article titles). And I agree that no stats is applicable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete all per precedent. WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection information with no notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. JBchrch talk 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Delete all - as per nom's rationale. Onel5969 14:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete all We do not need these lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Civilica

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

Non-notable website. Can't find any RS in English or Farsi. — Berrely • ∕_Contribs 09:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ∕_Contribs 09:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ∕_Contribs 09:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete – it exists, but there's no coverage that goes beyond trivial single-sentence passing mentions. Barring something more, this site fails WP:WEBCRIT/the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete with regrets - it seems to be the primary indexing service for scholarly conference proceedings in Iran, and I see mentions (but not coverage) of it on non-Iranian sites. This is enough of a claim of significance to prevent WP:A7 speedy deletion, but unfortunately not enough to pass WP:GNG. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete, not enough sources Sahaib (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

LuminAID

AfDs for this article:

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

no evidence of meeting NCORP--references are notices of funding or press releases DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep. I added some product review references. I think that notability has now been established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep. We have WP:SIGCOV in Financial Times, Wired, Chicago Tribune and CNBC. Multiple independent, reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep, per NemesisAT, as it passes GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Final_Round_(World_War_II_miniatures_wargaming)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Final Round (World War II miniatures wargaming)

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

As I found the text the only link was the home page which is now some sort of foreign language porn site. I did manage to find the site in the wayback machine and I have put in a webarchive tag in case the page survives deletion somehow. I could not find any sources that were not also simply pointing to the archived article. Also it is not on BGG.Slimy asparagus (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Slimy asparagus (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete - Appears to be a set of wargame rules that were invented by a non-notable group, who attempted to then promote it with a WP:SPA here. Outside of the group's own, long-defunct website, there appears to be no coverage of this game that I can find. Even the usual game databases like Board Game Geek have no entry on it, so the chances of there being some yet-to-find coverage in a reliable source seems highly unlikely. Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this of course. I saw some indication on the talk page that it may have been deleted before. But I only noticed that after I created the AfD and I don't know how to investigate that. Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Slimy asparagus Not deleted under the exact same name at least (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&page=Final+Round+%28World+War+II+miniatures+wargaming%29). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable ruleset (is this even a published game?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete I would like to be quite clear. I posted this here to see if anybody had any reasons to keep this page. I believe there are none. I think it should be the Final Round for this page. Slimy asparagus (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus verging towards keep. Daniel (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Esther Pilster

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

References do not represent the notability of the subject. Lacks significant coverage about the subject. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think this is probably a Delete. She sounds like a nice person, but she didn't really do much that was actually notable. The donation of some land to a charitable endeavour is very nice, but I'm not sure it makes her any more notable than the millions of others who also support charities to a greater or lesser extent. RomanSpa (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment I was able to find a staff-written obituary for the subject in the Omaha World Herald . A roughly $1M donation was covered in the Lincoln Journal Star back in 2009 and also contains some biographical information on the subject . MoneciousTriffid (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep Per MoneciousTriffid's sources. Furius (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep, subject gave nearly a $1M donation, and was a statewide educational leader (president of the professional society, guest speaker at rural teacher institutes, etc.). The article has been much improved since this deletion discussion began. Penny Richards (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY, article has been significantly improved since nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Agaskodo Teliverek

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently, it fails WP:NM due to:

not having enough independent sources,
having neither singles nor albums on the charts,
having no record certified at least gold in any country,
no non-trivial coverage about any of their concerts in any country,
not having at least 2 independently notable musicians,
neither winning nor being nominated for major music awards,
not being 1 to 3 on any music competition,
not performing music for a notable work of media,
not being placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network,
not being one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city,
not being a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

^ or they are just not in the article
^ or if there do exist, they aren't in the article
or if there does exist, they aren't in the article

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete - Despite being based in the UK, this band has practically no coverage in English sources except for occasional gig announcements and one brief album review (). Since they have a connection to Hungary they appear a little more often in that country's media, but still in the form of brief gig announcements or as minor connections in articles about other people (, , ). It looks like they got a little notice from other bands but that did not translate into the significant media coverage that is necessary for a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Found this in Index.hu, this is a good one, but other than this I couldn't find any reliable sources, only trivial mentions which are already said above. Most of the results are actual rearing stallions, not this band. :) Not notable. It seems like they haven't been really noticed in reliable media. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Carson Optical

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

Company does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is WP:ROUTINE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Knowledge (XXG) has a big shelf and I'm sure some person each month will be more informed by having this article at their disposal. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep, the article has useful information about the company. Comfr (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment. I believe more sources should be found as it will be helpful for this discussion.--Chartwind (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails CORDEPTH and ORGCRIT. Coverage is routine and trivial. One source is devoted to touting the company's binoculars and hardly mentions the company. There is one WSJ article that has some info that would be helpful towards notability, but that is not enough. This NYT article doesn't even mention the company. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep. The Wall Street Journal article mentioned above, this Tampa Bay Times article, and the Long Island Business News article already cited establish notability. I believe this passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only two contributions I place any weight on, per WP:DELPRO, are the last two - which are split and present contrasting views about the sourcing. Relisting for further policy-based input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep reluctantly. Passes GNG. – Broccoli & Coffee 03:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment (I ivoted above). Unfortunately the Long Island Business News source, cited above, consists of only the title of the article, Carson Optical expanding in Ronkonkoma, and only one line passing mention "The Long Island-based optics supplier envisions the future with a 50,000-square-foot property deal." This is not significant or in-depth coverage.

