Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< January 07 January 09 >

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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Racial misrepresentation[edit]

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

This topic is already covered, primarily in Passing (racial identity). Indigenous girl (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is actually covered in the Passing article, should you take the time to thoroughly read it. The inclusion of Native Americans within the context of race when ones Native identity is rooted in nationhood is problematic. Being Indigenous has nothing to do with race, it has to do with community. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article isn't about indigenous specifically, it's about all cases of racial misrepresentation. (t · c) buidhe 01:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And again you confirm that you want to use Wikipedia to redefine Indigenous identity as racial. This is the exact approach that tribal leaders and Indigenous scholars have repeatedly stated is harmful and simply not the way Indigenous identity is defined. Some of the frauds you put on this list are there precisely because the offensive thing they did was attempt to redefine tribal identify via racialization - such as by a DNA test (Elizabeth Warren) - even after being told that's not how it's done. Links to just a few of the articles on this issue:Elizabeth Warren’s claim to Cherokee ancestry is a form of violence, 'There is no DNA test to prove you're Native American', Press Release: Cherokee Nation responds to Senator Warren’s DNA test - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with User:Buidhe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.6.88 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per explanation by User:Buidhe --Whiteguru (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the article suggested above. Wikipedia can't presume to determine motive in this way without breaking BLP rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizjim (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Vizjim, false representations about one's race are false representations about one's race. It's a factual matter. The encyclopedia can address those representations without delving into anyone's motivations. 74.67.6.88 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original comment from User:buidhe was "Racial misrepresentation is different, it is actively lying about one's racial background." This article is differentiated from the one on passing by a focus on intention. Vizjim (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect back to the more comprehensive and nuanced article that the only salvageable content and sources were taken from: Passing (racial identity).
Buidhe has said on article talk in a move discussion that the goal here is to move other articles into this one, including Indigenous identity articles that do not define identity based on these concepts of race.[1] Buidhe is not listening to any of the editors from the Indigenous Wikiproject who are trying to explain this to him, nor does Buidhe appear to be reading the sources that explain this. Those of us who regularly edit articles on ethnic and racial issues - especially BLPs - know how sensitive and skilled we have to be in this work, and how often policy-violating edits are made to these articles. This is one of those inappropriate edits - it's flawed from inception. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original version of the article did not take any content or sources from the "passing" article and contained sufficient sources to show it is a separate and notable topic. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:CorbieVreccan, contrary to your assertion about all of the viable material in this article being taken from the article on passing, four examples listed in this article (Carrillo, Jones/Seltzer, Malone, and Nasdijj) are not mentioned at all in the article on passing. 74.67.6.88 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the article suggested above.  oncamera  (talk page) 21:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect. This article is just a list that duplicates information found elsewhere. Yuchitown (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Just flagging up that 74.67.6.88, who has been commenting on this AfD as a separate user, appears to be User:buidhe posting while logged out. This IP address has picked up a bunch of warnings, especially when editing articles relevant to this topic, which might suggest logging out is a deliberate tactic.Vizjim (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vizjim, if you suspect sockpuppetry please file at WP:SPI. Otherwise I expect you to strike these unsupported assertions. (t · c) buidhe 01:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vizjim, that's a false accusation and you have no basis for making it. Knock it off. 74.67.6.88 (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, I should strike and will report. However, I can't see how to strike on my phone. Any suggestions, or can someone do it for me? Vizjim (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a template you can use :: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Strikethrough. Yuchitown (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- I think we have consensus. Nom plus five others want this deleted and redirected to Passing (racial identity). Article creator and IP who has done the most work on it, and just one other want it kept. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As explained by Buidhe, this topic is conceptually different from Passing (racial identity) so merging would not be appropriate. Colin M (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Six against four isn't much of a consensus at all. Let's leave it the way it is. 74.67.6.88 (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion. The problem with this article is that it doesn't have much in the way of a clear reason for existence. It's pretty much just a couple of definition paragraphs and a list. Why not retitle it List of cases of racial misrepresentation? That way, it would be a useful supplement to existing articles on the various forms of national/racial/ethnic/gender misrepresentation, it would retain all the good work done by the editors who have worked on it, and it would avoid the current duplication with other articles. Vizjim (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passing is conceptually different than racial misrepresentation because of the inherent power dynamics in the context of passing which is a survival skill when placed in context. Historically, the term has been used primarily in the United States to describe a person of color or of multiracial ancestry who assimilated into the white majority to escape the legal and social conventions of racial segregation and discrimination. Racial misrepresentation on the other hand, often involves other factors and may include white individuals trying to misrepresent themselves as a person of color in a way that is offensive and different from the experiences of those impacted by diasporic movements. Examples would include Jessica Krug and Rachel Dolezal. This Washington Post article makes a distinction between passing and racial misrepresentation. I would argue that some of the content in the passing article doesn't belong there, but belongs in the racial misrepresentation article.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This listicle is also duplicated at: List of impostors#False minority national identity claims. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's numerically more support for deletion, it isn't clear to the uninvolved reader why "indigenous identity isn't racial" has anything to do with keeping this particular title. Conversely, it isn't obvious why this cannot be a subsection of Passing (racial identity).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to article on racial passing. Many of the above comments assume a false binary which would make this easy to sort out. How do we however consider African-Americans representing themselves as Native Americans? I do not think there is an easy answer to that question. In fact the answer may in part depend on when it was done, but since there is no easy answer I do not think we can claim these are two inherently different concepts. Especially if we are to be a global encyclopedia with global coverage, because on a global scale I could bring up way more confounding issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This article does not give comprehensive information about the title. Alex-h (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I agree with the other keep votes. The two articles do appear to cover different concepts and shouldn't be merged... and addressing the two different concepts is warranted for Wikipedia. *However* the problem is, this article needs improvement to make it more meaningful, and to make the distinction clear. I'm concerned the article's aren't distinguised enough from each other. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This and Passing are two diffeent subjects, essentially the opposite of each other . Look at hte examples DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 16 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Neocorelight (Talk) 22:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Broadcasters Association[edit]

