Knowledge (XXG)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Non notable. I can't find any evidence this exists outside of fan forum posts. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete My searches were just as futile. arwiki has a page but it's mostly a list of programs, and I don't trust anything like that on children's TV topics from experience. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Unable to find any reference for this over internet and hence this is worthy candidate for deletion.Advait.kansal (talk) 08:28, 13 October 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 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. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Jay Bahd

Musician who does not satisfy musical notability guidelines or general notability guidelines. Created in both draft space and article space at the same time, so that this article cannot be moved into draft space.

He has received two national industry awards that appear however to be vanity awards. A review of the references shows that none of them appear to be independent and reliable.

Recommend that the article be deleted and the draft left standing for possible expansion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - The nominator's case against unreliable sources is convincing, and I can find nothing else beyond obvious promo announcements shelled out by his agent. No opinion on the draftspace issue. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Won a Vodafone Ghana Music Award which is broadcast on GHOne TV and is basically Ghana's equivalent to the Grammys. Additionally the source analysis above is suspect, as some of those publications that supposedly lack independence have editorial boards with paid on staff independent journalists (such as Ghana Music). There is clearly a Western bias present coloring the source analysis.4meter4 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Just going to reiterate 4meter4's point that being an "industry rag" does not make a source unreliable or non-independent. However, all of the sources currently in the article are only trivial coverage, so unless there are other sources, he still fails WP:GNG. I'm not familiar with the Vodafone Ghana Music Award, so I have no opinion on whether he satisfies WP:ANYBIO. Also, CratesHub and GhGossip both have download links, so unless the song is free to share, those websites are illegal. Mlb96 (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Weak delete, subject hasn’t gained substantial coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON. -Xclusivzik (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete-keeping both namespace wont be working, it is best way to keep draft part and delete article namespace. When draft will pass for article then it will be converted into article namespace.Jyoti Roy (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. The subject won a notable award that's televised on Ghana's GHOne TV; the fifth most watched television channel in that nation. It's not a minor award, but a significant national music award. The delete votes are completely ignoring WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO criteria for artists who have won a notable award in what amounts to a western bias. Major national music awards count when weighing notability through our relevant SNGs.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 12 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

2010 Dutch Caribbean Age Group Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable sports event. Fails WP:GNG and is full of red links. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

2008 Dutch Caribbean Age Group Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012 Dutch Caribbean Age Group Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2014 Dutch Caribbean Age Group Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dutch Caribbean Age Group Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also nominating these three four for the same reason. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Unusually low degree of notability, fails every guideline by a large margin. Coverage of children's sport should be purged with WP:TNT in most cases. Geschichte (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice against any REFUND. Detailed lists of pre-teens participating in a local sports meet should be WP:TNT purged. The per-event articles are clearly doomed; Dutch Caribbean Age Group Championships is also unsourced (and I find no sources) and filled with trivia like "under-13 event records". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:35, 18 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dal Shabet. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

This article should be deleted because she is a non-notable singer. She failed WP:SINGER, which is the main reason why this article should be deleted. Her music failed to chart in any country, which is one of the main factors she failed WP:SINGER. My WP:BEFORE says she is rarely found on reliable sources, which is another factor this article should be deleted. With that being said, she doesn't deserve to be included on Knowledge (XXG) as a singer. A2013a (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Redirect - no evidence of individual notability as a musical artist, no solo releases that aren't features on other artist tracks/OSTs. And really no notability in acting as full of cameo only roles. Redirect as a member of group Dal ShabetEvaders99 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Dal Shabet. From what I can tell all the sources are about her involvement in that group, which makes her not independently notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:16, 19 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:22, 11 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Making The Cut: Guards Conversion Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Patently fails to meet general notability guidelines. Kingoflettuce (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Web-exclusive documentary with zero secondary sources. Seloloving (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails the GNG; a search finds no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I managed to find this news article on the series, but on its own it probably isn't enough to support an article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:09, 15 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Nothing cited in this ref-bombed article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete- This reads like a promotional article. I cannot find any references that are outside the field of public relations. I agree with the nominator. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:42, 18 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yep. Delete. No coverage, no nothing, and we got a thousand more of those. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - no significant coverage exists. Peter303x (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:42, 18 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Non notable police officer & CTTC DIG (There is Bangladesh Police → under them DMP → under them there is this CTTC). Notability is not inherited. There are 10 refs in the article, but they all are repost of same press release. There is no WP:SIGCOV about this person. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:BIO. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails GNG. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 07:03, 18 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

I very much think this is a hoax that has existed since 2006. I can't find any relevant results about this at all. I did find information about a comic named Adventures of Malkiel Dash (https://www.shopeichlers.com/products/adventures-of-malkiel-dash-volume-1/1623) buuuuut Amazon gives me a release date of 2017 for this, so this is way past 2006. (https://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Malkiel-Dash-Kosher-Comics/dp/B073TMCPHV)

Looking at the page history, it was originally created as a redirect to Burton Malkiel, who is an actual economics writer, not a comic book writer by any means AFAIK.

Then the user Paranaiv removed the redirect and created the "article" about the comic. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Malkiel_(comics)&oldid=67532947

Their only contribution besides this page is this... for some reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sam_Hall_(song)&diff=prev&oldid=67532408

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Malkiel_(comics)&diff=250482531&oldid=249533990 here's the move from Malkiel to Malkiel (comics)

No sources since 2007 (!!!) and in no other language Knowledge (XXG) besides English. no and nn Knowledge (XXG) (the two Norwegian Wikipedias) have no results about this either wizzito | say hello! 20:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Regardless of whether or not this was a hoax, it certainly isn't notable. I found no search results outside of mirrors of this article regarding the comic. I found some hits searching for one of the credited creators (Are Sundnes), but nothing indicating they ever wrote a comic (or even if they are the same Are Sundnes referred to in the article), and absolutely nothing searching for the other creator. I can't say its clear if this was an intentional hoax, and not just someone writing about something they created themselves, but either way, it certainly fails the WP:GNG and should be deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment; User:Rorshacma, seems like Are Sundnes is an actual game developer/creative director, but may not be related to this in any way. wizzito | say hello! 20:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V and probable hoax. Geschichte (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - for the reasons outlined by Rorshacma above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:40, 14 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Per the previous deletion discussion, but re-nominating since this contains new sources compared to the article six years ago, making WP:G4 iffy at best. The sources currently in an article are an interview and a biography published by a university, neither of which satisfy "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources". Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - If I do a quick search, I can find a few more articles specifically about stuff she was doing as an ambassador that haven't been cited yet, such as Australian diplomat for increasing bilateral trade, Australian diplomat unveils aid programme in Quetta, Australian high commissioner bids farewell, etc... and it seems she was involved in a diplomatic controversy in Papua New Guinea in 2012 and signed an open letter this year criticising the Australian government's climate stance. There's also some more interviews and non-independent sources that could be used, like this interview and Margaret Adamson: Witness to change. There's probably more sources too for her career previous to the 2010s that aren't as easily searchable online. So it seems to me like there's enough sources to build a reliable article that's more than just a stub. NHCLS (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• KEEP. Ambassador is notable. Has sufficient references. SWP13 (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - I think WP:BASIC appears to be supported, I also found The Express Tribune 2017, e.g. "In her time in Pakistan, High Commissioner Adamson has also been a strong advocate for the rights of women and girls.", The Express Tribune 2019, e.g. "Adamson, a senior career diplomat with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade serving previously as ambassador to Poland and Cambodia, was at the centre of efforts to retrieve some bodies of the 10 Pakistanis who had perished in the horrific Christchurch mosque attacks", and she co-authored an open letter in The Express Tribune in 2018 in support of transgender rights. Beccaynr (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, as there are many more sourcesJackattack1597 (talk) 21:01, 18 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