However, the Tampa Bay Times article mentioned above seems to be significant coverage. So, at most there are two sources that sufficiently cover this topic, including the Wall Street Journal article mentioned above.

I am not sure that satisfies the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for WP:ORGCRIT or WP:SIRS or GNG. I like to have three acceptable independent reliable sources for indicating notability. I'll do more searching and see what I can find. It seems like a good company and high quality operation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

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, especially ones like the this Tampa Bay Times article which relies on an interview, and the interview and quotations in the Long Island Business News article as there's no "Independent Content" *about the company* in those and they fail ORGIND. It isn't about the quantity of references but the quality, so adding references about, say, a review of a product where the author claims to have done some research (but actually just cut and paste from the company website) fails WP:CORPDEPTH plus the fact the topic is the company, not the product. Having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 13:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree with HighKing about the Tampa Bay Times article. I took a second look at it and it is not significant independent coverage. It has some cherry picked instances about the owners' actions. It does seem this was garnered from an interview replete with at least one quote from one of the owners. It is not original and independent analysis.

The company would have more coverage if it was involved in a controversy. The only source that I can see that fits the bill for "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject" is the WSJ article mentioned above.

And multiple sources are required. The other sources in the article and here are not sufficient for passing CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. Also, so far I have been unable to locate acceptable sources that could denote notability.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The WSJ article only has a small proportion of the overall text relative to the topic company and it is clear that it is based on an interview with the president of the company and a tour of the company. There are factual statements such as the history and how the firm has evolved beyond importing and the number of patents but there are mostly boilerplate statements which appear in most articles and that information can be found on the company website. There's really nothing here that indicates there is any "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject" when you go through it. It is clear that the source of all the information/data is the company or their executives. HighKing 11:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for pointing this out. I have to agree with Highking on this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Per HighKing. Fails NCORP big time. Neither of the WSJ articles offers more than trivial mention on the subject. The NYT article (For a Boat or the Ball Game, Flexible Binoculars) does not even mention Carson Optical only Richard Cameron, president, "Copitar", the "Japanese optics manufacturer" and "Cameron International of Huntington, L.I.", that "imports electronic binoculars". This is the first three I randomly checked and the last one appears to only be citation overkill. The American Hunter source is a Review: Carson RD-826 with only one paragraph about the company and owner. The company info consists: "that Carson Optical was started in 1990". That is zero for 4. The Indoor Outdoor source offers infor that Carson Optical Expands HQ. This is far from in-depth sourcing on the company just about the expansion. The Bloomberg source offers one paragraph. The Long Island Business News is behind a paywall but is titled Carson Optical expanding in Ronkonkoma so both the last two are concerning the company expansion and are press-release type sources. I do not propose to offer that the company does not exist. I own a Carson PO-55 MiniBrite Pocket Magnifier. Notability means more than passing mentions and press releases (routine coverage) showing that a company exists. "Keep" comments because "Knowledge (XXG) has a big shelf" or "the article has useful information about the company" are really just "I like it". -- Otr500 (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Coe

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

Previously deleted page with no reliable coverage Impeeriumalo (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Impeeriumalo (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete - no claim of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Ramaswar57 (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep It was previously deleted as an Attack page. At present it seems to pass WP:NSPORTS with notable roles as a coach. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete. College coaches do not pass NSPORTS on their own. All the sources are from his employer so not independent. Spanneraol (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep. While not all college coaches meet NSPORTS, I do think there is enough for GNG.DMC511 (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete. GNG-meeting SIGCOV has not been provided. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Not notable as a player or coach. Being named an NAIA All-American in baseball is not grounds for automatic notability. He also never went higher than A level (the lowest) in the minors. He was just named as the head coach at Kennesaw State so he has yet to even coach an NCAA game. In addition, just being a college head coach in a sport other than football or basketball is not sufficient to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Coverage is not the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Sulla's civil war. There is consensus to not keep this, but no consensus whether to merge or delete (and where to merge to). The redirection allows editors to resolve any merger from the history through further discussion. Sandstein 12:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Sulla's civil wars

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

Also nominating Sulla's first civil war.

This is all original research, with some content forking. There was only one "Sulla's civil war", the one Knowledge (XXG) currently calls Sulla's second civil war, fought in 83 BC. The article Sulla's first civil war covers both Sulla's first march on Rome (88 BC), which was not a civil war, and a civil war in 87 BC, which had nothing to do with Sulla.