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

There may be sources in Urdu, Punjabi or other languages I’m not easily going to find, but as far as English is concerned there’s a lack of in depth coverage in independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are two reliable, independent sources, which are PakistanPressFoundation and PakistanToday, however more sources may be needed to establish notability. Multi7001 (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Powerful, peak industry body of corporate broadcast media interests in Pakistan, adequate sourcing to satisfy GNG: BBC piece discussing negotiations between Government and PBA on broadcast rules of rallies during elections,[1] BBC on negotiations with the President,[2] Chief Minister of Punjab congratulates newly elected chair of PBA,[3] Radio Pakistan report on negotiations between the government, PBA and newspaper owners on PMDA,[4] significant press freedom case successfully filed by the PBA,[5] albeit passing mentions, but there's quite a bit of reporting on the PBA participating in protests against the proposed PMDA.[6][7]

References

  1. ^ "جلسوں کی براہ راست کوریج نہیں". www.bbc.com (in Urdu). 24 December 2007.
  2. ^ "'نشریاتی ضابطۂ اخلاق بنائیں'". www.bbc.com (in Urdu). 9 June 2007.
  3. ^ "وزیراعلیٰ عثمان بزدارکی پاکستان براڈ کاسٹرز ایسوسی ایشن کے نومنتخب چیئرمین میاں عامر محمود اور دیگر عہدیداروں کو مبارکباد | Chief Minister's Office". cm.punjab.gov.pk (in Urdu). 1 November 2021.
  4. ^ "جعلی خبریں ایک سنجیدہ معاملہ ہے، وزیر اطلاعات". Radio Pakistan (in Urdu). 4 October 2021.
  5. ^ "SHC declares PEMRA's right to suspend TV channels 'illegal'". The Express Tribune. 13 August 2021.
  6. ^ "Explainer: Why are journalists opposing the Pakistan Media Development Authority?". www.geo.tv. 13 September 2021.
  7. ^ "Pakistan: Media Bodies, Rights Activists Protest Against Proposed Media Legislation". The Wire. 16 September 2021.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw with thanks to Goldsztajn. Mccapra (talk) 09:27, 14 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Rose[edit]

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

Lack of independent in-depth sigcov. Does not meet WP:GNG. MB 21:37, 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 00:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global issue[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The concept "Global issue" is so broad and vague as to be meaningless. The content in the body of the article is just cobbled together WP:OR – there is nothing coherent or interesting in this article. There is nothing that distinguishes "Global issue" from Global politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:33, 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 Withdrawn and sent to RfD where it belongs (see here). Pichpich (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick sylvestre[edit]

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

Not mentionned in the target. The redirect was blanked with the edit summary "Removed fake redirect created by Ghost In The Shell fanboys". Sylvestre's name appears in List of Ghost in the Shell characters so the redirect could be re-targeted but I'd be ok with simply deleting the redirect since he seems like a very very minor character. Pichpich (talk) 20:49, 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cater Rand[edit]

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

Nothing much in the article to prove that he is notable. WP:BEFORE only shows mirror sites and ancestry sites. He supposedly has coverage in a local journal but that's about it. Another source listed in the external links section is this, but apparently it was created then added by Kittybrewster, so I don't think it's reliable. None of his occupations nor publications seem remarkable either. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:46, 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 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 00:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tammiku Gümnaasium[edit]

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

High school. Unlike that notable for enwiki. To be redirected to List of schools in Estonia Estopedist1 (talk) 18:51, 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 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 00:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy couture[edit]

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

"Fantasy couture" is a journalistic/PR buzzword/phrase which seeminglu doesn't have an official meaning or definition. Personally, I know what it means, but too many people won't - and this article doesn't really give a clear explanation nor provide sourcing that goes into depth about what exactly fantasy couture is. While the names mentioned here are individually notable, the genre/categorisation apparently isn't quite happening/catching on yet. I raised the category Category:Fantasy couture designers (also created by article creator) for discussion as it seemed too subjective, and was informed that there are published sources - which I had already looked for last night. So I had another look for these sources just to make doubly sure. I'll add my findings in a separate comment below. (TL:DR: basically, only passing references to the phrase found, apparently no books or articles specifically about fantasy couture as a movement, pieces mainly focused on individuals).

For the record, I'm actually surprised there weren't any books or articles specifically focused on the subject (goodness knows there are LOTS of titles about wearable art and individual designers whose work would be considered fantasy couture) and I'm sure it is only a matter of time before such books come out, but right now in their absence, it seems a bit WP:TOOSOON Mabalu (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As stated above, here is the longer text showing my attempts to research this subject:
  • Google Scholar: 5 article hits, none relevant.
  • Books: Only a handful of the most passing of mentions. It appears that there are no books or publications specifically focused on "fantasy couture". I checked over on Amazon, and it tells me there is a book about Guo Pei coming out in April that is subtitled "Couture Fantasy",(plus a related colouring book), but apart from that, nothing came up using fantasy couture either as a keyword nor in the title. Google Books pulled up an exhibition exhibition catalogue titled "Opulence and Fantasy: Couture Gowns and Jewelry of Mindy Lam" where the phrase appears purely circumstantially. This also happens with this hit from a 1994 magazine where it turns out that the phrase match actually has a line break in the middle, even if it were not ad copy. Most book hits are passing mentions, such as this which is pretty much promo.
  • News: Two hits from Vogue - 1 2- that basically just use the term in a journalistic buzzword sense. This is also the case here. There is something a TINY bit more substantial here, a designer "established" as a "fantasy couture and bridal" line, but it is in passing and not gone into depth. The only attempt I found trying to define the term "fantasy couture" is this, albeit in an attempt to contextualise Iris van Herpen, rather than talking about the bigger picture of other designers working in this genre - and it is basically a single sentence at the beginning of an article, which is not really enough to build a whole piece on. (Interestingly, a high % of hits for "fantasy couture" are about Iris van Herpen, ie [2] [3], although the existence of Bobby Love is enough not to argue for redirection to Iris van Herpen.)
The main problem with the sources cited in the article is that they are about individuals, rather than the bigger picture of an official movement called "fantasy couture", and we need sources about the movement to prove that it IS a movement, and not just individuals doing their own thing. Some of the articles cited in the current piece also use the term as a snappy buzzword. For example, Annekadote's blog/reposted published article about Iris van Herpen uses the phrase in the title, but does not write about "fantasy couture" as an actual movement in the article, only saying "Van Herpen’s mesmerising finale dress captures all the possibilities of the fantasy and otherworldliness of couture" in the text (so, all couture is fantasy?). The articles about Bobby Love are about a single designer and are 100% appropriate for Love's article, but do not seem to throw any light on the idea that there is an official movement called "fantasy couture" as opposed to designers who design fantasy garments at a couture level (so, basically almost ALL couture level designers). The Stephen Jones piece is about designing Barbie clothing and the phrase only gets tossed out at the very end: "Every Barbie needs a Christmas cocktail party dress, so I used the idea of a Santa hat to make a futuristic fantasy couture piece." - again, just a passing buzzword. The final citation, a piece on artist Mary Sibande, is interesting because it is used to support the article's listing of Sibande as a fantasy couturier, but the actual quote is "{...}reminiscent of {...} John Galliano’s 1990s fantasy couture" - so it is not even saying it is Sibande who is a fantasy couture designer, but Galliano - who is not even namechecked in the article.
While the phrase "fantasy couture" absolutely does exist and clearly has appropriate contexts, there does not appear to be much (if anything) written about an official (or unofficial) "Fantasy Couture" movement other than when journalists describe individuals as designing "fantasy couture". Significantly more has been written about wearable art, including discourse about how designers such as Schiaparelli or Iris van Herpen designed work that relates directly to wearable art (and can arguably also be called fantasy couture, but to say so in the context of their being part of a "movement" would be original research). Until such time as somewhere like the Metropolitan Museum of Art mounts a major exhibition defining "Fantasy Couture" with accompanying catalogue and media coverage, I think unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place to try and make "fantasy couture" happen. Mabalu (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems like a neologism that is loosely defined. It would probably have to be part of a studied phenomenon or a common term for it to merit its own page. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:21, 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 withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Lesoil[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as presently sourced as there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The only sources referenced in the article are "listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion" excluded from showing notability per WP:SPORTSCRIT. In my WP:BEFORE I searched both "Silvia Lesoil" and "Silvia Helene Lesoil" in ordinary Google search, GNews, Internet Archive, Gbooks, but failed to find any significant coverage, though there were books listing competitors at all of the summer games that included her but only as a name in a long list of names (see, e.g., here). I'm not ruling out there being offline or paywalled archive coverage of the subject but for the sources available to the ordinary editor doing a reasonable search nothing came up.

