THC Science

< January 01	January 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was draftify – see Draft:Eric Ayiah. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ayiah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG - playing for the Ghana U17 national team does not confer notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eric Ayiah's article was not created because it met WP:NFOOTY, however it was created because it meets and passes WP:GNG, the subject meets GNG with significant coverage. That was the reason it was created. Ampimd (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NFOOTBALL failed, and I don't think there is enough significant coverage for GNG. Most appears to be about his transfer or him speaking about his transfer? Giant Snowman 16:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Fails NFOOTBALL, passes GNG. I say to Draftify this article until he's made his senior debut. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying wouldn't hurt until he plays for another club. Judging from his age I would guess he would leave Monaco B in the summer, or 2023 at the very latest? While I think he might achieve notability, I also think that if he never played for another club than Monaco B, he would not be notable. Geschichte (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - As other editors have noted - Fails NFOOTBALL, but WPTOOSOON. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Perhaps a redirect to expletive is advisable, but I leave that to editors that are more knowledgeable in this area than me. Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syntactic expletive[edit]

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

This article is an unnecessary content-fork of Expletive which already has a sub-section on Syntactic expletives. The article was, in fact, created by de-merging/copying from Expletive, but the de-merger hasn't worked out well. Instead of expanding with useful sourced detail, it's become a mishmash of what a few editors on the talk page have referred to as original research, and a vast array of examples taken from Swedish (why Swedish??). The referencing is extremely sparse, with all the content being in the lead, and supported by one dictionary, one linguistics text and one very, very primary source. I have no doubt that secondary sources could be found, but I think the subject isn't notable enough to need its own article outside Expletive (and hasn't improved on Expletive since the 2011 de-merger). I would consider suggesting a re-merge, but I can't see anything in the new article that is worth merging back. But I'm open to a merge or to moving this discussion to mergers if that's considered the best option. I haven't used PROD because the article has been adopted by some editors as a project for a linguistics course, so I think deletion is potentially controversial. However, the student concerned posted on the talk page that the edits would be completed by 20th Dec, and today's the 19th, so unless there's a flurry of editing today, the article hasn't benefited. Elemimele (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article's shortcomings are too numerous to mention. --Kent Dominic·(talk)
Comment on the history: I created Syntactic expletive in 2011 by splitting apart an article called "Expletive" that existed at that time. The current article Expletive was created via articles for creation in 2018. If memory serves, I think the other content from 2011's "Expletive" went to Expletive attributive, and perhaps a bit of stuff to Profanity. I can't really speak to the current state of any of those articles. Cnilep (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Cnilep. My feeling is that the article has drifted in a bad direction since you created it, and it looks like it's been superseded by the 2018 expletive. Elemimele (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cnilep, I truly appreciate the concept of a syntactic expletive, and I don't fault your interest in trying to describe it, but I think the article was doomed from square one on 04 Nov 2011. Main reasons: (1) It was and still is OR, and (2) Expletive, not syntactic expletive, already has dibs on the (EXPL) abbreviation. Secondary reason: I'm unconvinced by the premise that a syntactic expletive "contributes nothing to the semantic meaning of a sentence." Such an assertion constitutes an ipse dixit disproven in the article itself with the explanations of what "it" constitutes in the "It is important..." example. IMHO, the stab at syntactic expletive seems to duplicate what dummy pronoun is supposed to entail. Nonetheless, I don't think the dummy pronoun article's third ¶ does justice to the notion that "A dummy pronoun is a deictic pronoun that fulfills a syntactical requirement without providing a contextually explicit meaning of its referent. As such, it is an example of exophora." Long story short: Delete the syntactic expletive article and merge with dummy pronoun despite how I shun both terms in my own writing. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, Joansiuu's recent edits, despite their formatting errors, fairly well demonstrate further reasons that I think a syntactic expletive is neither a true expletive nor non-contributory to the semantic sense of a sentence. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kent Dominic's points. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dundalk Municipal District[edit]

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

Municipal districts area essentially area committees within a county council area, are not stable bodies, being subject to frequent boundary changes. I don't think they merit inclusion in their own right, although the information here could be merged into Louth County Council. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Municipal districts should not have individual articles. Spleodrach (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - merging into Louth County Council makes the that page unnecessarily hard to navigate. Newystats (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 23:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blxckie[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Reason was "Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, is WP:TOOSOON, and is written from a fan's viewpoint" Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with too soon, he's not made it big yet. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has worked with big entertainment industry names such as CKay, Yanga, Nasty C and K.O just to mention a few, and has also won a South African Hip Hip Award for freshman of the year last year. The subject was also named Apple Music's Up Next artist the same year

Motlatlaneo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately he cannot inherit notability from those he has worked with. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. He must have his own inherent notability Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent, you missed the part where he won the award, is the South African Hip Hop Awards not notable? It's not actually inheriting someone's notability but more like the notable noted him and gave him a feature on multiple occasions and so did Apple Music.

Motlatlaneo (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a BEFORE shows the subject satisfies WP:NMUSIC through this, this,this and this. Furthermore his album seems to have received above the bar coverage featuring on a music television network, featuring in local press here and here, also having a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country and being nominated for an AFRIMA and has won a South African Hip Hop Award. -Xclusivzik (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xclusivzik. This is a significant amount of coverage, along with what seems to be a major award for the genre in South Africa. AryKun (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV is met here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Switch (beverage)[edit]

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

Promotional profile-like article on a fizzy drink manufacturer, mostly sourced to PR and affiliated sites. No in depth coverage found in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion, nothing reliable used as a source. Oaktree b (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient independent sources. Suonii180 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Grabe[edit]

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

An article about a professor from the University of California, Santa Cruz that is not remotely notable outside any of her papers and research publications. From doing several searches online, all I get are links to her works, but nothing completely about the individual. I don't see the notability even under academic guidlines. Not a single inline source is used to verify the information on the article about the subject. This fails GNG on a basic level. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now a full professor: [1]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It does pass WP:Prof#C1 . --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't find reviews of her books for WP:AUTHOR, but the case for WP:PROF#C1 notability is clear enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1 per citations. ExRat (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slam-dunk. (I don't normally vote keep) per the snow WP:PROF keepers. -Roxy the dog. wooF 08:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As already said, meets WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the Afd, the article now meets the notability requirements. We can close this as keep. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Cult. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Fitzpatrick (musician)[edit]

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

This musician doesn't seem to meet GNG. Although plenty of sources make passing reference, I'm struggling to find much/any significant coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Cult. The best, and only non trivial, thing I could find, is this. Subject gets acknowledged everywhere all over the WWW, but that is it (in IRS), and is a likely search term. While subject has been in multiple contexts, the highest profile one seems to be The Cult, so redirect to there. Aoziwe (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Cult - He's a longtime backup/session guy with little coverage in his own right, but he has been with The Cult solidly for 6 years so they are a valid redirect target. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Cult - I did a Factiva news search and he comes up in the news a lot, however, it is always just in articles about the cult, mentioned as part of that. Doesn't seem to be individual notability for him, (I couldn't see one RS that spoke about him or featured him specifically) so..its a redirect from me! Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Redirect to the Cult is not satisfactory. According to Aoziwe's ref, his music career started in the 1990s. According to AllMusic he was a member of NYC-based group Mink from 2006, which issued an album in 2007. They toured US and Australia. Fellow members include David Lowy and Stella Mozgawa. Mink are notable enough for their own article. Prior to the artist's American-based career, he backed Sarah McLeod. How much of his non-the Cult work can be put in that group's article? Is WP:MUSICBIO satisfied by the current article?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he is "(ex-Mink)" is already in the Cult's article. Simply change that to "{ex-Mink, Sarah McLeod)". If Mink ever gets their own article, Fitzpatrick can be mentioned there just like he is mentioned for the Cult. He still doesn't qualify for his own individual article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I put that (ex-Mink) in there, two days ago, I also added "Australian-born" and a ref.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cult as per WP:BANDMEMBER. I couldn't find evidence of sufficient individual notability. Suonii180 (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Sydney Roosters players. While no clear consensus has emerged for deletion, it is clear that the subjects have only received routine coverage as far as has been shown by Aoziwe. Given that not much new has emerged after relisting and redirecting preserves the pages, I am closing this discussion and noting that if more sources emerge the articles can be recreated and expanded further. Malinaccier (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. Nash[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One more for the same reason:

BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep There are alot of nominations for deletions for articles on rugby league footballers where there first name isn't known, I think they should all be nominated in the same AfD. ビッグツリ64 (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Block evasion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with separate discussions? Some might be notable, some might not be. Each should be treated on their own merits. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of these nominations have been viewed. All Fail WP:RL/N and WP:GNG. One liners with one (ureliable) reference do not render notability. Those citing Honour rolls in football clubs do not get notability either. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't fail RL project notability, that's why it exists. There are, or were, dozens of them, perhaps more. Ditto with AFL players. From time to time, someone stumbles on one of them, and gets in a tizz.
Comment, a possible alternative to deletion for some may be redirect to List of Sydney Roosters players. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:

Nash:

As far as I can see totally fails GNG. Subject does get a few very routine mentions in match reports, but nothing anywhere near in-depth.

O'Connor:

As far as I can see totally fails GNG. Subject does get a few very routine mentions in match reports, but nothing anywhere near in-depth.

Mackay:

As far as I can see totally fails GNG. Subject does get a few very routine mentions in match reports, but nothing anywhere near in-depth.

Cunningham:

As far as I can see totally fails GNG. Subject does get a few very routine mentions in match reports, but nothing anywhere near in-depth.

Strickland:

As far as I can see totally fails GNG. Subject does get a few very routine mentions in match reports, but nothing anywhere near in-depth.

Aoziwe (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep~~Weak keep~~:

Larkin:

There is more than some others, but mostly all routine.

Aoziwe (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep~~Keep~~:

Barker:

There is more than some others, and not all completely routine match reports. There are special mentions.^[1]^[2] BTW, the subject's first name is Charles.^[3]

Aoziwe (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete at a minimum Nash, O'Connor, Mackay, Cunningham, and Strickland per nom and Aoziwe. Undecided on Larkin and Barker (having trouble reading the sources cited by Aoziwe). Cbl62 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is hillarious, one editor objects to this not being a long enough nomination, not inclusive enough, and yet this multi-person nomination is tending towards having multiple outcomes because the level of sourcing on the six people involves is not uniform. I have to admit part of me feels that for AfD we should only allow one article to be nominated at a time. I think this is about as large as is reasonable for a multi-article nomination, if not larger than is at all reasonable. I am thinking a 5 article absolute top limit with no exceptions and very heavy encouragement to not even go that large would be much better. I see absolutely no way that having a larger scale nomination would be helpful. If would focus us even less on the individual information on individual subjects that we need to justify articles, and more on the general ideas of what is and is not notable, which is not the subject at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm against these "class" multi people nominations, as I've seen some of them pass AFD on their merits, and others fail. There is a matching unified case for all of them, they are different. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have reviewed my assessments of source material for Barker and Larkin, and both are weaker. See above. Aoziwe (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that linked reviews establish notability. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A California Christmas: City Lights[edit]

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

Draftify article per WP:NF, mentions in a list of films being released does not speak to a film's notability, only one real article with significant coverage BOVINEBOY2008 01:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment The film went up two days ago and is a sequel to A California Christmas. Do you feel there are issues with that article, and would it just be better to have a #Sequel section for this if not? Nate • (chatter) 01:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also have an issue with the original. I don't think that two reviews from these blog style websites that indiscriminately review every film that is released on Netflix should be considered with much weight when it comes to notability. However, I am in the minority in that. A merge of this into the original would be a great compromise and would definitely bolster the other article as well. BOVINEBOY2008 01:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did some improvements to the first film's page, so notability for that shouldn't be an issue. I also want to note that Common Sense Media is typically seen as a RS. They aren't really indiscriminate in their reviews per se, but they do put an emphasis on reviewing stuff that is popular. Ready Steady Cut is questionable - they have an editorial team but their advertising angle is a bit vague. Meaww (MEA WorldWide) looks ok at first glance but their contact page mentions "custom solutions" so that's a bit vague. If it's the same as the one mentioned in this book excerpt then it doesn't really look all that promising. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My general recommendation thus far would be to have a single page as opposed to two, but I'll try to find other sourcing as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this article but am not opposed to a merge with the original film if that is a better fit. I was under the impression that the references that I used were reputable despite being "what to watch this week" type articles. For future reference, are these frowned upon even though they are legitimate news/media outlets? Thank you all for the insight here! Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Fails WP:NFILM #1. Appearance on Netflix satisfies the first part, but routine coverage does not replace the need for two nationally known reviews. Slywriter (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)~~ Reviews look to establish notabilty.Slywriter (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on these two reviews in SF Chronicle,[2] and Decider.[3] Those combined with the Variety article about the film's production should be enough for notability imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - In its current state, the article should not be kept, but the article should be expanded. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the reviews in SF Chronicle and Decider together with other coverage push the film over WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added new references to this article for support/credibility as well as a reception section. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Two more reviews have appeared on Digital Journal [4] and Sportskeeda [5]. Whether either of these counts as a nationally known film review is dubious. The film has an audience rating of 42% on Rotten Tomatoes [6], based on fewer than 50 ratings; the only review linked is the already mentioned review on Decider. Mdulcey (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round as we're out of the holidays
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reviews are real and more will come. Speedy attacks an the fresh work of editors is, in my opinion, ugly. —¿philoserf? (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough discussion of this film in the aforemenhioned RS sources (Variety, Decider, SFchronicle) to make it notable, the film is new, and no doubt there will be more commentary on it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dalbeattie Star F.C.. ✗plicit 00:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islecroft Stadium[edit]

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

Scottish non league stadium shows no evidence of notability. Has never hosted professional football and lacks significant coverage, just standard rundowns on various stadium databases.