Neither of the nominated articles possess any content of value. Sulla's march on Rome is already covered in Sulla's own page, whereas the war of 87 (which Cicero calls the "Bellum Octavianum") should have its own article in the future. Sulla's second civil war should be renamed simply to Sulla's civil war, if that's the best name available. Avilich (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep/merge See When is a Civil War not a Civil War? which explains that "there is no consistent historiographical approach for this period" which various commentators compartmentalise in various ways. Deletion is therefore not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You can't use a negative to assert a positive, i.e. the legitimacy of the article. This particular compartmentalization is not attested by reliable sources, which is the whole point of the nomination. Note that Pen & Sword often seems to be self-published material which falls short of scholarly standards. Avilich (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The primary proposition being asserted here is the nomination's demand that these various articles be deleted completely without retaining any trace of their edit history or content. This nomination presents no evidence in support of its contentions whereas I have provided some evidence in support of my position. That evidence was written by an academic who specialised in ancient history and so seems fine for our purpose. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The evidence presented is a lack of evidence in reliable sources and the articles' duplication of content from elsewhere. Your only evdence is a non-academic publication which nevertheless just so happens to support the deletion, since he doesn't say that the current arrangement is valid, and he reinforces my statements about the 'first civil war' article. I'm only expected to search around a bit for reliable sources before a nomination, which I have already done – I've certainly done more than getting the first thing that pops out of the search engine, as you did. It's not up to me to prove that the edit history, of all things, should be preserved. Your logic is spectacularly twisted, the burden of proving the value of these garbage articles is entirely on you. Avilich (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ – I'm not seeing a terribly convincing case for deleting either of these articles. The "first civil war" phrasing is used occasionally by scholars (e.g. David Armitage notes in this book chapter that "Sulla’s first civil war against Marius in 88–87 BCE led to a second series of contentions between them five years later in 82–81 BCE"), but that's really beside the point. The underlying concepts here are certainly notable, as the nominator appears to concede. And any issues with the titles, overlap, or original research can be dealt with through WP:RM, WP:PAM, or regular editing, respectively. Although these articles certainly need cleanup, AfD isn't the place for it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all, this is probably a case of wp:citogenesis since the article was created in 2006, whereas your source was published 2017. Second, Armitage is not a classicist. Third, there was no "Sulla's civil war" in 88–87 BC. Sulla left Italy in 88 BC and a civil war began while he was away, but the article is not about that; it's instead a collection of original research claiming that his brief and largely bloodless march on Rome constituted a civil war, which it wasn't. There's only one "Sulla's civil war", the one in 83–82 BC. Last of all, I don't concede that a bogus concept like this meets GNG, and AfD is a perfectly appropriate and straightforward way of dealing with this: both OR and forking are reasons for deletion. PAM implies there's sourced and adequate information worth merging somewhere, which isn't the case here, and DINC is an opinion essay with no applicability here. Avilich (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Striking. This is indeed not as simple as I thought. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep per above. I don't buy Avilich's reasoning here.★Trekker (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep/merge. These are important topics that were split off from Sulla many years ago, and have seen a lot of work put into them since. They might benefit from a restructure, pruning, or merger, but they're clearly real, notable, and don't fit any criteria for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: can you please prove there are real? Can you demonstrate I'm wrong? Can you show that there were two Sulla's civil wars as opposed to one? These articles were not split from Sulla. The 'civil wars' one was only created because of someone's terrible misjudgment in naming the other two articles 'first' and 'second civil war'. I'd also like evidence that the 'first civil war' was not simply a copy-paste or made-up original research. Can you see any sort of nuance in my original proposal and consider reaching a compromise? Not one person has done that up til now. Avilich (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

These events clearly happened—whether they're correctly classifying events as a "first" civil war or not. And yes, they were split from Sulla, or at least one of them was; the page history actually says the content was taken from there. And I don't need to prove that something isn't original research, or that something wasn't copied and pasted from another source (and if it were, that wouldn't be a valid reason to delete it). There is no nuance in deletion. Merger is a compromise.

If you don't think material belongs under this title, it's your job to determine what's factual and usable, figure out what articles it could be added to, and incorporate it there—or find someone else to help you do so. If in the process these titles are effectively emptied of non-duplicative content, then they can be changed into redirects to the appropriate articles. This preserves the page history while providing a means for people searching for these terms—which are out there, no matter why you think they are—to find the right topics. Or if the content doesn't clearly belong in an existing article, then change the title of these so it can stay where it is.