Whilst the Norwegian counterpart lists gold medals in the Norwegian national fencing championships, there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources of this that I have been able to find. Looking at the Norwegian Wikipedia page for the Norwegian fencing championships this appears to be cited to a general list of medalists/champions. Similarly the corresponding French article mentions the national championships but cites these to the Sportsboken for that year (i.e., a general list/directory of sports events). The Norwegian national fencing championship competition does not appear to be a very high-profile championship. As such this doesn't appear to be an automatic pass on notability.

In terms of ATD a redirect seems reasonable (the only other Silvia Lesoil I see mentioned is Silvia Mercedes Lesoil, a non-notable acupuncturist), there are two different articles related to events in which Lesoil took part so Norway at the 2000 Summer Olympics seems a better redirect. FOARP (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She's a five-time national champion [4], as well as multilpe second and third placements at said championships. I also found this, but it's paywalled/subscription. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    X number of minor titles =/= notable. Coverage of those minor titles would show notability if it is significant, but it doesn't show up in any of the reasonably-available (i.e., non-paywall) sources online. There's no reason to believe that Norwegian women's (or men's) épée champion is a big deal. FOARP (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know anything about AfD on this project, and im not familiar with GNG/SIGCOV. However, I have access to Retriever/Atekst, which is the "official" news archive in Norway. I got 121 matches for this name. Some of them is small articles only with results etc., but a few is a bit bigger. I don't know what kind of sources you need for this, but one of the matches says that she was number 6 at the Europeans (1999) and number 9 at the Worlds (1997). Tell me what I should look for, and then I can add the sources to the article. --- Løken (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Løken: - thanks for this. If any of the "bigger" articles are along the lines of interviews, or previews for upcoming tournaments, those would be great. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Løken: Of interest are articles that have content beyond mere mentions. Biographical details (parents, schooling and tertiary education, upbringing, other interests, partners, work, etc) would be fantastic to have. Schwede66 18:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Schwede66, we need non-interview, reliable (e.g., newspaper) sources describing Lesoil in detail (e.g., at least three long paragraphs about her). Happy to withdraw the nomination if there are at least two of these. FOARP (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources (all newspaper):

  • Her husband name is Andreas Brønner[1]
  • Part of her job is to host TEDx in Norway.[2]
  • A bigger interview with a preview for the Olympics, which also mentioned her studies (industrial design)[3]
  • Number 8 in Worlds 1999 in Seoul[4]
  • In 1992, her title as national champ was also a "kongepokal". Read more about kongepokal with google translate etc. in no:Kongepokal. [5]

I also found articles about her motivation for the sport, name of her coach, which sport she attended in her youth, all or some of the national titles and the 6th placement in the Europeans. Also the name of her profession is online here: [5] (business consulting). --- Løken (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per sourcing by others. gidonb (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think reasonable BEFORE was done, but then if the subject's most notable achievements are in national championships (which I would contest aren't unimportant, they're at a national level, as important as any other country competing for their best, but I digress) - the extra search done of Norwegian sources has shown up more than an American-oriented google did, SIGCOV is met. The database sources were probably scrounged from no.wiki, and non-English Wikipedias can sometimes seem to prefer generic or unusual sources (I've recently seen he.wiki having a strange preference for SPS). Kingsif (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawal Comment - Happy to withdraw based on the new sourcing. Løken - you don't have to do this but it would be great if you could add information from these sources into the article. Cheers everyone. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 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. Strong consensus that the subject meets WP:NPROF. Nominator has also voted keep and there are no !votes but keep. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hélène Bergès[edit]