Would probably be better merged to the Dalbeattie Star page. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into club article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dalbeattie Star F.C., not separately notable. Giant Snowman 16:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dalbeattie Star F.C.. Rillington (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Seri Saujana[edit]

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

2009 article about a school with a single source that doesn’t even mention it. I search for other sources shows only Facebook and directories with no in depth coverage in RIS. Survived AfD in 2009 because the consensus was that there must be sources. Twelve years later it doesn’t seem there are. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. This article is written like a profile instead of an encyclopedia. Neo-corelight (Talk) 23:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is written like promotional material for the school and all I could find when I looked was a few articles about the school and COVID. Which IMO don't work for notability since every school out there at this point is getting the same kind of WP:MILL COVID coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hansa Australia[edit]

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

Non-notable vehicle (WP:NVEHICLE) with no secondary sources. Included in Germany sorting because registered owner appears to be a German logistics company - Headphase (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, this article's author has a long history of making non-notable articles that end up deleted. This is such a microstub there's nothing to merge anywhere. I suppose a redirect wouldn't be horrible, but there aren't any valid targets. So that just leaves us with the delete button. I know that "the author's creations suck!" isn't a valid deletion rationale by itself, so I did a basic search and I couldn't find anything providing significant coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cuba at the 2000 Summer Olympics#Sailing. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José Urbay[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There aren't specific guidelines for sailors, but he has only competed in one Olympics and didn't earn a medal. Ajshul ^<talk> 20:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ajshul ^<talk> 20:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence the subject passes the GNG (nor evidence that any attempt to source it was made), and mere competitors at the Olympics are no longer presumptively notable. Even by the old standards, though, this sub-stub was something of a garbage creation. Ravenswing 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cuba at the 2000 Summer Olympics#Sailing as an ATD, but definitely not notable enough for own article and fails new WP:NOLY criteria. snood1205 21:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has won individual silver medals at the Central American and Caribbean Games, meeting the requirement of WP:SPORTBASIC ("The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have participated in or achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level"). Winning multiple medals would equate to achieving success. There's probably more sourcing in Spanish too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... and doing so meets no explicit criteria, nor is a guarantee of notability. As far as sourcing in Spanish goes, absolutely, should someone find evidence of SIGCOV, that's another matter. Of course, according to WP:V, it is not enough to speculate that coverage might exist: it must be proven that it does exist. Ravenswing 23:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete - Sport-reference.com/Olympedia spam, no evidence of a GNG pass which requires multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV. Only sourcing is databases of the kind excluded from indicating notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. EDIT: Strong preference for delete given that this page received an average of 3 visits per month during 2021, most/all of which will have been webcrawlers/bots/mirrors or people searching for other people called José Urbay. This is not a plausible search term. FOARP (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - No evidence of notability. Nigej (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Low[edit]

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

Member of the Snohomish County Council. The expectation of county council members who have not served as a member of a state or national legislature is that the sourcing show more than "they exist" or routine actions. The sourcing should describe their impact on policy development or the political significance of their actions. In this case, the subject does not currently pass WP:NPOL and the sourcing is not sufficient to meet our expectations of local office holders. A redirect to Snohomish County Council is not possible at this moment since there is not (yet) a list of past members on the page. Enos733 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Low has not held any office higher than County Council in the past. This article is also reasonably short and doesn't include anything major he did on the Council.

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and as stated by nominator, Snohomish County Council is an inappropriate target with a lack of past members, so using it as a redirect as an ATD will probably end up as a SURPRISE at some point because some redirects can be COSTLY. TartarTorte 19:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Christmas stories[edit]

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

The topic may be notable, but this unreferenced essay with OR issues has remained unchanged for over 10 years. I think it is time for WP:TNT. Note that I started a properly referenced Christmas in fiction where this could redirect to, if desired, but I don't think any merge is helpful (given it would merge unreferenced, possible OR). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and fix. I dont like the idea waiting to see you write a better article, no hard feelings, when you can just overwrite this one . Goldenrowley (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Goldenrowley Overwrite implies what I am suggesting: deleting the existing content and replacing it with the referenced stuff I wrote. Per WP:TNT. Please clarify if this is what you mean. Note that the existing content fails WP:V and possibly WP:OR, and that nobody bothered to fix it (verify and reference) in over 12 years. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with using WP:TNT here. The article has barely been touched for 13 years, and is still unreferenced. If Goldenrowley or anyone else wants to take responsibility for the cleanup and referencing of this, I might switch to a keep, since I don't think the topic is inherently unnotable. -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christmas in literature, which is a harmless list. This is a mere ESSAY. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron Wouldn't Christmas in fiction, the referenced prose article, be better? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be leaning towards redirect or delete, but there is not consensus on a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, snood1205 19:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced, and appears to be WP:OR. Merging would be inappropriate due to this fact, and I wouldn't really support a Redirect at this point, as neither of the proposed Redirect targets actually mention the concept currently. Rorshacma (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some people might be well-served by a list of secular Christmas stories, perhaps as a subcategory of Category:Christmas children's books, but this is not that list.
Delete There is no properly sourced content here, so there's nothing to merge. Neither proposed redirect target covers the topic at present, so redirecting there would not be appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4 deleted as recreation of deleted article Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thea Hamann Rasmussen[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Page has been deleted previously for similar reasons. It was recreated by the same user. Pinging original AFD nominator, @Spiderone: Bobherry Talk Edits 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bobherry Talk Edits 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:G4; article is a repost of the previously deleted article (see my source analysis in the first AfD; the references used are identical). If there is any change at all with this article, it's a completely trivial one and the reasons for the previous deletion have not been addressed. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Herman's Hermits. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Whitwam[edit]

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

Propose #REDIRECT Herman's Hermits. This article has been around since 2008 and doesn't have a single WP:RS. I've found a couple of interviews with Whitman but no in-depth third-party coverage. It seems it would be more useful to redirect to the notable band he was an integral part of. Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herman's Hermits per nom. Notability is not WP:INHERITed and that seems to be the case here. I cannot really find any WP:SIGCOV of him. snood1205 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herman's Hermits as per WP:BANDMEMBER, he doesn't have notability outside of the band. Suonii180 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Protection Party[edit]

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

Has been discussed for deletion before. Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties. Notability is barely touched upon. No notable press coverage, no notable elections, nothing important enough to justify an article. Fails all Wikipedia policies on notability. doktorb _words^deeds 17:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 17:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the British political party is very not notable with essentially no real coverage about them from any news source I could find about them other than a mention a list of minor parties among 450+ other parties. snood1205 18:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has changed since the nominator twice previously unsuccessfully nominated this article for deletion as part of his continuing campaign to delete all minor parties from Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a valid Keep vote.^{[citation needed]} doktorb _words^deeds 12:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's somewhat of an elision of the facts to state "Has been discussed for deletion before" without mentioning that it was kept in 2012 and 2013 or that this is the 3rd nomination of this article by the same editor. What has changed with regard to both the earlier consensuses for keep? Cut and paste nomination gives little indication of appropriate BEFORE. Bartle and Allen refer to the effect of the Animal Protection Party on Evan Harris' 176 vote loss in 2010, when the APP candidate got 142 votes.^[1] Discussed by veterinary industry news source.^[2] Prison time of candidate.^[3]

References

^ Bartle, John; Allen, Nicholas (2011). Britain at the polls 2010. London: Sage. p. 241. ISBN 9781446210390.
^ Knight, Andrew (10 May 2010). "Is animal welfare on election agenda?" (PDF). Vet Times.
^ Ellery, Ben (24 April 2010). "Animal rights election candidate served time for arson". Oxford Mail.