This is likely a hoax, since the "example" given talks about a nonexistent eruption of Mount Rainer in 2021. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - this doesn't seem like a hoax, and is mentioned by the US National Weather Service (NWS) (though very briefly). It's not the same thing as an Ashfall advisory, which is actually mentioned in the NWS' list of Weather Watches, Warnings and Advisories. Most weather conditions have an advisory, watch, and warning, but for the ashfall condition there is only an advisory. If there were more detail on the warning (and watch) from the NWS, it would likely be more notable and better covered in this case. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Doesn't belong in the mainspace. Per WP:NOTNEWS, Knowledge (XXG) is also not a newswire service. KidAd • SPEAK 18:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I was considering draftifying it, but after taking a closer look, it looks more like a volcano enthusiast's fantasy. The example on the article is clearly written up by the creator as Mount Rainier is misspelled as Mount Rainer. Delete per nom, probably eligible for speedy deletion as a hoax. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Please note that the creator of this article has also created Beach hazards statement, High surf warning, High surf watch, and Blowing dust warning. I really think this needs admin attention. KidAd • SPEAK 18:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think they created those articles based off of Ashfall advisory, which was created in 2019 by another user. Granted, that article has a source. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like spam to me. The "lede" of Beach hazards statement is directly ripped from a NWS pdf on the subject, found here. Speaks to my point that Knowledge (XXG) is not a newswire service. KidAd • SPEAK 19:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Didn't realize that it was directly copied from elsewhere, and never disagreed with you, just stating what it looked like to me. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No disagreement from me either. Just trying to say that this page is a part of a larger pattern of non-constructive editing behavior. KidAd • SPEAK 19:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete: per CSD G5. ––FormalDude talk 17:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as hoax. --Lockley (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete not on , presumably a hoax. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:37, 18 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Fernando Maldonado (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. The article has no inline citation. A Google search does not bring up any secondary sources showing birth, education, or career. The article has been tagged for improvement since August 2013. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete while he looks possibly notable, I cannot verify any of the given sources, and cannot find any new ones in a search. --- Possibly ☎ 22:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:06, 18 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 06:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Fall II Rise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable band. scope_creep 09:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

(Copied from talk page. Hopefully I'm doing this correctly.) I believe the band meets at least some of the following criteria. However, I'm new to Knowledge (XXG) so I do welcome input from others and discussion on the topic. I do realize the article has some problems as far as the actual writing goes, but that's more on me for not being an experienced writer, rather than the subject matter itself. Criteria I think are applicable:

• (1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, publisheed works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
  There are articles by major news outlets in Puerto Rico (Noticentro, Primera Hora), a featured segment in talk show Pégate al Medio Día, and an interview in Maximum Ink Magazine from Wisconsin. These are all in the references for the article.
• (10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable.
  Their single End of Days was used for a couple of weeks as the theme song for Puerto Rican TV show WWC, which is the main wrestling show in Puerto Rico.
• (11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
  Their single Four was played regularly on major Puerto Rican radio stations. I'm trying to find out if there's a log of what was played when, since there's no Puerto Rico music charts, our music charting gets lumped in with US as a whole, I believe. However, the radio play is mentioned in some of the references included in the article. This might take a good while to corroborate, I think I'll have to email the radio stations directly and ask if they have a link to an archive of some sort like that. It was about 10 years ago, so I'm not sure exactly, but I think AlfaRock (now AZ Rock Radio, they moved to online-only) may have been the main station to give them airplay, since it was the local rock radio station at the time.

Moony483 (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Moony483: You know musicbio. I know the WP:MUSICBIO. I use it almost every day. Where is the references that show the band is notable, e.g. reviews of work, WP:SECONDARY sources that can satisfy musicbio. Ref 1,2, 4,5,6 are non-RS, meaning they are non-notable. Ref 3 is an interview, but every new band gets interviewed and its a local magazine, indicating its a local band. Where is the coverage, the reviews, the secondary sources. scope_creep 11:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE is not a good argument and would borderline have been a reason to speedy keep this, if there had been no further discussion due to the talk page comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the first 13 references:

Ref 1,2,4,5,6, 10,11,12,13 are non-RS and can't be used to establish notability.

Ref 3: Its an interview. Looks like a blog. No editorial board. Effectively non-RS.

Ref 7 An annoucement that they are supporting Evanescence. Really poor.

Ref 8 Review of a Evanescence gig.

Ref 9 Data listing. Non-RS.

The rest are similar poor. The band is completky non-notable. There is no social media coverage. There is stream on Spotify, Apple Music, Soundcloud, Amazon and Napster. They are non-notable at this time. scope_creep 15:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Okay, I see what you mean. I have two questions, though. First, for references 10 - 13, I understand YouTube itself isn't generally considered a reliable source. However, the videos (if you look at them) are reuploads of content that was televised on a national TV network. I've been unable to find those episodes online, but the show itself is notable (has its own Knowledge (XXG) page) and in the videos you can hear the song playing. Is there a better way to cite that then? Simply saying those sources don't count seems kind of strange to me. Then my second question is regarding the airplay: it's been referenced in other places, but I myself don't know of a way to obtain tracklist records from 10 years ago (and as I noted, I've been trying to contact the radio stations about it to see if they can point me anywhere). However, that also doesn't mean that it didn't happen. What then? And a third question actually: is reference 5 non-reliable because of it being on YouTube? Because same situation as the wrestling TV show: it's content that was on national TV, the show is documented in the television network's own website (and still runs today actually), but I can't find the original video on their site so as to cite it from there. I have a similar issue with some radio interviews/shows (as noted in the article's talk page) where there are links on their Facebook page to the radio station's show, but the links are dead and I haven't been able to contact the station for a live link; however, that doesn't mean the interviews/shows never aired, it just measn I personally can't find them due to link rot. Naturally I understand the band themselves saying "we were interviewed" isn't reliable, but if the dead link is a link from the radio station's website and they're just sharing that, isn't that a third party?

I appreciate you taking the time to look over this and explain more thoroughly, because honestly I'm still just trying to learn and understand how Knowledge (XXG) works. I'm not attempting to discredit your knowledge, I'm asking genuine questions, that's all.

• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources presented are almost entirely social media and there is little more apparent in searching. The few other sources are mere mentions in RS, which cannot be considered to be evidence of notability. What coverage is significant is not in reliable or independent sources and what coverage is in reliable or independent sources is not significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per Eggishorn, who puts it well: none of the sources (either in the article or elsewhere) are significant and reliable/independent. The band thus fails the GNG, and there's no indication that any of the criteria at WP:NBAND are met. (Oh, and my apologies for relisting this a third time, which was quite accidental. Closers should, as always, feel free to close at any time without waiting another seven days.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 15 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW closing this a little bit early. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:NMG and WP:NFSOURCES. News sources are clearly from boilerplate PR releases. Also fails to meet notability standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiiSKiiS ‎ (talk • contribs) 15:39, October 11, 2021‎ (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 15:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 15:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Variety doesn't print press releases. Nor does The Guardian. This is a notable band. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - It's very early in their career and it appears that they only have two songs so far. Some may argue that more long-term coverage is needed. But as the previous voter said, they have been noticed by some major media outlets and the coverage is definitely not just PR reprints. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - On further investigation, this AfD might be a mistake. The two guidelines copied by the nominator, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES, are both guidelines for films and are compiled at the general guideline page Knowledge (XXG):Notability (films). The nomination also does not mention that Wet Leg is a band. So perhaps this entire AfD really belongs at some faulty film article that the nominator found moments previously? If that's true, or if the nominator used film guidelines to call for deleting a band, this might qualify for a procedural/speedy close too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:SKCRIT#1 The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if that was meant to educate me or the nominator, but at the time of my comment and before the nominator's half-baked update, #2 and #3 at WP:SKCRIT may have been applicable as well. This whole thing is headed for a keep anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:doomsdayer520 It was meant to reinforce your words. Lightburst (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Corrected link. Band still fails music notability standards. At absolute minimum, having music reaching an independent music chart is a requirement. Which band has not done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiiSKiiS (talk • contribs) 17:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You still have a film guideline, and a charting album is not a "requirement" because a band is only required to meet some of the criteria in the notability guideline, not all of them. Remember to sign your posts too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The coverage in Variety and The Guardian meets criterion #1 of Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music). Edwardx (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: possibly WP:TOOSOON, but apart from the Variety, NME and The Guardian sources already in the article, they've been featured in Under the Radar , Brooklyn Vegan and MTV . Although I must admit I have half a mind to vote delete just because of their truly terrible name... Richard3120 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Chaise Longue is almost certainly going to be used in some advert, this page will be helpful when that happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSelIers (talk • contribs) 19:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per others; also, Domino Records is a notable label. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Snow Keep Witty and quirky is a good way to gain notability. And then once they have it WP:NTEMP applies. Lightburst (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per DOOMSDAYER520 and Edwardx. The band has generated extraordinary coverage and focus for a group with only two songs, meeting criterion #1. I'm sure we would all prefer a developed article with an album release, but this stub nevertheless qualifies. Οἶδα (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per others; the band has also charted on multiple rock airplay charts in the United States, which I've since sourced. Daerl (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and speedy close. Charting puts the nail in the coffin re: WP:MUSIC, and the nomination was malformed. There's no need to drag this out further. Chubbles (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. If a band signed to a clearly notable label, coverage in the NME and Guardian and playing in major festivals and venues isn't passing WP:NMG then Knowledge (XXG) may as well pack it in. This relentless deletionism is so tiring. --gilgongo (talk) 19:14, 16 October 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 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

As per WP:Notability this article has no sources about anything except one specific incident, there are very few reliable sources available online except for their own website and a couple of passing references in local press, mostly in lists or in article primarily about other topics. The article has had a 'Needs additional sources' tag for over 11 years with none being forthcoming. JeffUK (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment -- A camp used by 6000 people per year might just about manage to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Peterkingiron A camp used by 6000 people per year might, but the '6100' number in the article is unsourced (their website claims 'Over 7000'), their self-acclaimed popularity doesn't make it notable; my local cinema gets more visitors than that and it's not notable. JeffUK (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - At present, this is no different from a lengthy advertisement. What makes this camp notable? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable in size, history, significance, controversy, impact, ownership or location. --Lockley (talk) 20:41, 19 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

James West (Australian journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The article was previously nominated for deletion in 2010 here, which ended as no consensus because there were vague claims of notability concerning the book Bejing Blur (WP:AUTHOR or WP:NBOOK might be relevant). However, the sources presented aren’t much more than passing mentions, and the current sourcing in the article isn’t much better. Searching on Google, Google News, Google News Archive, Google Books, and Google Scholar yield only passing mentions. The article is currently not much more than an WP:ORPHAN and I doubt China Drive or List of alumni of Barker College are worth merging or redirecting to. There doesn’t appear to be any vandalism in the edit history so I doubt any useful sources have been removed or anything like that. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Lack of independent and reliable sources.Brayan ocaner (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Coverage about his trip to the United States:
     1. Moses, Asher (2010-11-30). "Email mix-up gives James much to be thankful for". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

        The article notes: "James West has touched down in Sydney this morning after a whirlwind trip to the US that was sparked by an email mix-up but ultimately led to his first Thanksgiving dinner, a party on a yacht and a letter of thanks from a US congressman. ... West documented the entire adventure, including him helping prepare the dinner and the feast itself, on his YouTube channel and amassed a global following. He was interviewed by major US TV stations including CNN, NBC and CBS."

     2. Stapleton, Christine (2010-11-25). "Aussie journalist finally gets his turkey with Jupiter family: 'You're totally invited!'". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

        The article notes: "Yes, America, James Philip West made it for Thanksgiving Dinner — all the way from Sydney, Australia. The story of the 28-year-old Aussie journalist’s first Thanksgiving dinner began three years ago, when the Tran family of Jupiter inadvertently invited West to Thanksgiving dinner."

     3. Scofield, Carolyn (2010-11-25). "Australian man joins South Florida family for Thanksgiving after case of mistaken email identity". WPTV-TV. Archived from the original on 2010-11-27. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

        The article notes: "James West first thought they were spam. ... West, a journalist in Sydney, Australia, finally decided to read one of the emails. Curiosity quickly had him hooked."

     4. Davidson, Helen (2010-11-25). "Success for James West with dinner invite". News.com.au. Archived from the original on 2010-11-27. Retrieved 2010-11-27.

        The article notes: "A Sydney man's bid to track down an American family whose emails he had been mistakenly receiving for years has paid off. James West has been invited to Thanksgiving dinner with the Tran family in West Palm Beach, Florida, and flew out of Sydney last night."

     5. Davidson, Helen (2010-11-23). "James West comes clean to the Tran family, asks for Thanksgiving invite". News.com.au. Archived from the original on 2010-11-27. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

        The article notes: "So Mr West, an associate producer for an SBS TV show, took his plea to the modern day court of appeal — YouTube."