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

BLP with no references Rathfelder (talk) 15:37, 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. Not salting because this is the first time it has been recreated. RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Dufek[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a non-notable young racing driver which was previously deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Dufek just over a month ago, with no indication that the subject has received any non-WP:ROUTINE coverage since then (as always with junior competitors in minor series, what coverage this driver has received should be used to improve articles about the series they compete in). I initially was going to tag this for speedy deletion under WP:G4, but since the article appears to have had some prose added since then I will play it safe and bring it to AfD again. I would personally recommend WP:SALTing this page until 2023 given its rapid recreation and the fact that it is highly unlikely that this subject will become notable before then. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral and oppose salting. I can to some extent agree with the first part of the nomination as he might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but given his promotion to FRAC and FRECA (along with his former membership of an F1 academy) he's likely to be notable later this year. For now he lacks SIGCOV though, most of what I can find in a WP:BEFORE search is either WP:ROUTINE or stuff about his namesake Joshua Dürksen. MSport1005 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that competing in FREC is any indication of notability whatsoever. It's a fourth-tier series just within the context of single-seaters, and participants generally don't receive significant coverage from reliable independent sources unless they somehow gain notability outside of their racing exploits (although the broader series as a whole does receive some significant coverage from specialist publications). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a tricky matter, and one that leads me to think WP:NMOTORSPORT might need a review. Not just because the examples are strangely random and dated, but because strictly speaking, no feeder series (except for the W Series) meets criteria 1—it's all down to whether we believe said championship meets criteria 3 or not. FIA F2 and FIA F3 obviously do, but from there it's all extremely subjective. While being successful in FREC is for sure an indication of notability (I don't think that needs discussion), which is also a reason why this article should not be salted, the series as a whole is on the limit. It has gained quite a lot of interest and coverage since the merger with Formula Renault, to the extent that it gets more attention than actual professional series like GTWC, WTCR or ADAC GT Masters, and many drivers are starting to get decent independent SIGCOV. We have to draw the line somewhere. MSport1005 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MSport1005 I am not sure that F3/GP3 is something that falls under Criteria 3, as I noticed a lot of drivers who participated there to have either borderline or sparse significant non-routine coverage (although a better situation than the tournaments below on the pyramid, which makes sense). I think F2/GP2 is the one the criteria's designed for, as it's closely connected to F1 and top level feeder series for it. Therefore, it's of utmost importance and significance on a global scale. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy draftify delete and salt indef per recent AfD with no apparent additional SIGCOV since. I suggest to AS19Portsmouth (who unilaterally took this out of draft) to please use deletion review should they believe new information exists that warrants undeletion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete – This could have been handled via CSD § G4. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If kept (or draftified) this article needs to be histmerged for attribution purposes with the article deleted at the previous AFD, as it was copied into draft space by MSport1005 (who has done this again though I have since reverted). A7V2 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While on the face of it the article seems like it should meet GNG (it has 22 citations after all), the vast majority of these are routine or trivial coverage in Formula Scout, and what remains are press releases (ineligible for considering GNG), results pages (not relevant to GNG) and a YouTube video made by one of the two main editors of the article. A7V2 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Literally nothing changed since last AfD, besides additional WP:ROUTINE announcements that he got a seat in FRAC. Still doesn't meet either WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT and what I said in AfD 1 stays here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and I agree this could have been G4'd. Onel5969 TT me 15:40, 12 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Barrett (utility player)[edit]

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

non-notable, non-female non-minority ([7]) former baseball player who played in three games over a three-year career, with no birthday, no deathday, no batting stance and no throwing stance. The only indicator of notability I could find was an entry in The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball: Biographies of 1,084 Players, Owners, Managers and Umpires, which is not enough to establish notability on its own. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. LA84 Foundation has a pretty good digital library for 19th century baseball. I'll dig into a bit as time permits this week. Here is his player contract card from The Sporting News listing at least one more team he played for. Cbl62 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I note that The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball: Biographies of 1,084 Players, Owners, Managers and Umpires (cited by nom) qualifies as one instance of WP:SIGCOV. Per BR Bullpen (here), he was also an umpire and was the subject of a two-page SABR piece titled "Bill Barrett", in Bill Carle, ed.: Biographical Research Committee Report, SABR, March/April 2012, pp. 2-3. Cbl62 (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: which is here, and isn't more than a paragraph saying he had an "interesting" career, and suggesting who he may be. I'm also not sure a self-published newsletter is WP:SIGCOV. More on a player was voted to merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination), I should note (two published books plus routine newspaper coverage). Therapyisgood (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a better link to the SABR newsletter? The link you gave doesn't let me open the Apr 2012 newsletter. As for the given-name-unknown players with one-game careers, those are really special cases. In the history of Wikipedia, we have never deleted an MLB player whose complete name was known or one who appeared in multiples games and seasons. This would be a first. For this reason, we should review all available sources before making a decision. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to pass NBASE per above comment. NemesisAT (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NBASEBALL having played Major League Baseball with four different teams over three seasons. Indeed, he played in MLB's inaugural season (1871) and per Baseball-Reference.com was the 102nd major-league player. He also appears to pass WP:GNG with the following WP:SIGCOV:
(1) A 19-line biographical entry in noted baseball historian David Nemec's book on 19th century players, The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball: Biographies of 1,084 Players, Owners, Managers and Umpires. See here.
(2) a 2-page biographical entry on Barrett in the Society of American Baseball Research's Biographical Research Committee Report in March/April 2012. The piece was written by Bill Carle who has served as chairman of SABR’s Biographical Research Committee since 1988. See here. I have written to SABR asking for a pdf of Carle's piece on Barrett. When I receive it, I will add pertinent details to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per NBASE and Cbl62. Also a very poor deletion rationale. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Also per NBASE and CBL62. Under the rationale by the nominator, a great many 19th century baseball players would be deleted (white, male, unknown batting and throwing information, lack of contemporary coverage unearthed from 130+ years ago).Neonblak talk - 15:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The nominator's rationale notwithstanding, generally for a keep under WP:NBASE there needs to be something that trends towards I think that the biography in Nemec's book is a strong start. Similar to Carle's piece that was found by Cbl62, Paul Batesel also argues that this could be the same person as Barrett, which I think puts this an interesting situation. The article has been expanded quite a bit since the AfD to provide with something that should at least pass WP:GNG so I change to a weak keep. TartarTorte 01:09, 13 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 00:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Boniface School[edit]

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

No citations, WP:Notability Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 14:09, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Edition[edit]

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

There is some debate as to whether Genius is a reliable source in this context as per WP:RSPS. I have conducted a few searches and I can't find any coverage of this band outside Genius and other lyrics databases. Even searching in conjunction with the names of their several albums and several band members yields zilch. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Please ping me if reliable sources showing significant coverage are found or reliable evidence of chart success. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In this case, the Genius page is 100% fake and completely user-generated. I could create a fake Genius page for whatever song I 'created' in the shower and state the 'inspiration' for the 'lyrics'. Nate • (chatter) 04:07, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Best Friends Boys For Life[edit]