The fact that articles overlap with each other doesn't mean we go around blanking the ones we judge to be the least finished or most poorly organized and cited; the fact that an article describes something badly or characterizes it wrongly doesn't justify its deletion. This isn't how collaborative editing works. Fix problems, assume good faith, and in almost all cases assume that there is something worth preserving before moving to the deletion process for articles about substantial topics (it doesn't fail to be a topic because you think it's mischaracterized as A when it's really a part of B) that have been part of Knowledge (XXG) for over ten years. P Aculeius (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: I already figured out what's factual, usable (nothing), or disposable (everything), and I wouldn't have started this AfD if I hadn't already done that. Demanding other editors to do "collaborative editing" when they disagree with your preferred course of action, while doing nothing yourself, is a very shitty thing to do. The only thing that matters is reliable sources, which are absent here, and everything you said is time-wasting procedural nonsense based on a perversion of the guidelines and of common sense. But, since you'll never be convinced, lets do some "collaborative editing" ourselves. This will be quick, I promise. The "Sulla's civil wars" is pure OR, it was only created because more than one title exists with that theme. Can we delete that one, "merge" Sulla's first civil war back to Sulla, move Sulla's second civil war to Sulla's civil war, and call it a compromise? This is still a place to discuss this. Avilich (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is basically WP:TNT and an attempt to avoid collaborative editing, which is a core policy of Knowledge (XXG). You cannot get out of it by complaining that somebody else is demanding it of you without giving you something in return. Instead of complaining about policies, follow them or stop demanding that everything that doesn't meet your standards be wiped from existence. P Aculeius (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: I'm not avoiding collaborative editing, I'm arguing that editors' hypothetical collaboration in the future will be put to better use if things are done my way. Nothing I'm proposing contradicts policy; the only policy that's immediately applicable here is that of reliable sources, everything else is just a misguided waste of time on your part. There's nothing inherently wrong with TNT (not what I'm proposing here anyway), it's an essay, and so not explicitly against WP policy. And can you answer my question please? If you're going to disrupt my work as usual, at least give an input, something worth considering, an alternative. Would you consider what I put forward as a compromise, which is more or less similar to T8612's option 1 below? Avilich (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm really tired of your combative attitude, constant insults, refusal to consider anybody else's point of view, and utter lack of regard for either the work of other editors or basic Knowledge (XXG) policies. I've already replied to you three times and you're not listening. I'm not going to keep arguing with somebody who considers everything a waste of his time and everything he doesn't agree with a waste of space. You're absolutely determined to do whatever the heck you want no matter what anybody else says, so why even bother starting a discussion? Don't keep pinging me—I already gave you my answer, and it's not my job to keep refactoring it to suit your demands before you're willing to acknowledge it as anything but a waste, a perversion, or whatever other rubbish you want to call it because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. P Aculeius (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the one being inflexible here. It's twice already I asked for your own opinion on how to handle this, anything that is not just reactive ("you can't do this b/c reasons!"), and I'm still waiting for an answer. One such input has already been proposed below, and I didn't even need to tell its author how to behave himself and how to convey his message. Avilich (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment, this series of articles bugged me long ago. The main problem is that there is no real common names for all these events, nor a common chronology. The period from the Social War to Sulla's dictatorship (or even Aemilius Lepidus' attempted coup in 78) was very violent and confused. Sulla's first civil war was hardly a "civil war", as there was only brief fighting, with civilians and freed slaves opposing Sulla's army. It looked more like a coup, because he forced Marius and others to exile, then amended the constitution. *After* Sulla had left to fight Mithridates, there was an actual civil war between the consuls Octavius and Cinna, with pitched battles; currently there is no article covering these events.

I see two possible moves:

(1) Rename Sulla's first civil war to Sulla's march on Rome (2) Create a page Bellum Octavianum or War between Octavius and Cinna (3) delete Sulla's second civil war or redirect it to Sulla's civil war (singular) (4) delete Sulla's civil wars.

Wouldn't it need to be "Sulla's first march on Rome", to avoid confusion with the later one? Right now merging the three into "Sulla's civil war", singlular, sounds like the best solution, treating all of them as a larger sequence of events that cannot easily be separated (although there would still be the potential to split off detailed topics, hopefully with better titles). P Aculeius (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There's too big a gap (5 years) between the first march and the war of 83, and the two events are not immediately related, there being a civil war in between. A single Sulla's civil war for the war of 83, and possibly another article for the march of 88, is a better arrangement. There wasn't really a 'second march' in 83, not in the way the 'first' one happened. Avilich (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is it leaves out the conflict between Fimbria and Sulla in the East, while it was part of this civil war. It seems that there was a continuous war between 87 and 81—without combat in some years (85 and 84). I prefer explaining the concatenation of these complex events into one main article.