Courtesy pings to other previous AfD participants @Soman, Arxiloxos, SupernovaExplosion, Chris Neville-Smith, Yaloe, ItsZippy, and WJ94:. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems like a well supported article. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since 2013 notability standards have changed. Organizations are now subject to the somewhat more strict WP:NORG due to the propensity of spam. Arguing that "this was kept in 2013, so it should be kept now" is a non starter. Agree with the nom here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the previous contributions here, this is not an argument; a general assertion without an application to the specific reveals little, AfD is always case by case. This was the state of WP:ORG at the time the 2nd nomination was closed as keep (ie 21 July 2013); how is the difference between ORG then and now relevant as applied here? Answering that would be an appropriate contribution. We have press coverage, we have a reference to an effect in a notable election loss (Evan Harris), we have a party presenting candidates in multiple electorates. Delete !votes need to refute the arguments made (including the weight of two previous consensuses for keep). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So notability is preserved in aspic for ever more? This party achieved barely any national, important, relevant coverage at the time and have had no important, impactful, notable coverage since. Evan Harris was not a household name back then and certainly isn't today. They are not, if they ever were, important or notable enough for a Wikipedia article. We accept lack of notability for boybands, PR firms, apps, and business people. We should accept the same for political parties. doktorb _words^deeds 04:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't "case by case"; you've decided to disregard WP:CONLEVEL by arguing that this should be kept based on some idea that political parties have an SNG. WP:NORG had a significant rewrite of sourcing requirements years ago in 2018. [7] This was because organizations kept flooding articles with bad sourcing. The Oxford Mail covers a candidate, WP:INHERITORG makes it clear the parent organization doesn't inherit notability because a member got press coverage. WP:ORGIND makes it clear that "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability" and that's because you have fellow travellers writing these kinds of articles. The Vet Times source was written by Andrew Knight, a spokesperson for the "Animals Count" party, another "animal rights" microparty. Colour me surprised that it isn't a super good source. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case-by-case means we look at each nomination individually, with reference to our policies and guidelines; I was emphasising this since since your original justification for delete was no more than an assertion that the guidelines had changed. FWIW, CONLEVEL it not relevant here, two previous AfDs reached a conclusion of keep on the basis of the guidelines, no one is arguing that the guidelines should be ignored (and that is certainly not what case-by-case means). Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I see no reason in rejecting the piece by Andrew Knight, you've not demonstrated that it is unreliable or lacks independence (if anything the independence is crystal clear as it is from a different political party); that one person of a similar political persuasion says something regarding another political party is hardly grounds for rejection ... and politically like-minded parties are far more likely to reject those closest to them than cooperate. I think its also important to note that the "organisations" flooding Wikipedia with bad sourcing, churnalism, etc are for-profit companies. There are presently 338 registered political parties in Great Britain, and 28 in Northern Ireland; according to Companies House, there are 4 million registered companies in the UK. Using cookie cutter approaches for such vastly, qualitatively different phenomena, is not encyclopedic. And just to be clear, I am not making an argument for 366 articles about every political party in the UK, that should be done case by case. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pace Chess, there is no risk of spamming if we have reasonable extra-NORG criteria for political parties. In another party AfD, I suggested the criterion of having fielded multiple candidates over several elections, a bar which this party appears to satisfy. Is anyone keeping a tally of parties that previously passed AfD that are deemed to fail NORG now? — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems like it currently meets guidelines and none of the arguments for deletion are convincing to me. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of players who played only one game in the NHL[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reading through the first two AFD's for this article, the discussion fails to take into account any of WIkipedia's notability policies or guidelines.

This article is a standalone list, so WP:LISTN comes into play. WP:LISTN says that "Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source." It also says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." This is clearly not met. The only sources in the article are NHL.com, HockeyDB.com and a now dead LegendsofHockey.net (which appears to be the Hockey HoF now). These are sports database sources or self-published. They are not independent, third-party reliable sources that establish the topic of "people who played one NHL game" as being a notable topic.
Since WP:LISTN doesn't seem to be met, we can look at WP:GNG. However, a simple search shows no reliable sources covering the topic of "people who have played one NHL game". It is not something that is discussed or analyzed in third-party, reliable news sources.
This also fails WP:NOTSTATS, as it is simply a regurgitation of a database query on HockeyDB and NHL.com. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac.

The past discussions seemed to overlook these glaring issues and focused too much on how difficult it is to maintain or other unrelated issues. This discussion should focus on whether there are sufficient third-party, reliable sources to establish notability per Wikipedia's notability policies and guidelines. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous discussions illustrated why this is a notable grouping of players. Significant external sources maintain lists of these players, including HockeyDB and the Hockey Hall of Fame. The list is well-maintained and well-sourced. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Tavix, neither of these sources establish notability of the list topic. They are sports almanacs whose sole purpose is to document every statistic. "External sources" are not third-party, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that the hockey DB page is definitely reliable, and the linked page is not documentation of a random stat but a presentation of a topic as evidenced by the title of the page.18abruce (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not saying HockeyDB is not reliable. Its a sports almanac. Just because information exists, doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a sports alamanc. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously. Here is a book by a reputable author dedicated solely to this topic. A whole book, not just a mention. There are many other sources that satisfy GNG for this, as evidenced by the sourcing for Ken Reid's book.18abruce (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I will admit, this is the first step in the right direction. If a few more of these types of sources are found, then I will gladly withdraw the nomination. But one book that documents interviews with 39 of the people on this list of ~400 people doesn't establish notability by itself, especially when that source is not available to see what it actually says. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list meets WP:LISTN via 18abruce's sourcing it to a book about 1 game NHL players, which would make the list notable per: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Other sources referring to this as a group include this article by the Detroit News^[1] and by the The Globe and Mail.^[2] snood1205 18:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Falkner, Mark. "One-game wonder: How ex-Spartan Brad Fast made NHL history". The Detroit News. Retrieved 2 January 2022.
^ Maki, Allan (26 April 2005). "One-game wonder gets second chance". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2 January 2022.

Keep: Beyond the reasons tendered above, there's another important purpose to the list. It's been a constant issue on Wikipedia for many years the degree to which sports-related biographies dominate -- one in seven bios are of soccer players alone. Sentiment and consensus are slowly catching up to the letter of NSPORTS, which holds that the various criteria for inclusion are presumptive, that biographical articles need to meet the GNG, and that the many instances where little to nothing is known about a player save that they played (say) a single game for Hamilton in 1923 should no more qualify a subject for an independent article than, (say) being an an otherwise unremarkable member of a band should.
A catch-all list article is a perfectly valid target for such redirects. Removing such articles sabotages the whole notion, and instead of a handful of similar list articles, you have many thousands of sub-stub bios. Ravenswing 18:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with this sentiment, but every person on this list has an article; there's not a single redirect here from a name. If Brian Murphy (ice hockey) and Harry Bell (ice hockey) are redirected here it would be worth keeping, but it's otherwise not the case. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I created this article many years ago, my thought was to list the players with a short career summary without the need to create an article for each one. Over the years, though, editors created articles for each player anyway. Masterhatch (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Ravenswing, consensus has changed in the last couple years, and I expect that most of the stand-alone articles for one-game players in the early days of the NHL lack SIGCOV and would be deleted in today's stricter environment. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, probably, eventually will be. Ravenswing 20:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough sources and need for an article of this sort. Masterhatch (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929), including the following:

First, and as pointed out by User:Ravenswing, the list is useful as an alternative to deletion. One-game players, especially in the NHL's early years, did not receive the type of SIGCOV needed to support stand-alone articles. Despite this fact, sub-stubs have proliferated about these one-game players. Many such articles would be best dealt with by way of a redirect to this list.
Second, the topic of one-game players or "cup of coffee" players (both in the NHL and other pro sports) does receive substantial attention.
Third, WP:NOTSTATS is NOT a rationale for deletion here. NOTSTATS covers "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." Here, the list is not a mere regurgitation of confusing or unexplained stats.
Fourth, WP:NLIST expressly states that "notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." NLIST also goes on to say: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." This list fulfills all three of these purposes: information, navigation, and development. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've over the last year or two, moved toward deleting lists articles, as trivia. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just like musical big brothers Lists of one-hit wonders, it's notable trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An entire book on the topic is enough SIGCOV. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been entire books on the topic, which definitely makes this meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virtudesk[edit]