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

WP:NTV requires such articles as this to meet either WP:GNG or one of the other principles such as those outlined at WP:TVSERIES. This article makes no claim to notability and there is almost nothing coming up in searches of "Bad Best Friends Boys for Life" or "Young King Slaton", indicating that this topic is not notable. Sadly, such topics don't fit WP:A7. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:53, 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 00:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panarama[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Currently virtually uncited (the single source mentions nothing about the group, or its members). Was draftified to encourage better sourcing, but moved back into mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 TT me 13:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not satisfy general notability or event notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had a discussion with the creator in my talk page here in which he said the article was written from personal knowledge and there weren’t any more sources. Mccapra (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi guys, I am the author of the mentioned article. I published this article in the German Wikipedia last year and translated it into English, because I think that it is interesting not only for readers of the German Wikipedia, but also internationally. The article was written in the context of several other articles about the Weindorf brothers, who have been active in various music groups (their own and others) since the 1980s and are still renowned international composers and producers.
Particularly noteworthy is the "mastermind" Hermann Weindorf, who has also been a close friend of Ian Bairnson since the early 1980s. That Ian Bairnson is one of the world's best guitarists can't be doubted, can it? Just as little is Hermann Weindorf an outstanding composer and keyboard virtuoso. Gary Brooker of Procol Harum is also a close friend of Hermann Weindorf and has made music with him. Hermann's collaborations with many other world-renowned artists are sheer. These include people like Curt Cress, Klaus Doldinger, Chris Rainbow, The Clash, The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Stanley Clarke, Richard Palmer-James, Steve Gadd etc. etc. Search at Wikipedia for more contributions by Hermann Weindorf.
My article was originally much longer than what is now left in the English Wikipedia, because someone was of the opinion that there were not enough sources named. In fact there is a problem here: Most of the information comes from my personal correspondence with the Weindorf brothers, which was never a problem in the German Wikipedia.
Sadly, despite his two albums (see Discogs) and participation in the production of the movie "Fire and Ice" (Willy Bogner), Panarama has never gained much worldwide fame. Nevertheless, they are international productions with internationally known artists, unfortunately totally unrecognized.
I would be very sorry if my article, and indeed the originally longer (still findable in the version history), would be deleted.
I hope my English is good enough to reflect what moves me at the moment. I am quite disappointed, but combative.Remembergeorge (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How are “totally unrecognised” artists notable? Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No indication of notability, nor any reliable sources cited. Merely self-promotional. Multi7001 (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to do with Hermann Weindorf, Ian Bairnson, the label or anyone else from Panarama. So how is "self-promotion" justified? I am merely a music lover.Remembergeorge (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remembergeorge, I was not referring to you; I was referring to the only reference cited in the page. The type of source is useful to validate information about the subject but merely self-promotional and cannot establish notability. Multi7001 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Folks, I added some more external links which I found. Is this suitable? Remembergeorge (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Practically all pages in the articlespace must have multiple reliable, independent sources only from reputable mass media (e.g., newspapers, magazines, television outlets), books, academic or medical journals, among other type of media. Multi7001 (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far there’s a tv listing, a blog and the website of one of the musicians. I’m afraid that doesn’t demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:21, 14 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 albeit weakly. I don't see a third relist changing it in any meaningful way Star Mississippi 03:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Seel[edit]

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

There was some WP:BEFORE type discussion about this at WT:CHESS#Christian Seel and most of those who participated seem to feel that this person is at best a borderline case of Wikipedia notability. A recent edit to the article pretty much removed all of the unsourced content and what remains is clearly not sufficient to establish Wikipedia solely based upon Seel's achievements as an amateur shogi player. So, I'm starting a formal discussion about this here to see what the rest of the community thinks. Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What stands out to me is that the short article has nothing newer than about 10 years ago. I would think that if he were notable that there would be achievements in the last 10 years in the article. So unless I find out otherwise, I think that he is not notable enough. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The subject is certainly borderline. They don't quite meet WP:NCHESS, but are close. They are not a grandmaster, but have achieved the required rating of 2500. I am unsure what their norm status is, but their rating has recently spiked again. They also appear to have been German Shogi champion in 2012 (the wording in the English article is clunky and appears to have been badly translated). The combination of these two factors lean me towards keeping. Article and sourcing could certainly do with some improvement though. Greenman (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found this through the deletion sorting list for academics, after the information on his academic career had been removed from the article. It is relevant, and I restored it. However, although he appears to be doing well in it, it is still too early for WP:PROF notability; any notability will have to come through his game-playing and WP:GNG/WP:NCHESS instead. I don't have a strong opinion on whether he passes those criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. After more cleanups I'm still not convinced of notability. It's still WP:TOOSOON for academic notability. In chess, he's an IM, which is impressive but below the grandmaster level needed for notability through WP:NCHESS, and I couldn't find reviews of his chess opening book that would allow him to pass WP:AUTHOR. One can find plenty of sites collecting his games but I think that's too routine for any competitive chess player to count towards notability. In shogi, one can find sites stating that he was 2012 German champion, but it appears that he actually placed 3rd in the championship, and I don't think that's enough either. So there are a lot of different criteria that he has significant work in but where he falls a little short. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: I found some reviews on the publishers website. --hroest 18:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Moderately strong IM in a country full of IMs so on the borderline of notability. Won't bother me too much if it's deleted (I have no investment in it) but as long as it's properly referenced it seems reasonable to keep. By the way WP:NCHESS is strictly informal and unofficial, written for the guidance of WP:CHESS members. Plenty of weaker players from smaller countries have wikipedia articles by virtue of having represented their country at a chess olympiad. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep according to the publisher, there are at least three reviews available for his book (one of which is a website, the other two are German periodicals): http://www.chessgate.de/buch_philidordeutsch.html -- while not sufficient by itself, together with being almost notable for WP:NCHESS and his achievements in Shogi I think there is a (weak) case for notability. --hroest 18:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:39, 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 speedy delete (G1) by Deb. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 15:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise origin[edit]

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

PQR01 (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.upcoming battery electric full-size vehicles produced by General Motors under the cruise marque, and its own sub-brand. The cruise origin line was introduced in October 2020, which include pickup truck (SUT) and sport utility vehicle (SUV) models that was introduced in January 2020,.
Manufacture = general motors
Assembly = Factory ZERO Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly (2023 - present).
Type = full size electric car
This either needs a total rewrite, or a healthy dose of TNT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted - Deb (talk) 09:26, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laila Faris[edit]