On the subject of "Sulla's march on Rome" , the current article only mentions "After restructuring the city's politics and with the Senate's power strengthened"; in fact Sulla passed a series of important constitutional reforms. I think the current article on Sulla is already too large to deal with these events in detail. T8612 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Another, bolder solution, is to consider all the events of 88-81 BC as a whole by merging everything and calling them First civil war of the Roman Republic (note: it's currently a redirect to Sulla's first civil war). It would echo Last war of the Roman Republic (between Antony and Octavian) and this is what has been done on the Spanish Knowledge (XXG). I favour the second solution, although creating individual articles may still be possible. T8612 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Finally, a worthwhile answer. What I'm suggesting here in this AfD is more or less your option 1. Note that Sulla's civil war already redirects to Sulla's second civil war, so only a simple move here is required. I prefer option 1, since op. 2 is wp:synth, it wasn't all a single civil war, despite the conflicts being obviously related. Brennan's Praetorship in the Roman Republic (p. 963) lists the conflicts separately, and I think Knowledge (XXG) should do so too. I don't think Sulla's march on Rome needs an article at all: the event's importance lies in the context of Sulla himself and the history of the Roman Republic, and Knowledge (XXG)'s articles on both subjects already cover that. But, if we can agree on 1, I think we can call it a day. Avilich (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I vote for T8612's bolder soliution.

IMO, if you are going to label something as some particular thing in the title of an article, you are making a claim that this is the consensus opinion as to how it is referred to by the majority of scholars. That better be supportable. In this case it isn't, and reading through this discussion shows that everyone admits that.

An occasional mention is not sufficient to support the kind of claim a title makes. At least not without mentioning in the article that it is only occasionally thought of in the way the article speaks of it - and in this particular case that would just be an internal contradiction that would seem stupid.

If they are dealt with together, as T8612 suggests, both bases are covered. The connection between these events, whether there is any, and whether or not one was actually a civil war, can be discussed in the body of the article, and the categories will get cleaned up as Avilich suggests. The existing titles of Sulla one and two can become redirects.

We provide the relevant information and let our readers make up their own minds about things like this. Don't delete, combine and fix accordingly is my vote.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I do think that Sulla's civil wars (the plural) should be deleted. Title is an error, and its content is worthless. T8612 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@T8612 and Jenhawk777: The 'bolder' solution is an additional step to the previous option. We don't actually have a Bellum Octavianum article yet, so we're not in a position to merge everything into a single civil war article encompassing everything between 88 and 80 BC. In the shorter term, we don't seem to really disagree that Sulla's civil wars (plural) is useless, and that Sulla's first civil war (if it's to be kept) needs to be at least renamed. A hypothetical grand merge in the future is kind of beyond the scope of this AfD, but could well come after that when the means become available, and in the meantime we can agree on a specific fate for those two articles I nominated. Avilich (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I support deleting Sulla's civil wars and renaming Sulla's first civil war to Sulla's march on Rome (88 BC) and Sulla's second civil war to Sulla's civil war. Perhaps you will have to relist these discussions separately. T8612 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

~~Merge~~Delete both Sulla#First_march_on_Rome and Sulla#Second_march_on_Rome adequately cover these, and it's strange to have an additional article summarize the two events when that's what the main Sulla article does. Reywas92 20:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92: the "second march", which is the only genuine "Sulla's civil war", has enough wp:sigcov to exist as its own standalone article, and is not part of the nomination. I can agree with merging Sulla's first civil war into Sulla#First_march_on_Rome (there's nothing to merge, but whatever). Are you also saying Sulla's civil wars should be deleted, then? Just to know if we're on the same page and can agree on a common course of action. Avilich (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, one article for the second march, one on Sulla overall. No separate article on the first march, no separate article summarizing both marches when the main one already does. Reywas92 05:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge as appropriate; I would suggest Crisis of the Roman Republic as another option. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete. only commenting on the present article and not the related ones. There was only one "Sulla's Civil War", so the title is wrong, while the content is OR, coming from unreliable sources, such as "janusquirinus.org". T8612 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Note to closer/relister This is not, as has been claimed, an issue of notability. Sulla's first civil war is an OR piece claiming there's a civil war where there's none, and Sulla's civil wars (also unreferenced) was only created, to begin with, because the name of the first implies (incorrectly) there's more than one civil war which might be styled as such. The single evidence against this offered til now is a non-specialist reference which uses these very articles as a source, so that shows the harm in leaving these pages just lying around. Merging this is odd since the content by all rights falls within WP:DON'T PRESERVE and WP:DEL-REASON, so that would be de facto redirect, though I don't think any of the titles are appropriate for this either.
If this were to be closed right now, I think there's at least a case for deleting Sulla's civil wars here, which is supported by myself, T8612, and Reywas (despite the latter's call for 'merging' the other one). As Reywas notes, there's no need for a third article (which, again, is completely unsourced and OR) to sum up and repeat the contents of other two; the keep voters, in their general dismissiveness, have neglected to address this. Avilich (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we have rough consensus to merge this content somewhere. The "keep" opinions don't refute the argument that this classification into several wars is OR; to do that the "keep" opinions would need to cite sources that make this classification. But we still don't have consensus where to merge this content to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Updated vote to clarify that there doesn't seem to be much content that needs to be merged since the main articles have everything already. This doesn't seem too complicated to consolidate in accordance with the sources without duplication. Reywas92 03:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment One of the merge voters has switched his support for deletion, so I ask that the closer now consider this as a course of action. I still don't see how merging is appropriate, since the subject is already covered elsewhere, wikipedia policy states that OR should not be preserved and is a reason for deletion, and the article titles are worthless as redirects. I've seen no relevant policy or adequate sources from those seeking to keep, only inertia; and the lonely pure merge vote fails to provide a rationale. Avilich (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete In my view, there is nothing left to say here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I have contemplated everything everyone has said here, and I realize that I've been a little back and forth on this as each good argument has appeared, but I think all the arguments have been made now, and there seems no doubt the best set of options has been put forth by T8612 which includes delete Sulla's civil wars as supported by Avilich and others. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Forbes list of Russia's 200 richest people 2021