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

Sources are paid spam [8][9][10] or non reliable. It does not seem to pass WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is little more than an advert, sources are not reliable, don't see how the company is notable. --CameronVictoria (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable independent citation found. Will not meet notability guidelines. Mommmyy (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any reliable sources in the article, and can't find any either. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are not reliable, non-notable company. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources used are credible because not only are they well-known by users (e.g. Inc Magazine and Analytics Insight), but their online channels also have a very high domain authority (in the that many of the sources included have a 60 or higher domain, with some 90+) and readership. This means that search engines such as Google classify them as high-authority and credible to users, and rank these outlets high on page 1 of searches. Many of the sources included are also big news outlets. Plus, Virtudesk is gaining more credible coverage every week, and we can continue to add to the article when those come out, and edit out old sources. Thanks guys. Ares-2021 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ares-2021: Here is my review of the references given as of revision #1063623990 at 01:35, 4 January 2022:
1. WBOC: As it says at the top, it's "Sponsored: Advertising Content".
2. Apollo: Also advertising; begins with "VirtuDesk is the perfect solution for your business!".
3. WRDE: same as WBOC.
4. Starter Story: It's written by the founder so it's not independent.
5. Inc.: This is a company profile, and doesn't establish notability.
6. ValiantCEO: An interview with the founder isn't independent, and the site notes that they "publish pieces as written by outside contributors", and that these "are not commissioned by [their] editorial team".
7. WICZ: same as WBOC.
8. Analytics Insight: another interview with the founder, which is not independent.
In summary, absolutely none of these demonstrate the significant coverage in reliable and independent sources needed to establish notability.
- The WBOC/WRDE/WICZ advertising is the exact same advertising on three channels' websites, possibly to create the impression of wider coverage.
- The two interviews and the one written by the founder are the opposite of independent.
- The company profile is from a reliable source (Inc.) but is not significant coverage.
- The Apollo source is advertising.
Also, a website being ranked high in Google search results does not imply reliability. If Virtudesk "is gaining more credible coverage every week" like you say, then come back and write the article when it's notable — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that sugeests notability Devokewater ^(talk) 15:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai United AC[edit]

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

Non notable Football club. The sources appear to provide are not the reliable in-depth independent coverage of the subject that would be needed for notability through WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Played in I-League 2nd Division so passes the notability.Bharat0078 (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 00:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angola–Kosovo relations[edit]

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

Was tagged for improvement for almost half a year, without improvement. Was draftified in an attempt to allow it to be improved. The draftification was objected to. Can't find enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to: The content is notable and the article serves to hold content split from the International recognition of Kosovo article, where size constraints have become a problem. A similar nomination was started in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Republic of the Congo–Kosovo relations, where the discussion didn't reach a consensus for these reasons. Lastly, a possible alternative before deletion is moving the article to the Angola's reaction to the Kosovo declaration of independence title.--NoonIcarus (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge This only has three sentences of content, only one of which isn't already at International_recognition_of_Kosovo#A. I see no basis to have a separate article for this clearly non-notable non-relationship. Seems absurd to suggest there's enough content to warrant a "reaction" article/title either. Reywas92^Talk 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think there is enough here to support the notion that Angola and Kosovo have "relations" with eachother. Geschichte (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have in the past voted to keep many relatively unknown relations, but I couldn't find additional sources that cover this (non)relationship in depth (besides namechecks of Angola voting against Kosovo's admission to international bodies). The current sources do not constitute significant nor in-depth coverage, in my view. No prejudice against recreation if in-depth coverage emerges in the future, which helps satisfy the GNG. Don't see much utility in merging into International_recognition_of_Kosovo#A for one sentence, but I don't oppose that or other editors adding Angola's vote against the admission of Kosovo to Interpol. Pilaz (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Harris (American football)[edit]

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

Not notable American football player. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GRIDIRON. Waived twice without playing in an NFL game. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NGRIDIRON (never payed in an NFL game) and NCOLLATH (no major awards, records, national coverage). Nor does he qualify under GNG. Article is entirely sourced to non-independent coverage by the college and pro teams for whom he was on the roster. My searches fail to turn up SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Said Ahmed Shehata[edit]

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

BLP of an academic based on unreliable and self-published sources. Complete lack of in depth coverage in RIS. Article creator has been producing numerous low-quality BLPs and may not understand sourcing requirements properly. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Ackah[edit]

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

Ghana and Oman are both WP:NOTFPL so there's no claim to meeting WP:NFOOTBALL (worth noting that all of the appearances are unverified anyway - none of the stats pages on him seem to list them). Only one tiny transfer announcement in Google News and nothing at all in DDG or ProQuest so there is no evidence of WP:GNG.

References currently in the article are a stats database profile, two transfer announcements with barely any info on him that mostly duplicate each other and an unreliable source relating to Football Manager 2020, a computer game. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither NFOOTY nor GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find WP:SIGCOV for the subject and as such they don't warrant a standalone article. In addition to the above, I also found similar a WP:ROUTINE article surrounding their transfer here. GauchoDude (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mukul Harish[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. ManaliJain (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 2. ManaliJain (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.. ManaliJain (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: per nom. Lacks sources to indicate if the roles played are significant to meet NACTOR. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Ab207 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" !votes boil down to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, whereas the delete !votes are solidly based in policy. Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 in home video[edit]