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

Has not yet played at the level required to satisfy NFOOTY, neither can I find anything that establish notability under GNG JW 1961 Talk 13:18, 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 redirect to List of pen names#Clare Richmond. RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Richmond[edit]

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

Pseudonym of two writers who have their own articles. Anything relevant would be for the actual authors and not their shared pseudonym. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, would it be appropriate to turn this into a disambiguation page referring to both the target authors? It's quite likely a reader would search using the pseudonym, and ought to be directed to somewhere useful. Elemimele (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele - Yes, that is ideal. Also is a WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No per WP:ONEOTHER (if there are only two topics on a disambiguation page, then we shouldn't have it), except perhaps under the exception of WP:NOPRIMARY (i.e. if there is no primary topic). Even if there are three or four topics, this is kind of a borderline case, but we should definitely have a dab page if there are >5. Also, this shouldn't be an article proper unless "Clare Richmond" has some kind of magical notable property apart from the two people who've used it, but I don't see any so far. Furthermore, a quick DuckDuckGo search reveals a bunch of other people also called Clare Richmond, making this even more ambiguous than it seems onwiki.
From pageview statistics, we find that Louise Titchener gets more pageviews than Carolyn Males, so weak delete and redirect to Louise Titchener with a hatnote linking to Carolyn Males. (I'll change my !vote accordingly if this title turns out to be a richer topic than I initially thought.) Duckmather (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I had considered whether a DAB could be here instead, but then that would imply someone searching for the term actually wanted to know about one or both of the real authors, rather than the pseudonym. For me, a pseudonym would have to be notable in its own right and I am not seeing that to justify an independent article. A redirect isn't really viable when there are two competing targets. I can't see sufficient evidence this passes WP:NAUTHOR. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Clare Richmond" can be an independently notable author without having to be a single real person. See, for example, James S. A. Corey. The question is just whether "Clare Richmond" passes WP:NAUTHOR. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're doomed, this is quite a difficult one to decide. (1) In this particular case, I don't think it's helpful to discuss the notability of the author and the pseudonym separately. In both cases, the pseudonym applies to a significant proportion of the author's output, so the notability of the author and their pseudonym are based on the same material. If one's notable, the other is. (2) We don't know which name our readers are using; they may know the pseudonym and want to know who's behind it, so we have to have some way to link pseudonym to article. But (3) In this case, both authors used the pseudonym together, collaboratively. This means we can't say Titchener is better known than Males, as "Richmond" because we're talking about the same Richmond and the same novels. To be honest, I think they're borderline anyway (they've both got decent output, they're decent-sized fish, but in an enormous pond, and a pond that is quite ephemeral), so I'm not keen on a whole article on their collaborative pseudonym as well as on the two authors separately, and yet we can't really combine the two authors in one article as they also wrote independently. So practically, if you don't want a DAB because there are only two targets, the best would be to redirect to one of the two authors at random, and then decide whether to use hatnotes to refer to the other, or whether to emphasise in the article text that the Richmond name was used with the other, linked author. Elemimele (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it provides useful information for the reader who finds a book, or a reference to it, by "Clare Richmond". I have expanded it with content from the two authors' pages, which could presumably be properly sourced if those pages are themselves properly sourced. An alternative would be to direct to one, randomly chosen, of the authors, with a hatnote "Clare Richmond redirects here: for the other author writing under this join pseudonym see ...", but that seems overly cumbersome (especially as they both collaborated with other authors too, so a complete set of redirects would be a mess). Simplest just to keep this mini article, which is informative for the readers. WP:IAR if need be: just help the reader. PamD 10:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think using WP:IAR is a bit of a cop-out in a discussion for which there is no policy-based argument to use in defense. The fact is, each of the real authors in question that used this pseudonym also used other pen names too, as very clearly stated on their articles. Are we to have a standalone article for each of these too, because if we keep this one, then surely that has to happen? There may be a case to have one central article that links the authors together (say Pseudonyms of Louise Titchener and Carolyn Males), then redirect all the pseudonyms to that (although could get messy if other authors used the pen names too). I simply cannot see a need for standalone articles for a pretend author that does not seem to have independent notability. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I see no reason not to follow PamD's argument for WP:IAR in this case. Redirecting to one author or the other adds confusion, not clarity. -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Delete as below. I still think redirects will just cause a mess. -- asilvering (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate The pseudonym itself obviously isn't notable, and there is no primary topic (pageviews do not necessarily correspond to primary topic), so a disambiguation page makes the most sense. Mlb96 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, gsearches under ""Clare Richmond" book reviews", and for each book ""[book title]" by "Clare Richmond" book reviews" bring up zero reviews, which may not be surprising given that there have been 20,000+(?) harlequin titles published, as for needing a redirect/disamb for wikireaders, once this is deleted and Clare Richmond is entered wikireaders can "search for pages containing Clare Richmond" and hey presto! the two authors that use this pseudonym will be at the top of the list, ps. i note that both author wikiarticles presently have all the books listed, possibly just need to add mention of the other author ie. "As Clare Richmond with ...." and the titles' isbn but that is all. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coolabahapple Works for me. I'll strike my !vote. -- asilvering (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A problem with "delete redirect and rely on search" is that it stops working once we have a new article on another Clare Richmond, a singer or astronomer or politician. I'm beginning to think that a List of shared pseudonyms would be useful, to which to redirect this and similar cases. Maybe something like that already exists: will check further when not on phone. PamD 14:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of pen names, to which I have now added her. PamD 16:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Bungle: Alyssa Howard is similar to this article; Clare Richards is a dab page, which complicates things slightly: have added both those names to List of pen names. PamD 16:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect wouldn't be a bad outcome I guess, though I won't advocate it. There are many pen names on that article without articles or redirects, although I can't argue against redirects being relatively harmless. I'd suggest whatever the outcome of this AfD should apply to Alyssa Howard et al where independent notability cannot be ascertained and demonstrated. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect would be an ideal outcome, tagged with {{R to list entry}} and categorised as Category:Collective pseudonyms. Whyever not? It helps the reader. We could add a source to the list entry to verify, but the convention there seems to be not to add sources. PamD 16:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Tess Marlowe, another of this gang's pseudonyms, was deleted at AfD in 2015 with rationale "One of these articles that is basically one line saying that it was a name used by 2 writers but nothing to back it up" but I've now added her to List of pen names and created a redirect. PamD 17:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I have created list entries at List of pen names and redirects or dab page entries, for all the other pseudonyms used by these women and their coauthors (well, all those I could find). Seem the ideal solution: not a standalone article, but a redirect to an informative entry in a list that includes links to the real authors involved. The reader gets their information. The perfect WP:ATD for a case like this - will try and remember it for any future instance. PamD 18:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD Hard to believe it took three AfD relists for anyone to realize this solution exists. This redirect sounds fine, unless there's some mechanical reason that makes this unhelpful for mobile users? A List of shared pen names might be an interesting list to make, too, if you've a mind to do it. Given that List of pen names exists I'm actually a bit surprised that it doesn't. I suppose it could present an annoying problem where someone adds something to List of pen names but not the other one? -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 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 List of earthquakes in 2021#December. The keep !votes do not make any policy-based arguments for why this would be notable that counter those against keeping a standalone article, which would bring us to delete. However, as valid search term, and as Mikenorton pointed out, there is more information at List_of_earthquakes_in_2021#December and I have redirected both articles there. Star Mississippi 16:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Timor Leste earthquake[edit]