  2. Coverage about his book Beijing Blur:
     1. Dempsey, Dianne (2008-06-07). "Beijing Blur - Off the Shelf - China". The Age. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

        The article notes: "JAMES WEST WAS 23 WHEN HE worked in Beijing and he manages to make the experience sound as if he was the first man on Everest or, more precisely, the first gay man on Everest. West's sexual orientation and his understandable desire to have a good time are very much to the forefront of his book. ... On the strength of his ABC job he was sent to China in 2005 to work as an English editor for China Radio International."

     2. Sussex, Lucy (2008-08-24). "Beijing Blur: a head-spinning journey into modern China". The Age. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

        The article notes: "Author James West could have said: I told you so. Now he produces for Triple J, but in 2005-06, he worked for Chinese government radio. The propaganda shocked him:"

     3. Allington, Patrick (2008-08-02). "This week's selections: Beijing Blur". The Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

        The book review notes: "In 2005, James West went to Beijing on an exchange from the ABC to state-run China Radio International. Beijing Blur is part travelogue, part examination of contemporary China - especially the clash of traditional and ultra-modern life which confronts young Chinese.

     4. Haley, Ken (2008-07-26). "Sharp scope on the Chinas you don't know". The Canberra Times. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

        The article notes: "Nearly 25 years ago I was James West. Young, outwardly self-confident, direct to the cusp of (and sometimes way beyond) confronting and fascinated by the otherness of China ... The real James West has done it better than I could have. His personal memoir of a year spent living and working there unveils the China of today, and tomorrow, as a work in feverish progress. The service he renders the country, in Beijing Blur, though a scandalised government is hardly likely to credit him for it, is to show that there is not one China but many."

     5. Fowler, Sharon (2008-08-02). "Access all areas". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

        The article notes: "In the book he explores youth culture, tours with a Chinese punk band and immerses himself in modern China. West has travelled to Beijing four times in the past two years and also loves Brooklyn, New York."

     6. Eady, Dan (2008-06-05). "books non-fiction". The Courier-Mail. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

        The article notes: "After some boozy dancing on The Great Wall, doses of homesickness and culture shock, James gets down to business. He is employed by the Chinese state-run media, CRI, a place where the Government is exempt from criticism, but advertising, politics and journalism share inseparable and incestuous relationships."

     7. Armitage, Hugh (2009-02-01). "Beijing Blur". Gay Times. No. 365. p. 108. ProQuest 2268824785.

        The article notes: "West leaves his family and boyfriend to discover the mysteries of the most populous country in the world, and Beijing Blur is the story of this young Australian journalist's year-long work placement in this titular city."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow James West to pass Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per the sources found by User:Cunard showing that he passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC VocalIndia (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have added some of Cunard's sources, which certainly gives the page more starch. Cabrils (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Cunard. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:39, 16 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 06:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The current sources consist of deadlinks to WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLOG, and WP:RSSM sources. Searching on Google, Google News, Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, The Internet Archive, and Newspapers.com yield only passing mentions of the show (There are quite a few false positives). The article is basically an WP:ORPHAN with a single link from Australian Skeptics, which is a potential redirect target but given the complete lack of sourcing I don’t see the need to merge any content. There also doesn’t appear to be any vandalism in the edit history so I doubt there are any useful sources that have been removed in the past. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - I am not seeing any reference for the article content that isn't passing, self-published or non-independent, usually all three. It appears never to have received the multiple independent detailed coverage that underlies notability. Agricolae (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:40, 16 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lahore (film). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV DEFCON5 (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't qualify any notability guidelines. He has only produced Lahore (film) and he is not notable out of the film.Seddiq Sabri 21:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to only notable work so far. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lahore (film). Plausible search term as the producer of a notable film, but not enough coverage to meet GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:25, 19 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 22:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

A Month of Sundays (2001 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; needs two or more reviews/significant, reliable sources in order to be eligible. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep "It stars Rod Steiger in his final film role". We've deleted much worse, and I'm in no mood to leave this a redlink when we do have the basics of a stub fulfilled. Nate • (chatter) 23:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Final role of a well known established actor passes WP:NFILM criteria "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." in my opinion. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. I found this review in Variety too. Lugnuts 06:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, as there are enough reviewJackattack1597 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: H#Hemingway. Content was already merged to the list, so the original history is needed for attribution purposes. czar 06:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Minor comic book character that fails GNG, prodded by User:Avilich, deprodded with no rationale. Let's discuss. I'd suggest redirecting this to List of Marvel Comics characters: H. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: H per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NOR and MOS:PLOT ("Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary"). This disposes of the need to merge as well. The problem with redirecting is that the article can be reverted to its previous state without discussion, and parenthetical qualifiers don't make for good search terms. It's better to get rid of the article altogether and only afterwards decide if a redirection is really worth it.. Avilich (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: H in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE as @BOZ: suggested. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: H - The character fails the WP:GNG and thus should not be a independent article. Voting to Merge makes no sense because this was already preemptively done four days ago, and the entirety of the contents of this article is already included in the proposed target verbatim. Honestly, the fact that I can find zero reliable sources discussing this character at all means I would have just gone with Delete if it weren't for the fact that the article was already merged to the list last week, and thus the editing history needs to be preserved. That said, these comic character lists need to be gone through and have utterly non-notable characters like this that fail the WP:GNG in every conceivable way removed, but that is beyond the scope of this particular discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Meh, it was an IP who did it, and the content was unsourced cruft anyways, so I wouldn't worry too much about attribution here. Avilich (talk) 01:30, 5 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to King County Council. czar 05:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a person notable only for serving as a county councillor. As always, this is not a level of office that confers an automatic notability freebie -- the notability test for county councillors is not passed just by minimally verifying that the person exists, but by writing and sourcing a substantive article that demonstrates a reason why he should be considered much more special than most other county councillors. That's not what this article is, however: nothing here suggests a reason why his work is more significant than other people's work, and the referencing is entirely to the county government's own self-published content about itself and/or his own campaign website, which are not notability-supporting sources, with no evidence whatsoever of any reliable source coverage in real media. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably more and better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. King County is a large county, but the position of county council member itself does not make him pass WP:NPOL (I noticed all other King County Council members have articles, but they have held other WP:NPOL-passing positions or have better sourcing). I failed to find any significant coverage besides this article of his appointment towards WP:GNG. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment A quick review of Google News finds many reliably-sourced articles about mentioning the subject. I have not looked at many of the articles, but at a quick glance many of the articles include a quote from the subject, occasionally with him attributed as council chair. The quantity of coverage indicates there should be enough for an editor to describe the contributions the subject made while in office. The articles in Newsweek and the Guardian are sources where someone could start stitch together an fully-sourced paragraph describing the subject's position on youth detention. I suspect an intrepid editor could do the same about the subject's other policy positions. --Enos733 (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"Quotes from the subject, with him attributed as council chair" aren't support for notability. We need to see coverage in which he is the subject that other people are talking about, not just sources that soundbite his opinions on other subjects. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct, the quotes by themselves do not add to notability. In this case we have a) two reliable sources that confirm the subject holds the position and b) at least one biography about the subject. The next step is to determine whether there is enough reliable sourced material that can provide information about what the subject accomplished in office (and not just a voting record or ribbon cuttings) and/or the the subject's policy positions. I think this could be met through a compilation of the articles (even if they are largely quotations) to write an article that is properly-sourced and more than "he exists." --Enos733 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to King County Council. I believe that preserving the page's history is important in this case. KidAd • SPEAK 18:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete it does not meet WP:NPOL. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to King County Council. --Enos733 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect into King County Council.Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect, per KidAd. PK650 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is clear consensus that the article currently doesn't meet the standards for verifiability required. I am willing to draftify this on request, noting that my preference would be for said editor requesting to be then willing to work on the draft (rather than it sitting in draftspace doing nothing). Daniel (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