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

This is an incomplete list of Blue-Ray DVD scheduled for release WP:NOTSTATS List does not meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG Whiteguru (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is incomplete because 2022 hasn't even started yet (and a major waste of time-traveling powers if it was sourced in full now). It's sourced according to the guidelines established for every year's 'in home video' article. Nate • (chatter) 08:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is fine, just like all other lists of this type. Its a valid navigational list since it links to articles people will want to find when searching for what new films are available in 2022. Dream Focus 14:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks references supporting that WP:NLIST is met, and the category fulfils the purpose as a navigational aid. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates clearly states you shouldn't delete one because another one does the same thing. List and categories can both exist for the same thing. A list allows more information so its always more useful than a category. Dream Focus 22:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTTVGUIDE. And WP:NLIST also applies. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reading the second of two paragraphs at WP:NLIST is a good idea. It reads in part: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Dream Focus 00:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For failing WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. I can almost guarantee that 99% of what's put on here eventually won't be notable and that the list is un-maintainable in the meantime either way. There's an infinite amount of DVD releases every year. It's to easy for something like this to turn into mindless trivia, it's all WP:MILL, Etc. Etc. I really can't think of a single reason this list should exist. If people want to find what new films are available in 2022 they can find the information a lot better by do a Google search or looking at an actual movie review website. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about all the others at Category:Home video by year? Every year since 1971 is listed. 2021 in home video has 1316 entries. All of the entries have a reference. Dream Focus 15:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant here. These are all the same, just for different years. Any deletion nomination for one should include all of them. Anyway, my point was in response to the comment about there being an infinite amount of DVD releases each year. I pointed out there is a limited number of things listed in each article, all referenced to prove they are worthy of being on the list. We don't list every single thing released of course. Dream Focus 00:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is relevant. The AfD nominator can choose to nominate one article, a few or all of them. Any attempt to increase the efficiency of AfD nominations is optional. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. People can nominate similar articles in whatever way they feel like. In the meantime it would be weird if I was voted keep just because the articles weren't nominated all at once even though I believe they should be deleted as individual articles. I'm sure the other ones will come up for deletion at some point, since all of them seem to have the same problems raised by nominator about this one, and baring any unforeseen circumstances I'm more then happy to vote delete on the other ones when or if they do get sent to AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - how meaningful is this list in 2022 (or 2021 for that matter). I imagine many movies don't even go to DVD these days, and release dates have been messy especially since the start of the pandemic. Today, the more meaningful dates would be when something is available for streaming, but of course then you may have a variety of dates for different platforms, limited releases, etc. Regardless, at what points does a tiny part of the industry stop needing its own dedicated list. I mean we're even still calling it home video. Not a !vote - just a question. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When its available to pay for viewing by streaming is it not also available for purchase on DVD or BluRay? Reliable sources list when something is available for release by any of these methods of course. The list articles could easily add in a category for that. Dream Focus 00:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question, Rhododendrites, since the home video article implies that streaming is a separate category.
Similar issues regarding the dates also exist for these "home video" releases, since release dates are often different between countries. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing worth mentioning is that none of these movies are notable for the year they were/are released. So it's a totally arbitrary list in that regard. It might as well be 2022 home videos with actors or whatever. Being released on physical media isn't a defining, notable, characteristic of movies or television shows anymore then something like that they featured actors would be. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least when home video was bigger, it was very easy to find lots of lists in reliable sources of what was released when. That's still true of streaming now. List members don't have to be notable for the criterion that admits them to a list (at least not by default for non-BLPs). The list subject itself does need to be notable, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does at least specify the list is about the US/CA. The title should probably reflect that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So effectively the topic of the article is List of Blu-Ray and DVD releases in the United States and Canada in 2022? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it seems to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is essentially just a list of Amazon links to movie releases that readers can purchase DVD or other media. There is nothing encyclopedic about listing every single home media release that is available in a particular year nor advertising one of the biggest online movie distributors in the world. This should also set a precedent for all earlier years dating back to 1971: Category:Home video by year. Ajf773 (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- I agree it's a literal Amazon catalogue but there is lots of "year in home video" articles already (similarly formatted) and if this must be deleted then all similar article must be too-- Gerald WL 18:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 07:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Please, You guys don't even understand, This list is important, I don't care if it's just amazon catalogues, It's really important, I am saving this list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.46.140.39 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a policy related argument. Ajf773 (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep dvds as a yearly list-group is regularly covered in significant detail by dvd reliable sources such as DVD Talk and DVD Verdict, therefore WP:NLIST is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: All home video articles have been deleted. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 78 / WP:LISTCRUFT. Its only source, Blu-ray.com, has been deemed unreliable by WP:FILM; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Questionable resources. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I reinstated all the pages. It's not true that its only source is the "unreliable" Blu-ray.com. Despite being mainly a catalogue for Amazon links, that's no good reason to just suddenly redirect all the hard work into making these articles. Ryayan855 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryayan855: The articles serve no purpose (WP:LISTCRUFT). Wikipedia is NOT a catalog (WP:NOTCATALOG). It is not our problem that you and other editors spent their valuable time working on them. They are meaningless and should be deleted. The main source, Blu-ray.com, is unreliable. If a reader wants to know when a film became available on DVD, they can go to that's film article and find out for themselves. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryayan855: Firstly you offer no real reason for keeping this article (and subsequently the others). Secondly most of the content is not verified with the sourced provided. Thirdly, Wikipedia is not a catalogue of every thing available to be purchased. The only thing that needs to come out of this entire category of articles is a single article outlying milestones in home video (adequately sourced as well). Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Home releases themselves are not notable and this is veering into serious catalogue and cruft territory. Delete this, then delete the other articles following suit. ~Cheers, Ten TonParasol 23:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 05:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do They Know It's Hallowe'en?[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Only one source. Despite involving a myriad of notable names, it is WP:NOTINHERITED. Searching found only vendors and lyric databases. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the song reached no. 4 on the Billboard Canadian Hot 100, which can be corroborated [11]. I know chart positions don't automatically make a song notable, but at least this claim in the article can be verified. Richard3120 (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This wasn't the Canadian Hot 100 as it exists now, but the Canadian Singles Chart of old, which by 2005 had long been notoriously unreflective of the most widely-heard songs in Canada because it was based purely on physical sales, which died out in North America long before they did in the UK. A case in point of how low the sales required for this chart were: Elton John's Diana tribute returned to number one on this chart in January 2002. So a high position on this chart is much less likely in itself to make a song notable compared to a high position on the modern Canadian Hot 100, for all that I applaud this song for spelling Hallowe'en properly. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following the nomination, I added more sources. With significant coverage in Rolling Stone, Maclean's, the Ottawa Citizen and The New York Times, this subject meets notability guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning merge to Do They Know It's Christmas?, which already mentions the topic. The laundry list of contributing performers is unnecessary. BD2412 T 07:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable with the New York Times and Ottawa Citizen mentions, but the article needs to be trimmed down quite a bit, it seems to be more of a list than an article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources added to the article by Paul Erik. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kinetic Rule Language. ✗plicit 11:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kynetx[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP; non-notable former company with, as far as I can tell, no independent and significant coverage, though some passing coverage exists (1 2 3) The 2013 deletion discussion claimed to have found some coverage, but no specific details were provided, no such coverage was added to the article, and I haven't been able to identify such coverage myself. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kinetic Rule Language (KRL), their main product and what they were known for. From what I see coverage is mostly on KRL and less on the company.--Mvqr (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, six years after going defunct the company is not going to become notable. Effectively merge into Kinetic Rule Language since the language has a stronger case, especially if the few sources for the company are combined into it. W Nowicki (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kinetic Rule Language (KRL) as above. Topic company fails NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article significantly imroved, no current arguments for deletion. Excellent work by all. (except for the sock...) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. Jones[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There are a lot of nominations for deletions for articles on rugby league footballers where there first name isn't known, I think they should all be nominated in the same AfD. ビッグツリ64 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Block evasion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Strong keep I have not checked in detail, but it seems there is a lot more to this one. The subject was also a rugby union player,^[1] and with non trivial coverage, and it seems a swimmer, also with non trivial coverage.^[2] BTW, the subject's first name is Tas, and played league in 1916 (not 1915).^[3] Aoziwe (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can now confirm that the subject was also a swimmer, and a diver,^[4] and it seems much better known as a swimmer and more notable than as a rugby player. There are a lot more swimming references than rugby union or rugby league references. BeanieFan11. I do not have time right now, but I will do an article on the subject. There is a large amount of material to wade through. Aoziwe (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - added to rugby union sorting due to research from Aoziwe above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few of the current/recent "league AfD batch" that also played union, but yes, this one has the highest, and I think notable, profile. Aoziwe (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoziwe: if he truly is notable, and played multiple sports, could you try to expand the article to reflect that? For I don't think any article with all its content being "T. Jones (birth unknown) was an Australian rugby league footballer who played in the 1910s, he played in the New South Wales Rugby League (NSWRL). Jones played with Eastern Suburbs in the 1915 season." should actively be in mainspace. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See above: keep --> strong keep. Aoziwe (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Significant work done on article. I suggest WP:HEY applies. Article will also need a Move to Tas Jones. BeanieFan11 as requested I hope. I have more to add and will do so over the next week or so. Aoziwe (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work. If I knew how to I would withdraw the AFD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a not small amount to still add. I presume someone will see this AfD soon and close it. Aoziwe (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aksel Fugelli[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, meets WP:NAUTHOR with multiple books on one of the major publishing houses in his country. Dlthewave, can you disclose your methods of finding coverage? Don't say Google now. That wouldn't hold water when the sources are both in a foreign (to you) language and from many years ago. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change to speedy keep per WP:HEY in addition to WP:TROUTing the nominator up, down and sideways—after I added a small portion of media coverage, namely 10 reviews of one book alone. And as for 2022, like in previous years, I personally pledge to participate in as few AFD discussions as possible about countries like India, since I know so little about that country. Geschichte (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:CSK reason is being invoked here? –dlthewave ☎ 01:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#3, "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided". Geschichte (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable to nominate a poorly-sourced article for deletion after a standard, basic WP:BEFORE search. It's unreasonable for an article creator who didn't bother to include any sourcing beyond Discogs and a list of books written, to expect others to do an extensive search in multiple languages. If you don't want your articles to end up at AfD, I would recommend starting them as drafts and moving them to mainspace only after they've been developed with GNG-level sourcing. And please don't claim "no accurate deletion rationale has been provided" for good faith nominations. Your best bet is to put your money where your mouth is by adding sources (which you've done) and politely point this out at AfD (which you seem to be struggling with). –dlthewave ☎ 20:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on addition of references by User:Geschichte. @Dlthewave: - (1) Specifically on this nomination, between Google and the no-Wiki article (where it's clear that there are references in Norwegian) enough sources and pointers to sources are easily visible to indicate that the man is likely to be notable, even if you can't read them and won't be bothered to translate them. So it doesn't look as though you did make "a standard, basic WP:BEFORE search". (2) Generally, please get off your high horse. Be assured that you're in no position to be so patronising. Here we are at yet another (potentially) failed nomination because you can't cope with foreign language sources. Give it a rest. Ingratis (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Hordnes[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from “comment”) WP:ANYBIO says anyone who has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary is likely to be notable. I’m not sure if Store norske leksikon is the “standard national biographical dictionary” in Norway, but if it is, the subject is probably notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO since Store norske leksikon is indeed the standard encyclopedia, and the article has existed since it was a paper encyclopedia. It would be utterly far-fetched to claim that Wikipedia should have fewer articles than a paper encyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being chief of police of Norway's second-largest city would seem to be a notable enough and has an entry in the paper version of Store norske leksikon in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rider (2021 film)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. fails WP:GNG. Not a major improvement from last rejected draft by Ab207 and Joseywales1961. DMySon (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ the two references on the page (Filmiforest and bookmyshow) turn up blank as reliable sources. No evidence of WP:NFILM. Chumpih ^t 02:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC) article subsequently improved[reply]
Keep The article I draftified was in a rather poor state but the film is notable. Added reviews from The New Indian Express, TOI, Deccan Herald and Kannada Prabha / Asianet. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2+ reviews from major publications as above. Meets WP:NFILM. Jupitus Smart 12:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ab207's source analysis. Pikavoom ^Talk 07:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NFO - has reviews about the film from multiple sources, to be notable — DaxServer (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the additional, recently-added sources now demonstrate notability. Chumpih ^t 20:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HiSoft Systems[edit]