2021 Timor Leste earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable earthquake with little immediate impact and no likelihood of enduring effects, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT Mikenorton (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it describes the same event:

2021 Banda Sea earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
There's actually already slightly more information on the earthquake in List of earthquakes in 2021#December. The tectonic setting section was copied verbatim from the 1852 Banda Sea earthquake, so that already exists elsewhere on the project. Mikenorton (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striking merge per Mikenorton and Dawnseekers reasoning Delete both articles JW 1961 Talk 13:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Simply unnecessary, especially for an event that has just occurred. Deletion would only be painstaking and irrelevant. Dunutubble (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not merging with Lospalos, as not more than a strong shaking was there. The earthquake was close to Indonesian Maopora island. Two houses crashed on Indonesian Moa island, south of it. On Timor-Leste have been only a few houses minor damaged and a 10 km long earth fissure appeared in Suco Uailaha, 100 km west of Lospalos. J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, there are 56 earthquakes listed if you follow that link. Of these, just 11 have their own articles, although a few of the others are sufficiently notable that articles could be written. Most, however, just didn't have sufficient impact, much like the one we're discussing. Mikenorton (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:13, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 16:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McCarthy (announcer)[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep argument is on IAR basis, GNG asserted but not given evidence. No arguments for delete aside from nomination statement. This discussion needs wider participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete to encourage creation if Patrick McCarthy becomes notable. I attempted to meet WP:GNG but I could not find three good sources. The two articles I found from WP:RS cover the same event as well so he would be in danger of WP:BLP1E for right now. I have included a source assess with the three most independent sources I could find. snood1205 15:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Snood1205
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.inquirer.com/phillies/tom-mccarthy-patrick-mccarthy-phillies-broadcaster-philadelphia-20210820.html Yes The Philadelphia Inquirer is independent from Patrick McCarthy and the Phillies Organization Yes The Philadelphia Inquirer is a generally reliable news source for Philadelphia related articles Yes The article is about Patrick McCarthy replacing his father for a weekend announcing basketball ✔ Yes
https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/phillies/pat-mccarthy-catch-stands-tom-mccarthy-phillies ~ NBCSports Philadelphia does write about the Phillies with some independence; however, the Phillies have a 25% ownership stake in the outlet Yes NBCSports Philadelphia publishes reliable articles about sports in Philadelphia ~ The article mentions Patrick catching a ball similar to his father, but this entire article is probably not WP:SIGCOV ~ Partial
https://thelibertyline.com/2021/08/21/tom-mccarthy-son-phillies-games-padres/ Yes No known links between the Phillies and Liberty Line ~ It is from a self-described "independent sports blog and podcast network" so it might not meet WP:RS Yes SIGCOV however it is the same event as source 1. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited; unless there are multiple independent SIGCOV sources on him, a standalone article is unwarranted. JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:13, 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. Keep arguments based on WP:NFOOTY do not overcome the Delete arguments based on WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brad House[edit]

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

Non notable football player who fails to meet any criterion from WP:NFOOTY, they had been signed to a tier 1 EPL club-side, but never played any fixture, they currently play for a second division club side thus are not notable. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Fails to pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Soccerbase has two EFL Trophy games that would meet WP:NFOOTBALL #2 Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the statement "fails to meet any criterion from WP:NFOOTY....currently play for a second division club side thus are not notable" is simply wrong. WP:NFOOTY requires the player to have played in a fully professional league. There is no mention of it needing to be a "tier 1" league. House plays for Sutton United, who play in EFL League Two, which is fully pro -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - player passes WP:NFOOTY having played multiple competitives game between two teams from fully professional leagues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2021
  • Delete or possibly Draftify; he might become notable in the future, but at present a global encyclopaedia (as opposed to an Anglosphere-only one) simply doesn't need articles like this. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has featured in two EFL Trophy games for Sutton United, against at least two fully professional sides, AFC Wimbledon and Stevenage. Do not understand reason for supposed deletion. Articles such as Eoin McKeown have had no problems with deletion even though this player had featured against an under-23 side. -- Ac2468 (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 15:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is currently (not) playing for a fourth tier club and has accrued no coverage to come anywhere close to WP:GNG. RobinCarmody's point about an "Anglosphere" bias running through the WP:SNG is an apposite one here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:NFOOTY and seems notable enough. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meeting NFOOTY is completely irrelevant once notability is challenged, since all NSPORT subjects must still meet GNG. Since no one has provided sources demonstrating SIGCOV in IRS, there is no guideline-compliant argument for keeping a standalone article on him. JoelleJay (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NFOOTY subject is 23 years old and actively playing see little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator seems to be unfamiliar with WP:NFOOTY if "they currently play for a second division club side thus are not notable" - that would result in the deletion of all the Cardiff City pages I see in TFA and DYK so often. Sutton United are in League Two - the fourth division so to speak - which is covered by WP:NFOOTY as is the real "second division" the Championship, where the TV money, attendances and transfers are higher than most foreign top divisions. But going back to this player, he has played two cup games against other professional teams [10] and 23 is a bit young to assume that that's going to be his lot for his career. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:A508:D6E9:EC6F:3D8F (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said two !votes above, NSPORT (which governs NFOOTY) is extremely clear that it is a predictor of GNG and does not grant notability itself. So for this article to be kept, SIGCOV in multiple IRS must be produced. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. As noted by JoelleJay, passing NFOOTY is irrelevant as NSPORT makes it very clear that you still have to pass GNG as can been seen in the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski. Alvaldi (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alvaldi: lack of significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. Additionally, even if it were to meet NFOOTY, per WP:SNG, articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found. And neither adequate sourcing nor significant coverage can be found here. Pilaz (talk) 18:05, 13 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 Draftify to allow time for improvements. RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fright Show[edit]