House of Dinajara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No WP:RS at all, either in English or Sinhala. Looks like a copy/paste creation. If I assume good faith, this article is at best WP:OR if not WP:FRINGE. WP:HOAX, if bad intent is assumed. Either way, Someone has done a very awful job at creating this content originally. Chanaka L (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. --Chanaka L (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Could be OR or even a WP:HOAX as nom suggests, but it should be deleted because it fails WP:V without the usual mitigation that sources may exist. I doubt very much if any do exist. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment While I can find no reference for the name "Dinajara", these related monarchs of the Kingdom of Kandy did exist. See, e.g., Kingdom_of_Kandy#Consolidation_and_interactions_with_the_Dutch:_1594–1739 and included references and Nayaks_of_Kandy#Kandy_before_the_Nayaks. Whether as the last Sinhalese rulers of Kandy (Kandy Mahanuwara dynasty per the latter article) there is enough material to support a standalone article is not clear to me, and the current unreferenced state is unhelpful. Perhaps draftify? 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify, it currently lacks any verifiable reliable secondary sources however if some can be found then it can be reassessed as to whether it satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, I am opposed to draftifying option here. Per Knowledge (XXG):Core content policies, the content should be WP:Verifiable and No WP:OR. Therefore, I don't see a point in keeping a draft and improve, if it is not verifiable. If the problem is the quality, then I am not against draftifying. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Draft - obviously notable subject if verifiable, but not ready. Return to draft until better sources emerge. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep but tag for verification. I do not think this is a hoax; if it is, someone has created a whole string of hoax articles. Vira Narendra Sinha of Kandy has a template listing all the kings of this dynasty, who are also listed in a table in this article. I suspect this is a case where someone is applying excessive standards for RS or is ignoring material that is not in English. I do not read Singhalese and so am unable to say more. I note that Kingdom of Kandy has no table of monarchs - probably because that is in this article; and appears to tell history from a Dutch point of view. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete There hasn't been evidence presented that WP:SOURCESEXIST calling this group of monarchs the "House of Dinajara." I'd be okay moving this into draft space if an editor provided some evidence from a non wiki source to verify this very basic claim. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:39, 19 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Congregation Tifereth Israel (Glen Cove, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Completely unsourced since creation and subject to consistent copyright violation (from Congregation's website) by COI editors. WP:BEFORE discloses only strictly local coverage of routine events. This is almost entirely information about services and holy days being celebrated. There is no apparent evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The coverage that is reliable is not significant and the coverage that is significant is not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete & Salt This article keep being rebuilt as a copyvio, so lets kill it an lock it down. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • ADDENDUM: delete because it fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:NOT, specifically we're not a platform to advertise. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per TomStar NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 14:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not going to vote the opposite of delete because of the probelmatical history of this article, but there's at least one good source and likely a second which I can't preview. However, if the article is kept I think ECP is well in order. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@78.26: The first source has extensive similarities to the text that was copyvio. Both books are from Arcadia Publishing and are poor sources because Arcadia publishes mostly local history to local audiences and their works do not reach larger ones. I can find no citations of either in GScholar, for instance. Given the similarity of the text we are able to see to that which is now hidden from the article, the authors probably just copied text supplied by the Congregation itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe so, or perhaps the article author copied from the book. Arcadia is a specialist source, I don't consider them a poor source. That said, neither are they a source that should trump a peer-reviewed scholarly work, but to use only sources that are cited in GScholar would be a remarkable change in notability policy. They certainly market to locals and to tourists of a given area. Copyvio should obviously not stand in any form, and if no one wants to build a neutrally-written, copyvio-free article based on RS, then this topic meets its fate. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and protect - persistent COI editing is not a rationale for deletion (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). Oldest continuously operating synagogue on Long Island is a strong indicator of notability. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 22:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The presented rationale in the nomination is not cleanup; it is firmly grounded in WP:N and WP:NORG due to the complete lack of significant coverage. Please identify which notability standard or content guideline states "Oldest X in Y location" is notable in the absence of significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Needs more references, I am afraid. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Tomstar81. "Oldest continuously operating" alone fails WP:1E. Avilich (talk) 21:53, 19 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

James Power (priest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This priest appears to fail WP:NPOL, WP:NBASIC, and WP:ANYBIO.

On a side note, reference 4 in the article do not appear to actually link to the website for the City of London, but to some database, and it's a suspicious link. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete -- There is nothing in the article to suggest notability, merely a NN clergyman with some side appointments. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Anglican priest with only local significance at best. Generally only bishops survive AfD unless there's other evidence of notability, which I cannot find in this case. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Not seeing much here to meet WP:NPRIEST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 13 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

This musician is not independently notable from the bands he played in. No RS in article, and my WP:BEFORE only uncovered mentions in passing. Mottezen (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - There is no good target for a redirect because he was with each of the two blue-linked bands only briefly and was only ever mentioned in passing in the credits for a few releases by each. The same is true of his two more recent bands as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Just passes GNG. Here is an album review. This source indicates he produced an album for LaBradford (page 574)/ I did find three articles which discuss his work with bands he has played with. See below. There is also a trivial mention here, and an interview discussing him. 4meter4 (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Jenkins, Mark (31 October 2003). "THE SISTERHOOD OF CONVOLUTED THINKERS". The Washington Post. p. H7. (album review of "Better Days Coming Now"; highlights his role in establishing this band; coverage on his relationship with his wife; review of his singing and compositions) This is in-depth of him personally
• Andy Beta (4 January 2012). "The Pop Scene: Here Comes The Warm Jets". Wall Street Journal. p. A23. (highlights his work as an arranger) brief coverage
• Gail O'Hara (December 1, 1992). "NEW REVOLUTIONS: Quiet Storm". Spin. 9: 104. (Highlights his work as a trombonist for Eggs and a drummer for Grenadine) brief coverage
• Ira A. Robbins, ‎David Sprague (1997). The Trouser Press Guide to '90s Rock: The All-new Fifth Edition of The Trouser Press Record Guide. Simon & Schuster. p. 230. Reviews his work as a trombonist within a broader review of the band Eggs