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

Magazine article is a WP:ROUTINE yearly event that is specific to one country. It also lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

delete Even if the series were notable, one year is just ephemera. Mangoe (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete. This article is sourced only to Forbes.ru and does not show any independent coverage of the 2021 list. Furthermore, posting the entire list in this article raises possible concerns about copyright violation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete In addition to the valid concerns raised above, it also largely duplicates the scope of List of Russian billionaires (though this list is longer), which likewise cites Forbes. I don't know that there is anything here worth merging there and it does not seem like a plausible search term. Hence, WP:DELREASON#5 applies: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). TompaDompa (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Cave Colony, Delaware

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

Another non-notable subdivision. 'Nuf said. Mangoe (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep. It seems like a notable neighborhood. This article shows a somewhat deteriorated sign marking the entrance to Cave Colony This article treats Cape Colony as a community. Wikimapia has this to say: "A housing tract developed in the early days of space flight, with street names from space exploration vehicles: Aquarius, Venus, Mercury, etc." I suspect that there are several other references not available online. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Google maps link. I respectfully disagree with Eastmain here. WP:GEOLAND criterion 2 is very clear that populated places without legal recognition must pass WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage, and the few sources I've found only passingly mention it regarding events that happened in this neighborhood. As an alternative to deletion, a merge to Milton, Delaware may be preferred. Curbon7 (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
There's actually an article with decent coverage here - it does not that this was outside of Milton (as of 2000), so not sure that merging there is a good idea. Delete, though, a GEOLAND doesn't extend down to the neighborhood/housing development level, and everything else I can find is either passing mentions, advertisements, or real estate listings. A single article isn't enough. Hog Farm _Talk 02:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable housing development. The few news articles treat this as nothing more than a neighborhood and aren't sufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 20:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep as withdrawn by nominator (18:52, 2 August) with no-one advocating deletion (Knowledge (XXG):Speedy keep#Applicability, #1). Daniel (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Angola, Delaware

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

I have mixed impulses about this one, and I hope someone else can come up with something because searching is completely hopeless. So the first problem is that "Angola" and "Angola by the Bay" are not the same place, as doing a GNIS query will show, as well as eight other places around the area with "Angola" somewhere in the name. "Angola by the Bay" is a big gated community NE of Angola itself— maybe, for GNIS describes Angola itself as a locale. I've fixed the article to have the right GNIS ID and coordinates, but that still leaves the question of what Angola is. I'm not wedded to GNIS's classification, and the FWP text tends to argue that it was perhaps a tiny village. I have to say "was" because there's nothing there now. But the other possibility is that Angola was in fact a larger, vague area encompassing some or all of the nine other places named after it. SO as I said at the beginning, I'm looking for help here. Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Two of the references in the article seem to prove Angola, Delaware exists. I believe this means this topic passes WP:GEOLAND and therefore satifies the criteria for inclusion. The first reference is the Google Books reference - pages 501 and 502. Input the search term "Angola" for this book to see these pages. This locale is distinct from "Angola Neck". The other reference describes a Methodist group and church located in Angola, Delaware in 1800, 1832, 1968, 2009, 2010 . I haven't done a thorough job of checking the other references yet. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Multiple sources confirm Angola was a "town", "community", "village" or "populated place". The earliest reference I can find to Angola, the Delaware community, is this 1854 newspaper article, but there are 723 more results on NewspaperArchive to sift through. I expanded the article last night, using mostly news stories from Wilmington newspapers. More could certainly be added. Even those without NewspaperArchive access can find info about Angola on Google Books, or check its population figures going back to the 1890 Census (Angola's population back then was 12), the 1900 Census (pop. 18), or the 1920 Census (population 95). Even as early as 1800, Angola had a school, and by the 1830s, it had a church. For a while, it had more than one church, as a second church was blown off its foundations, according to an 1876 article. There was an Angola Post Office, an Angola Telephone Company, and a general store. There is history here, and not all of it great: the Delaware Federal Writers' Project confirms Angola was a segregated community in the 1950s, and confirms the fact the area was called Angola as early as the 1600s due to the imported slaves forcibly brought to the area. Possibly some mention can be made of the modern subdivisions around Angola in the Knowledge (XXG) article (to bring the article up to modern times), but this is definitely a noted and noteworthy place. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This AFD was closed as "keep" by User:Steve Quinn at 22:54 on 1 August 2021. As the closure was performed by an involved editor and took place before the prescribed period for the listing had ended, I, acting as an uninvolved administrator in line with WP:DPR#NAC, have vacated the closure and reopened the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Steve's argument is flawed in that a place simply existing is not enough to satisfy WP:GEOLAND. However, I'm in concurrence with Firsfron here. The fact it was separated in multiple censuses means the community previously had legality, conferring notability. Additionally, even if it wasn't a legal place, the history of the community as a former slave settlement and the decent-though-lacking sourcing regarding that meet GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep - I think this one's been fleshed out enough to demonstrate notability. Hog Farm _Talk 17:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