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

No independent coverage. Was a business from 1980 to 2001, now a consulting brand for one of the founders. Multiple other software businesses of this name make searches difficult. Based on the article, Maxon Computer GmbH could be a redirect target, but that article doesn't (and needn't) mention this company. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Products like HiSoft Basic are notable (however, there is not a stand-alone article yet, only mention in List of BASIC dialects), so we are without a clear redirect target. Pavlor (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember them being a notable company in the UK in the 80s and 90s. There's plenty of news articles if you search through the ZX Spectrum, Amiga and Atari ST etc magazine archives on the Internet Archive, for example a three page company profile in Amiga Computing https://archive.org/details/AmigaComputingIssue094XMas95/page/n31/mode/1up Piecesofuk (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was unable to find more in-depth coverage of the company, and I did notice there are Australian and Chinese companies with the same name. Piecesofuk, can you please add more reliable sources about the company to this discussion? Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth trying a search on Archive.org, with additional terms like the founder David Link: https://archive.org/search.php?query=hisoft%20%22David%20Link%22&sin=TXT or Amiga https://archive.org/search.php?query=hisoft%20Amiga&sin=TXT or ZX Spectrum https://archive.org/search.php?query=hisoft%20%22ZX%20Spectrum%22&sin=TXT or Atari https://archive.org/search.php?query=hisoft%20Atari&sin=TXT you'll find a mixture of adverts and product reviews. When I did the David Link search the first hit was for the company profile linked above. The Centre for Computing History has a list of some of their products which might also be useful for some searches http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/pages/49753/site-search/?q=hisoft&x=0&y=0 I did a search on the British Newspaper Archive but it doesn't really cover the 1980s or 1990s, the only thing I found was a review of one of their products with the company being described as "one of the most respected software houses in the home computer field" Piecesofuk (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: Thank you. There are a great number of search results to go through, and I personally can't comb through all of them to find ones that pass WP:SIGCOV for the company. Based on the search results you provided, I share Pavlor's concern that the products may be more notable than the company itself. (Advertisements do not warrant product notability, and product reviews must meet WP:PRODUCTREV). If multiple reliable independent sources about the company itself do not exist, the products' notability is not enough to keep the company's page in existence. If anyone has time to pinpoint in-depth coverage of the company from reliable sources, please share what you find. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from this company profile (mentioned above) https://archive.org/details/AmigaComputingIssue094XMas95/page/n31/mode/1up I can find plenty of product reviews in eg British magazines https://archive.org/details/cuamiga-magazine-072/page/n64/mode/1up US magazines https://archive.org/details/Antics_AMIGA_Plus_Volume_1_Number_1_1989-05_Antic_Publishing_US/page/n18/mode/1up French magazines https://archive.org/details/st-magazine-080/page/n33/mode/1up It's difficult tracking down news items using archive.org's search, but here's one https://archive.org/details/Atari_ST_User_Issue_088_1993-06_Europress_GB/page/n6/mode/1up where Hisoft are referred to as a "Top Developer" and the one from the British Newspaper Archive I mentioned above which refers to Hisoft as "one of the most respected software houses in the home computer field" in the Liverpool Echo on 9th November 1985 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000271/19851109/050/0006 Piecesofuk (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Piecesofuk. Unfortunately, product reviews are irrelevant in the discussion to keep/delete this company page. The BNA does not permit open access without creating an account, and brief mentions of the company are not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. The purpose of meeting WP:SIGCOV is to allow Wikipedians to write a whole article about a subject, per WP:WHYN, and if we cannot prove there is in-depth coverage about the company (not the software) to do so, the Wikipedia article about the company has to be deleted. My vote is Delete unless WP:SIGCOV can be proven for the company alone, not its products. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of better evidence of notability. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appears to be difficulty sourcing much on-line info from the 1980s, but we should consider British Newspaper Archive per Piecesofuk's research. There are thousands of references in Archive.org and beyond, although it is a struggle to identify stuff that passes WP:SIRS from there. HiSoft adverts typically contain blurb about the company, and this tends to crowd out hits on more analytical pieces. The journalistic style of the time would typically not dwell on the organisations much, despite the significance of the products, so analytical pieces would be few. These issues mean that evidence may be difficult to compile. Chumpih ^t 04:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, the profile contained in the Amiga Computing magazine coupled with the mentions of the importance of this company's products in their own specialist fields and the fact that the age of this company means we must take WP:NEXIST into account pushes the topic company over the line. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 00:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical harmony[edit]