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

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

The result was no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Foundation for Family Businesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I have concerns this article meets WP:NORG. A source review shows next to nothing for this NGO in English sources; the German name "Die Stiftung für Familienunternehmen in Deutschland und Europa" gives more hits but nothing seems relevant for WP:SIGCOV. Cited sources seem to also fail SIGCOV/independence and this has been tagged with cleanup-pr ("This article reads like a press release or a news article and is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism." for a year (tag added by User:DGG). Also, the article was created/accepted at AfC by one or more editors related to this recent paid-editing scandal. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Additional references and context can be found in the . Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment The worst of the materal leading to my tagging has been removed by Scope creep; i would not have used that tag if the article had been in its current form. The article was started by a declared paid editor (albeit an editor using an ip), as can be seen in the article history. Whether this is one of the eds. in the editing ring I cannot say. (I do not think the person who started the deWP article was a coi editor. )� DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. on balance, Ithink the references are adequate to show notability , and the article is sufficiently nPOV. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 7 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Good Day (Tally Hall song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article on song should be merged to Marvin's Marvelous Mechanical Museum (album), as failing WP:NSONG. Has not charted, has won no awards AFAICT (BMI John Lennon Scholarship is for the songwriters) and not been independently released by several artists. In any case, there's not much sourced material to make a self-standing article. The band has received quite a bit of coverage, especially in Michigan (particularly via The Michigan Daily), but "Good Day" gets but passing mentions. Was used in a The O.C. episode. And that's about it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Merge/Procedural Close Nominator is proposing a merger rather than deletion, which can either be boldly done, or proposed on the appropriate talk pages per WP:MERGEPROP. I'm in support of the merger itself, but there's no need for an AfD in this case. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, yes, close as misguided nominator. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer, and sorry for the misstep. I'll go the MERGEPROP path and see how it goes. Now, I need to figure out how to withdraw/close/abort this AfD. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: Procedure for withdrawing an AfD nomination can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 01:52, 12 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the topic is notable but the content is too poor to keep it in mainspace. This can be draftified on request via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 19:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Democratic backsliding in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Violates WP:NOTADVOCACY / WP:NOTOPINION – it's a WP:COATRACK article created to attack one of the political factions in India. Already article title reads like WP:OR by the article creator as the wording is not confirmed in listed sources. Also, bitching about about Indian politics belongs elsewhere, for example in Politics of India. — kashmīrī  07:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī  07:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī  07:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Patrick Heller (2020), The age of reaction: Retrenchment populism in India and Brazil, International Sociology 2020, Vol. 35(6) 590–609, SAGE: "Two of the largest democracies in the global south – India and Brazil – have witnessed a dramatic turn to right-wing populism. Careful historical comparison reveals that the form of reaction is markedly different from other recent cases of democratic backsliding." Anyway, merge to Democratic backsliding#India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per my message on talk page. There is already Democratic backsliding#India and Godi media that covered the content. The article is just WP:SYNTH which cobbled up few subjects by misrepresenting mainly opinions pieces. GenuineArt (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Disagree - Thank you for the time.

  I advocate that this subject is huge enough to have an independant article, keeping in mind its gravity. And as far as Knowledge (XXG):SYNTH is concerned, I again have to disagree because I am not opining anything and please note that Narendra Modi article's lead section's last paragraph is about this very thing and it indeed mentions the phrase "democratic backsliding". Appu (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - See Jaffrelot's recent book as an example of academic work concerning this topic. There exists ample scholarship. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  @TrangaBellam – Recommended reading: WP:EXIST. Cheers, — kashmīrī  18:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Kashmiri, I did not vote either way because I cannot make up my mind. I will read the essay but we seem to have an uncountable number of them. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

    Agreed. My favourite for AfDs is WP:ATA.

    By the way, hope you agree that not every topic of a book needs to be made into an encyclopaedia article. Hopefully, nobody will try to create an article Dengue mosquito larvae in Mumbai only because this exists. — kashmīrī  22:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

    Disagree. Good try. Bad analogy. A local mosquito problem quite apparently does not enjoy as much notability as the democratic backsliding of what they call the largest democracy. The subject is quite a whole study in itself. In fact, you won't find a single credible outlet in the world that has not reported it. Hardly will you find a public intellectual in India that has not talked about it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/24/destruction-indias-judicial-independence-is-almost-complete/ https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/amartya-sens-hopes-and-fears-for-indian-democracy https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/09/blood-and-soil-in-narendra-modis-india https://www.economist.com/asia/2021/07/31/the-pegasus-revelations-cast-doubt-on-the-health-of-indian-democracy https://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2021/6096023/narendra-modi-leader/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-india-still-a-democracy-the-answer-isnt-so-clear-11618525073 https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-modi-threaten-indian-democracy-11559256676

    In my personal opinion, you are not even trying the least to appear constructive in this consensus. Appu (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

    Firstly, I suggest you stop WP:BLUDGEONing the process by responding under each and every voice to delete the article. Secondly, whatever number of links to news, interviews and opinion pieces you paste here, it does not address the key issue of whether the matter should be dealt with in a standalone article. Political systems are in constant flux, the "level" and scope of democracy changes constantly in each and every country of the world (even though there is not even an agreed definition of democracy!). Creating such articles as "Worsening of democracy in India during AAA" or "Improvements to democracy in Angola during BBB", or, in general, "XXX changes to democracy in country YYY during ZZZ rule", is counter-productive in my view. We have dedicated articles, usually titled "Politics in YYY" that offer impassionate, long-term perspective on the political developments in the given country.

    For your information, there is plenty of sources critically assessing what they call erosion of democracy in India during each of the previous governments in at least 50 years. Your focus on the last 2-3 years, based on press clippings, goes against WP:NOTNEWS. — kashmīrī  08:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree Hi Kashmiri,