-comment Given the improvements made, for which I tank those who did so, I think this article should be kept. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep - Speaking from personal experience, this area is now just a bunch of large vacation-oriented housing developments rather than a distinct community (similar to the description at nearby Long Neck, Delaware), but the article has enough historical content to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 20:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Ted Fang

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

Irrelevant businessman not meeting WP:GNG with little to no significant coverage beside being listed in a magazine "power list", an interview, and news of their chain acquiring franchise rights. Seloloving (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Seloloving (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Seloloving (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Does not meet WP:BASIC, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep. References are adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment I'd say the references are decidedly iffy, because they're all mostly in the style of interview write-ups, and although Mr Fang has probably been honest about himself, that makes them dangerously close to being primary sources, not secondary. Elemimele (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not LinkedIn. KidAd • SPEAK 18:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Extensive use of interview-like sources (which border on WP:PRIMARY) and non-independent sources do little to convince me that the subject meets WP:GNG. The article's sources concerning the firms he was involved with confer more notability to these firms than to him. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Tripti Ensemble Crew

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

Non notable and unsourced for an obscure group. It is also not at all written in an encyclopedic style, with the lead sounding more like it belongs on a Fandom site. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete: This is a fandom entry. All the references are primary and inadmissible. Search brings nothing. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Google serach turns up no reliable independent sources that show significant coverage on the band. The only hits are from social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Myspace. --Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Whatever this article is about, and I am not sure I understand, it is a relic of our worst years and certainly doesn't belong here now. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete not notable. No source is provided, all sources are from social media sites. Furthermore, working with Radiohead does not mean that they are notable. Also, the way that this article is written is quite peculiar. Inter-dimensional band, time-travelling rock band? SunDawn talk 07:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete - I would concur with all of the comments above and would agree that it is a rather odd article. However leaving that aside it seems clear that the subject of the article clearly fails any notability standards so there is no reason to keep it. Dunarc (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. I find Metropolitan90's contribution the most persuasive from a policy standpoint, and in seven days, it was not refuted in the slightest. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Pan American University Games

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

The only source I can find on this topic is primary , there doesn't appear to be any sort of coverage in the news, which leads me to believe this is a non-notable sporting event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you could not find a source has nothing to do with the article. I added more than ten sources to it. In addition to being as well-known as similar articles, even though it is new and established in 2018, it has more than 200,000 results on Google. This is because you did not search correctly. Hao Xia Xia (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

you should search :

FISU AMERICA GAMES

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Snowball_clause

This user seems to be looking for nonsense excuses to delete the article. It had already bothered me in related articles. You are also discouraging me from working because I seem to be wasting my time. The article is well known and there are many corresponding articles. Asia will also start regional student competitions from 2022. Despite being new, there are enough resources and based on the principle of the snowball, there is no need to continue the discussion because the result is clear. --Hao Xia Xia (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources are all primary and do not present any sort of Significant coverage, as indicated in WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This user's argument from the beginning was that these competitions are irrelevant to Panam Sport:

http://www.badmintonpanam.org/badminton-will-be-part-of-fisu-america-games-2020/

You can see that it is also reflected in official sites such as the official badminton site of the Americas. Hao Xia Xia (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

In this case, it should be labeled as resource improvement, not deletion. These competitions have been held only once and the second period is due to corona postpone to 2021. The main sources are Portuguese and Spanish. I also did not see such strictness in other similar articles. Your reason for deleting the article does not appear to be valid. Hao Xia Xia (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

also you can change redirect to :

World University Games

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
comment if there really are that many sources (in other languages) @Hao Xia Xia: can you please bring them forward per WP:THREE? Otherwise we will have to delete it with the current sourcing. Please do not use "official" sites but rather independent coverage in national newspapers etc. --hroest 14:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep.