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

I cannot find any source on the Biblical harmony article, whether on its title or on its subject, i.e. I found no RS discussing what is described in the article, independently of the title of the WP article. And so far the article has not been attributed any source over its 14 years of existence. Moreover, as pointed out in 2014, the article seems to be redundant with other similar articles, so maybe the article was created by mistake.
I asked on the WikiProject Christianity one month ago if someone had more information, and no one has replied so far.
I recommend deletion. A redirect to Gospel harmony would be a bad idea, as gospel harmonies are never called "Bible harmonies". Veverve (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a simple search turns up many instances of biblical harmonies, such as this and this. There is clearly a secondary literature describing them such as this and this, so without specialist knowledge or confidence about really appropriate sources, I’d still be inclined to keep. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: those are all forms of gospel harmonies so they have nothing to do with the article I nominated. The only exception is this one, which is unclear as to whether it discusses a singular attempt at something or an attempt which is part of a whole alleged "biblical harmony" genre. Veverve (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This involves trying to put various accounts from books of the Hebrew Bible or New Testament in chronological order. What we have in the article is an extended dictionary definition. At home I have something called Townshend's Bible, which is an 19th century attempt at this. I do not think this is an article that needs references. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given the absence of relevant sources in the article. If there were sources, I would still think that this would probably best be merged and redirected somewhere. BD2412 T 00:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see little evidence for biblical harmony as a "hermeneutic method" in reliable sources on biblical criticism. The contents of the article, if better-sourced, should still probably be merged into Biblical paraphrase or Gospel harmony, the former of which especially needs significant expansion in its own right. CasualUser10 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Buchans. ✗plicit 04:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buchans Airport[edit]

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

Non-notable airport microstub. Existing references don't establish notability, and a before search failed to find any significant coverage. The best I could find was this: [12] which isn't nearly enough. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Buchans where there is already more info than in this article. I also found a few more sentences that I added to Buchans. MB 03:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for above reasons. The Buchans article has more info than this article, but not enough for the airport to sustain its own article. Mukedits (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Menihek Hydroelectric Generating Station. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Menihek Aerodrome[edit]

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

Non-notable abandoned airport. I can verify it existed, as part of Menihek Hydroelectric Generating Station, but what I cannot find is significant coverage, other than borderline coverage of the one accident in 1953. A redirect or potentially a merge to the hydroelectric station would be appropriate here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Menihek Hydroelectric Generating Station per nom. Not enough coverage for a separate article. MB 04:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous similar pages of defunct airports in Canada. For example: Opinaca Aerodrome; Stanhope Airport; Lac à la Perchaude Airport; Sainte-Agnès-de-Dundee Aerodrome; Chambly Airport; Matoush Aerodrome; Senneterre Airport; L'Assomption Airport. The reasons given above, i.e., non-notable abandoned airport and significant coverage, apply to all of these airports. If these airports have enough coverage for a separate article, Menihek Aerodrome has more information and thus justifies a separate article. 70.77.44.96 (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to introduce you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You have this entirely backwards, what that means is that those similar pages just haven't been deleted yet. But they will be, thanks to you showing them to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Menihek Hydroelectric Generating Station per nom. WP:NAIRPORTS, which it being an essay not a guideline notwithstanding, says Any unattended airport or any privately-owned airport not open to the public and not marketed in public are factors which cause a higher standard to be imposed for the significance (quality and quantity) of the airport's sources. Generally they are not notable unless they have very significant reliable sources (not including a required airport registration) to make them notable. This airport does not have WP:SIGCOV enough to make it notable in its own right. snood1205 02:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Handelman[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't qualify for WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fails WP:NPOL, and as an acting secretary, doesn't achieve the mercy of WP:POLOUTCOMES#Political figures not elected to public office. Curbon7 (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This was supposed to be Delete, I clicked the comment button by accident. Curbon7 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Knox490 (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proletarian Communist Party of Ivory Coast[edit]

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

Non-notable communist party. Could not find any independent reliable secondary sources by Binging the French or English name of the party. Fails WP:NORG. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a clandestine organization, understood that it would operate through other fronts. That said, functions as the referent of ICOR in Ivory Coast, gets republished frequently in organs of related parties since foundation in 1996. --Soman (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could elaborate how that satisfies WP:NORG? Sources have to be independent to satisfy the SIRS requirement and organs of related parties aren't that. And WP:INHERITORG makes it clear sub entities don't inherit notability from parent entities. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not providing any sources I don't see why this article should be kept. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the reasons given by User:Chess. Knox490 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If deleted, should redirect to International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources presented, nor can I find any. It's impossible to write an encyclopaedia article on a topic that has no sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the points outlined by Chess. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 00:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Adapted Music Society[edit]

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

VAMS does great work, but this and this are the only articles I am able to find, and I don't think they constitute enough for WP:ORG or the GNG. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep There's a CBC article that pops up in Gnews, talking about one of the artists they've supported, so I think with the ref mentioned above it's just barely notable. Found a brief mention in GBooks here [[13]], page 238 I think it is. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gscholar also has a few hits in journals, one in Proquest in particular talks it about in details. Would seem to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can't see the preview of the book so wasn't sure how significant it was. Will go look for the ProQuest one you referenced. Star Mississippi 02:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/15613302?searchTerm=barker%20league%20eastern%20suburbs

[2] ttps://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/15613749?searchTerm=barker%20league%20eastern%20suburbs

[3] ttps://www.roosters.com.au/history/timeline/1908-1919/

[4] Bartle, John; Allen, Nicholas (2011). Britain at the polls 2010. London: Sage. p. 241. ISBN 9781446210390.

[5] Knight, Andrew (10 May 2010). "Is animal welfare on election agenda?" (PDF). Vet Times.

[6] Ellery, Ben (24 April 2010). "Animal rights election candidate served time for arson". Oxford Mail.

[7] Falkner, Mark. "One-game wonder: How ex-Spartan Brad Fast made NHL history". The Detroit News. Retrieved 2 January 2022.

[8] Maki, Allan (26 April 2005). "One-game wonder gets second chance". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2 January 2022.

[9] ttps://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/167281011?searchTerm=jones%20league%20eastern%20suburbs

[10] ttps://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword=union&date.from=1886-01-01&date.to=1936-12-31&l-state=New%20South%20Wales&keyword.phrase=tas%20jones

[11] ttps://www.roosters.com.au/history/timeline/1908-1919/

[12] ttp://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article247382781

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Eric Ayiah[edit]

Syntactic expletive[edit]

Dundalk Municipal District[edit]

Blxckie[edit]

The Switch (beverage)[edit]

Shelly Grabe[edit]

Grant Fitzpatrick (musician)[edit]

C. Nash[edit]

A California Christmas: City Lights[edit]

Islecroft Stadium[edit]

SMK Seri Saujana[edit]

Hansa Australia[edit]

José Urbay[edit]

Sam Low[edit]

Secular Christmas stories[edit]

Thea Hamann Rasmussen[edit]

Barry Whitwam[edit]

Animal Protection Party[edit]

List of players who played only one game in the NHL[edit]

Virtudesk[edit]

Mumbai United AC[edit]

Angola–Kosovo relations[edit]

Vernon Harris (American football)[edit]

Mohamed Said Ahmed Shehata[edit]

Philip Ackah[edit]

Mukul Harish[edit]

2022 in home video[edit]

Do They Know It's Hallowe'en?[edit]

Kynetx[edit]

T. Jones[edit]

Aksel Fugelli[edit]

Oskar Hordnes[edit]

Rider (2021 film)[edit]

HiSoft Systems[edit]

Biblical harmony[edit]

Buchans Airport[edit]

Menihek Aerodrome[edit]

Kenneth Handelman[edit]

Proletarian Communist Party of Ivory Coast[edit]

Vancouver Adapted Music Society[edit]

Leave a Reply