It could be true that there might be technical faults from my side as I am a novice. I had paid full attention to not use any word that signals "advocacy" and I still feel I did a good job at it. If there's any controversial fragment in the article, I completely support its deletion regardless of who did it. I feel apprehensions as to what made it a COATRACK, since democratic backsliding is a one-whole study in itself, it might have been so that I added little more disproportionately of one of its subsidiary subjects than remaining others. In that case, I again will enjoy seeing it be deleted to make it fair . I don't understand how it sounded like an original research because I named it after an article that already existed on Knowledge (XXG), in common usage, it is usually called here in India as "centralisation of power" or "Fascism" or similar stuff like that which to me didn't appear to fit the subject or this platform aptly ]. If the current title is not good enough, then I again want it to be moved . I am quite appalled by the usage of word 'bitching' since I feel the article looks like a good-faith one from all angles, you can certainly say that one editor could be "bitching" about something, but you can't say that Kamala Harris was also doing the same when she subtly hinted what this article talks about. Same in the case of Chief Justice of India. If you don't approve implicit hints then these are what Freedom House and Economist Intelligence Unit had to say. These to me seem like fair reasons as to why this article needs to exist. ] Appu (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• There are very many mentions of this phenomenon in the scholarly literature alone, and at least a few of the results (1, 2, 3) are substantive. WP:EXIST does not apply to topics that have coverage in reliable sources. The topic is obviously notable; the real question is whether it should be a standalone article, or whether it should be merged into Premiership of Narendra Modi (since that's what the sources discuss). There's a few mentions of Indira Gandhi and the Emergency as well, which is perhaps an argument to keep a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep if material can span beyond Modi. Either way, its claims should mostly be backed up with scholarly literature rather than depending too much on opinion pieces and attention grabbing articles reporting various individuals comparing Modi to Hitler. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 04:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Kashmiri. Create Democracy in India (currently redirects to Politics of India) and expand with the scholarly sources provided here. desmay (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify, the phenomenon itself is obviously notable with significant scholarly works on it, the article however is not in a good shape as the sourcing is much weaker than it could be and part of it is a mismatch of material copied over from other articles. So the focus should be on cleanup rather than deletion, regarding whether it should be merged into the article on Narendra Modi or a subarticle (although I don't believe the sources are restricted solely to him) or into a new article on Democracy in India can be looked into later once this is more fleshed out. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify I agree with Tayi Arajakate and Vanamonde. Try to fix the problems to get to a stable version and then decide on the status whether it's good, or be merged or moved to some other location — DaxServer (talk to me) 23:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Return to draft or delete - this is an important subject, but written up terribly. It should either be removed from mainspace until it is improved, or deleted to better encourage a more serious re-write from the ground-up, as befitting the theme. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Kashmiri. I concur with the suggestion to create Democracy in India, but this content is WP:TNT. Ifnord (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Kashmiri and others. In case you want to retain some text, then merge with Politics of India and/or Electoral reforms. I am a long time IP with no registered account. I cleaned up Electoral reforms and related haphazardly grown article and randomly ended up here. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Akruti Institute of Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable hospital fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage from reliable independent sources. MickyShy (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MickyShy (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MickyShy (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of independent secondary references. Google search also doesn't return are result for the subject. This looks more like a promotional article. Advait.kansal (talk) 08:41, 13 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 _Work 13:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Article does probably barely pass WP:JUDGE, but comprehensively fails WP:GNG and should therefore be deleted. This is the overarching consensus, I believe. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Because the individual holds a federal judicial position, they pass WP:JUDGE, and per WP:SNG this should be sufficient to presume notability. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - nominator asserts the subject meets the requirements of an SNG, but fails GNG. Meeting the requirements of the SNG would usually be enough, but I also don't agree that the subject fails GNG. His judgements have been written about, and (almost by default) form part of the enduring historical record because of the combination of single-justice judgements and precedence. But there are also a number of news articles that give coverage to his judicial opinions. In fact, the article has 10 references for 6 lines of text. St★lwart 10:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Judges at this level are notable, and coverage can always be found for them if one knows where to look and how to search. BD2412 T 19:49, 11 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Subject doesn't meet with WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC guideline.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman   06:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman   06:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman   06:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman   06:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, mentions that I can find are surface-level or are from casting lists. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable sources, passing mentions.Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:53, 11 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. czar 05:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Shree Devi Entertainers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A non notable film production company. No significant coverage. Citations doesnt give coverage to the company but to the movies they have produced. Fails NCORP and GNG Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 22:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 22:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 22:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 22:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. I marked it for speedy. Fails WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The production company itself has won three awards for best film for RangiTaranga. It was nominated for an award for a second film, Avane Srimannarayana. Generally for companies in the arts we extend WP:CREATIVE to cover them as well if the production company has been recognized with a notable arts award. 4meter4 (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete It did not say how many Oscars he has received yet. Once he gets a couple of those, build the page. Not now. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Um, this article is not about a person but a company. Also there are other notable awards for films beside the Oscars. This is not a valid policy based argument. It’s not even clear Ode+Joy read the article based on the reference to a company as a “he”.4meter4 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Close without result. Nominator is a sock, and socks don't have standing to start AfDs. If this should be deleted, then let a good faith editor renominate it.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Given that there are now multiple good faith !votes, the AfD can continue and stand on its own merit. MarioGom (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm. Discounting the blocked sock, I see a "delete", a "weak keep", an editor who doesn't seem to have understood the discussion, and a "close without result"... I'd be surprised if anyone can find a consensus in all that, and WP:RELIST rather precludes a third relisting. I'm not at all sure it can stand on its own merit!—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a no consensus close is what is best at this point. The nominator has been blocked permanently as a sock and that leaves only one cogent delete argument by an editor in good standing, one cogent keep vote made by me, and a confusing delete vote by an editor who may not have actually read the article or looked at the sources based on their misidentifying the subject of the article as a human being instead of a company.4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 13 October 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 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. Per BOZ, no more sources were presented. Geschichte (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

No non-primary sources present in article. A google search finds no significant coverage of the subject from reliable, independent sources. – Pbrks 05:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks 05:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks 05:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete As per nominator. Fade258 (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - I am finding no coverage of this character is reliable sources at all. The absolute best I could even find were two one-sentence mentions here and here. When the only coverage in non-primary, non-fan sources is this trivial, that shows the character is not notable enough to even be mentioned on a character list. Rorshacma (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I agree this character is so minor there is no reason to redirect anywhere. Rhino131 (talk) 12:45, 12 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Argonne, Wisconsin. WP:ATD, since the subject is mentioned; if Argonne and Forest County are both bad targets, remove their mentions and take to WP:RfD. czar 05:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Wisconsin Junction, Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable railroad junction mislabeled as a community. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 04:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - location WP:EXISTS, but there's no indication that it meets WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Argonne, Wisconsin, of which it is a part and where it is mentioned. 16:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
• delete The only map I can find that seems to show the Argonne CDP doesn't include this spot, and I can't find any other evidence to support that inclusion. This is unsurprising given that the town has rather well-defined edges, with this wye junction sitting out at an isolated spot over a mile west of town. It's not a settlement and not a notable rail point. Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A better Knowledge (XXG):Before, or simply reading the Argonne, Wisconsin article would show that the town has a total area of 108.3 square miles (280 km), of which 108.2 square miles (280 km) is land and 0.1 square miles (0.26 km), or 0.06%, is water and is not the same as the Argonne (CDP), Wisconsin, so what's the point`? Djflem (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I read both articles, and it seems that someone doesn't understand how CDPs work. The most common case for a CDP is an unincorporated town— like Argonne— and if you look at the census website now, it only recognizes the CDP, and not the town as a separate entry. So, no, I don't believe what the articles claim, especially insofar as they claim the census reported the town separately from the CDP. In any case, without a map showing the borders, there's no way to verify that the junction is in either the town or the CDP as the census did or did not delineate either. Mangoe (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey Mangoe, are you familiar with the unique usage of "town" in Wisconsin? The town of Argonne would be the large 100-square-mile unincorporated area (similar to a township), which Argonne CDP (the small visible settlement) is a part of. I haven't seen the boundaries but it likely does encompass Wisconsin Junction. –dlthewave ☎ 22:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Forest County, Wisconsin, or else delete: newspaper results are not bringing up anything terribly interesting. There is a mention in 1937: "in the vicinity of Wisconsin Junction, three miles west of Argonne". It was also called "Argonne Junction" sometimes. But it does not seem to have been a settlement. jp×g 23:35, 30 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Florida Shorebird Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable per WP:WEB. It is sourced to the official website and I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. This search shows lots of references at Google Search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Eastmain: I'm not sure if you actually opened those links. I only see trivial mentions such as this and non-independent coverage such as this. There is less than two pages worth of such sources. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reference review: Refbombing citations at the end of the article isn't a good thing to do.