Hao Xia Xia (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hannes Röst: There are enough resources. They are more than enough as well. For a competition that is only two years old, it is not necessary to find thousands of independent sources. It is a normal and small but famous competition. In the worst case, it does not need to be removed and can be redirected to the World Universiade.Hao Xia Xia (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You look at the rest of the sports articles. Many of them hardly even have a credible source (Many have only one source, which is not independent). Should they all be removed? In these cases, it is labeled as resource improvement, not deletion. The user who deleted the tag from the beginning and from my first edition deleted my edits because he believes that other than the Pan American Games, other competitions are not important or may not exist. Hao Xia Xia (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Please review WP:OTHER. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hao Xia Xia: yes, they should be removed per Knowledge (XXG) policy. Nobody asked you to find thousands of sources, I only asked you what the three most reliable sources are and you have not been able to deliver them so far. All sources I see are either not independent, press releases or blogs and I dont see a single respectable newspaper covering the event. --hroest 14:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete - everything I could find related to the Pan American Games, for which we already have an article, or seemed to be reprints of FISU press releases and publications. That's coverage, sort of, but certainly not independent. The rest were passing mentions in articles about other things, other sports, or other events. It doesn't help that someone has tried to reference-bomb the article in an attempt to make the subject look notable, but if you go through them (and I did) most have their genesis at the FISU URL. St★lwart 05:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep – This article isn't about the Pan American Games, it is about the Pan American University Games. The difference between these to types of games are that the latter only allow student-athletes to participate. With its first edition held in 2018 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. @Stalwart111: Have you tried to make a search of this subject (Panamericanos Universitarios ?) in other languages for instance in spanish or brazilian-portuguese, and looking through related newspapers (from the Sao Paolo-area around the dates of the event being held there), here Knowledge (XXG):List of online newspaper archives#Brazil ? I'm norwegian and doesn't speak or understand neither spanish nor brazilian-portuguese. Sorry forgot to sign my keep-vote, Migrant (talk – contribs) 18:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the distinction between the two; its a distinction I pointed out in my opening line. I think everyone understands the distinction. If you have foreign language sources, feel free to link to them so that other editors can consider them. I didn't suggest there were no sources; simply that I could not find any. And my !vote was based on that search and a review of the sources currently in the article itself (which are pretty poor for WP:Notability purposes). St★lwart 07:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: i think we can take another pass at this one–the difference between Pan American Games and Pan American University Games could cause a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment. This article has only one sentence of prose with 22 footnotes attached to it. Generally speaking, that's not how an article should be organized. In fact, some of the footnotes refer to the "FISU America Games" rather than the "Pan American University Games"; if the event's name has changed since it began, then that should be mentioned in a separate sentence with a citation. If this article is to be kept, I would like to see more prose content (with appropriate citations). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete due to serious accuracy problems. "Pan American University Games" does not even appear to be the correct name for this event; the only reference to that name I can find on the FISU America website uses the name "FISU America Games" as the primary name. (See .) The article also claims that 3,000 athletes participated in the 2nd edition of the games in Mérida, Venezuela, in June 2020, which would have been during the COVID-19 pandemic when international travel was limited. In actuality, the FISU America Games were never even scheduled for Mérida, Venezuela; they were scheduled for Mérida, Mexico -- and they weren't even held in 2020 due to the pandemic, but were suspended in March of that year, to be rescheduled at a later date which has apparently not yet been announced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Park furniture

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

SpiritedMichelle (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment. This earlier version of the article has references that establish notability, I think. Some text was removed from the older version as an alleged copyvio, but the references are still helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Strong keep. This article can be saved by editing the previous version to remove copyvios and adding the new references. The article is also notable in my eyes as one may wish to know more about the very widespread park furniture and not be able to find an article on it. WhenYouWiki (A person) (Talk) 06:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to a new article "Outdoor furniture" to incorporate park furniture, street furniture, patio furniture and the like. A weather resistant bench is a bench whether installed on the street, in a park, at a golf course or in my back yard. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment there's also "Urban furniture" which is public furniture more generally. see Google search results ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 06:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, definitely keep; parks are part or our culture, and they are defined by what's in them, which includes all those beautiful band-stands, strange ponds and fountains, and weird things that our Edwardian forbears decided to build. As it stands, the article is a mere stub, but it might inspire someone to write an article worthy of our parks and their furniture. Although I see @Cullen's point, I wouldn't merge it with outdoor furniture because it'll end up full of private barbecues and firepits that have a cultural significance but are far removed from civic furniture. Stubs can be good, they are provocative; the concept is notable and encyclopaedia-worthy. Elemimele (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per WP:SK. The nomination "fails to advance any argument for deletion" as it seems to be completely blank. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep and close per WP:SNOWBALL. Zero rationale provided, and zero evidence WP:BEFORE was even considered. St★lwart 07:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep, no reason provided for deletion. Searching finds plenty of news stories using the phrase "park furniture". NemesisAT (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep The article is in a sorry state but the concept itself is notable (though I really don't think the sources in the version Eastmain linked to are a good example, seeing as the first two don't mention park furniture at all and the other three are links to companies that presumably sell park furniture) and WP:TNT does not apply. TompaDompa (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep - No reason to delete this. SunDawn talk 08:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)