• First reference - Official website.
• Second reference - It is from both the Florida Shorebird Database and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. It even says, "This data was collected primarily by members of the Florida Shorebird Alliance (FSA)".
• Third reference - A university thesis that makes a one sentence mention - "This project would not have been possible without the many members of the Florida Shorebird Alliance".
• Fourth reference - I see no mention of the website.
• Fifth reference - A part of a list of similar websites with this as coverage - "Online tool for entering and exploring data on Florida’s shorebirds and seabirds, developed and maintained by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission".
• Sixth reference - A paper from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which is the partner of the organization that started the website.
• Seventh reference - Only coverage in the article - "The Florida Shorebird Database, monitored by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, shows approximately 186 black skimmer nests were active on Sand Dollar's north tip last year."

• Eastmain How does this help? SL93 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Citations in academic articles help to establish notability for individual scientists. They should also for this database. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I use this type of conservation database evey day in my work, and they are indispensable for regional ecological studies and management plans. However, that does not mean that there is encyclopedic notability here. Most US states with a functioning conservation plan maintain a few variants of this, with a greater or lesser web presence, and they are used as sourcing for all kinds of publications, but there's generally very little public-facing coverage. Merely getting cited does not notability make (otherwise we'd have ten thousand more BLPs on scientists). Maybe a better case could be made for the organization itself, the Florida Shorebird Alliance, but again this seems pretty badly covered. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and lacking in sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:46, 17 October 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 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. A Google search does not bring up any secondary sources showing birth, education, or career. The article has been tagged for improvement since August 2009. There is still only one reference, contain only a passing mention of the artist's name WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: A couple references: a prize and inspired work in coinage (both based on machine translation so may be wrong). Not enough to establish notability, and search doesn't bring in more that I can find. Urve (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Lack of RS. There's no notable work in her art career.Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:07, 15 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Glassmen Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another non-notable drum and bugle corps with no assertion of notability and no significant placement in national competition. "Finalist" in DCI World competition covers a broad range of placements. Contested PROD. There are a few mentions outside the drum corps walled garden, mainly having to do with a bus accident in 2009, and the outfit's bankruptcy. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep sources available such as , meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• The first is a local mention, the second and third are trivial references (of the kind cited by example in what is not usable for GNG), so I'm having a hard time with the idea that these support GNG, which asks for significant, non-trivial coverage. In general, the standard for inclusion in a global encyclopedia needs to show more coverage than a short mention the local newspaper. Notability would be expected to be indicated by substantive coverage outside something like a 50-mile radius - I've been mentioned in local newspapers, even a couple 100 miles away, and in trade magazines, and so has my company, but neither of us are notable. Acroterion (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Merge (and reduce) to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps per above. Not enough independent sourcing for a stand alone article but could fit in a list article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:48, 19 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

7th Regiment Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another non-notable drum and bugle corps with no solid referencing to establish notability outside the drum and bugle corps walled garden. Contested PROD. No evidence of placement at 1, 2 or 3 in national competition. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No claim or indication it meets WP:NORG. Ifnord (talk) 14:32, 19 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Royal Crusaders Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability, no evidence of success in competition, yet another drum and bugle corps article with no independent referencing outside the drum corps walled garden to indicate notability. I can't find any substantiation that they were mentioned in Guinness. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Older Guinness Book of World Records records are often not searchable in any manner online. Someone would likely need to actually buy the numerous editions from the early 1970s and check. Fieari (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've run across that before.It's a shame that there are no archives available other than on former trees. Acroterion (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Merge (and reduce) to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Merge – If merging to the article on defunct corps is a possibility, I'd like to see that route taken, as I've copy edited the article. The article doesn't seem to have sources outside of its own organization tooting its horn. The Guinness record, if corroborated, does give something more to go on. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps per above. Not enough independent sourcing for a stand alone article but could fit in a list article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:49, 19 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

This is just a glorified CV or LinkedIn page. There is nothing to indicate notability. Being the acting dean of a department is not enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Prof Rexh17 (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The current article does look a lot like a CV, and WP:NOTCV applies. In addition, the citation record looks a little weak for WP:NPROF C1, and the administrative roles fall short of WP:NPROF C6. It's possible that the subject eventually passes WP:NPROF, but for now it looks a bit WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:58, 14 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Al Basar International Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No substantive coverage in Reliable Sources. Nothing to indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• 'Source Searching - Google web search provides no reliable 3rd party secondary sources. Google news search provides the following:

• Arab News: Needy families in Mauritania and Nigeria benefit from KSrelief surgery projects - mentions Al Basar International Foundation providing surgeries.
• Saudi Gazette: Dr. Al Rabeeah meets with UNHCR regional representative to GCC States - Exact same text as above, probably just copying a press release or it's a paid article.
• International Centre for Investigative Reporting: An investigative piece talking about how Al Basar International Foundation is being asked to STOP helping with a program because of fraud allegations.
• Vanguard: Talks about providing surgeries, different wording than previous articles suggesting not just a press release.

These were just the 1st 4 news articles that I checked, seems to be more. I was all set to !vote delete after doing the simple web googling, but now I actually think these sources support marginal notability. So instead I'm going to vote Keep. Fieari (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GNG.Brayan ocaner (talk) 16:06, 11 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Doesn't qualify WP:CORPDEPTH Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Lots of hype, not lots of independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:CORPDEPTH? No.

Existing references:

• These shoes were meant for calling mentions Boltt only briefly.
• The Wareable article is an interview.
• The Sports Illustrated article provided coverage, but this was before Boltt had even created anything for sale ("Boltt plans to launch its products on pre-sale through Kickstarter soon")

Their web site says Boltt has been featured in a number of places, including CNN, Forbes, INDIATV and more. However, they provide no links. I looked and found:

• NDTV announced launch of a Boltt smartwatch at https://gadgets.ndtv.com/wearables/news/fire-boltt-talk-smartwatch-price-in-india-rs-4499-launch-specifications-features-flipkart-2458385
• techradar had something similar at https://www.techradar.com/news/fire-boltt-talk-price-in-india-specs-availability
• CNN apparently did an interview years ago, but I only found what appear to be copyright violating versions, and not on CNN's site. In any case, it's just an interview.
• Forbes' Personal Shopper section talked about Boltt in 2016 - before the company had any products. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/freddiedawson/2016/11/25/boltt-says-it-will-beat-your-personal-trainer-on-price-and-performance/?sh=27a9262c113c

As an aside, most of the article is pure advertising, with claims not supported by the citations. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete—Promotion type article. Agreed by nominator's decision. Jyoti Roy (talk) 15:55, 12 October 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.