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

Undeleted without improvement. Dronebogus (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a BEFORE to show notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was undeleted because the previous AFD was closed as a soft delete which meant the deletion was treated as a PROD and could be restored upon editor request. And it was just restored today so there hasn't been much time to improve the article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view you either are ready and prepared to improve the article or you don’t request undeletion. Anything else is just trying to override consensus with an appeal to pity. Dronebogus (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case, it wasn't pity but policy. I am surprised that the page creator hasn't commented here yet. Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Give them time to improve it, if they move it to mainspace before it's ready, then we can come back here. Mako001 (C)  (T) (The Alternate Mako) 07:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support that Dronebogus (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per above, to allow for improvements (if they are at all possible) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify, i agree to give them a chance to improve the article. Alex-h (talk) 15:10, 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. and move, as noted and per evolving consensus. I will do so after I close. Star Mississippi 03:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Roo Motor Car Company[edit]

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

afaict after a search through newspapers and books, i can't find any reasonable coverage to support including this article much less the content that is here. Nearly everything that I can actually find is just a repeat of our article, including books. SANTADICAE🎅 21:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sources cited. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move Here are quite a few potential sources, on a first quick scan sufficient it seems to support the statements in the article in regard to the company and the car. And to demonstrate coverage over two decades or so. Looks like insufficient BEFORE was done. I suggest though that the company is not notable. The notable subject is the car model called "Roo". The article should be moved to Roo (automobile) with a redirect retained. (And the article reworked accordingly.) Aoziwe (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have added sourcing to the article using the Macquarie Dictionary of Motoring and Gilltraps' Australian Cars from 1879. These along with the good amount of news coverage from the time would constitute substantial coverage I think. I'm not sure about the name of the article. As it stands the article probably gives an undue amount of attention to Jeffkins' racing career. I think that a car which was not mass produced, and the company which was going to produce it, are ultimately a single subject so I don't think it makes much difference. That said, the name given by Macquarie for the company is Roo Motor Manufacturing Company while Gilltraps' give The Roo Motor Car Manufacturing Company so I'm not sure where the current title comes from. A7V2 (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FEI:
Business and Company Records 1903-1922 Collection & Research | NSW State Archives
Name of Firm	Nature of Business	Place of Business	Person Carrying on Business	Date of Registration	Item No	Page No	File No
THE ROO MOTOR CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY	Manufacture Motor Cars	337 Pitt Street Sydney	LAWSON, Thomas Craig; JEFFKINS, Rupert; FOULIS, William Bell	26 Jun 1917	[2/8546]	null	28746
Aoziwe (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:06, 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 00:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navjit Buttar[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Refs are all PR, (BCCL agency). Fails WP:BLPPRIMARY. scope_creepTalk 15:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Wrong allegation of UPE! I created Navjit Buttar's article and got information from a YouTube interview. Subject is fully notable as he has coverage in many reliable sources (check the references). Also check his awards he has won noted awards. I believe this director is fully notable with no question mark!

Suchayaar (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The wins at the few award shows listed would seem to be notable, but the article is one long list mostly of stuff he's done. Oaktree b (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can't find anything other than interviews or mentions. The PTC Punjabi award win references do not contain his name at all. hemantha (brief) 14:11, 14 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biologia[edit]

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

No indication of notability, the only external source is of the publisher. Notability is not inherited and Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My previous !vote (which I rapidly struck) was due to confusion with another journal with the same title (Biologia (Bratislava), ISSN 0006-3088). This AfD is about the Pakistani journal which, despite a rather long history, does not appear to have been included in any bibliographic/citation index. In-epth reliable sources don't seem to be available either, hence this fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know there was a Slovakian journal with the same title. If the page reaches a no consensus or avoids deletion, which I firmly doubt it will avoid a deletion, the title of the page should be moved. Multi7001 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals): it fails to meet the criteria suggested there.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:02, 14 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 00:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SurvCART algorithm[edit]

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

This article has five citations: Two are authored by Madan Kundu, the originator of the algorithm. The other three do not mention this algorithm at all and are apparently cited to support background information. I have looked, and as far as I can tell no independent, reliable sources about this algorithm exist. Note that there are a few hits on google scholar that refer to the 'survcart' dataset, that is an unrelated dataset for studying cancer survival rates. I believe this topic does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. Also worth noting that given the article creator's username, a COI is likely. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response from creator (Jan 01, 2022, 22:53 EST)

Please do no delete this page. There are three points raised by the Editor and here is my response:

Citation: I described the all the available methods in this domain. So now there is total of 9 citations. I hope this would make feel you better about the neutrality. There is nothing in that article that express biased view towards the proposed algorithm.

Reliable source: The source is https://doi.org/10.1002/sam.11539 which is a peer-reviewed article published in a respected Wiley journal (not an open access). Therefore, reliability cannot be questioned.

Independently written sources: The Self-Promotion clause does not restrict the researcher to write about they topic they work on. It says to maintain a neutral point of view which is there in the article as all other competing methods are cited.

Independent of the subject: The work is not related to any advertising, press releases, and autobiographies. It's a plain science.

Therefore, the editor's nomination for deletion of this page is very subjective and not fact driven. The editor's comment is very superficial. Please let me know if any specific lines or sentences in the article that editor or anyone feel violates neutrality, and I will be happy to remove or revise that.

On a side note, I noticed that once I challenged the removal of my contribution of "Survival Tree" page, the editor immediately nominated SurvCART algorithm page for deletion. It feels like quite a Retaliation and I am sure Wikipedia does not indulge that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanstat (talk • contribs) — Madanstat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete in addition to the undeclared WP:COI, which is a serious problem in and of itself, there's no evidence that this is NOTABLE. PianoDan (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 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 merge to Weight cutting. ✗plicit 00:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Golden[edit]

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

While accomplished, there's not enough in-depth coverage of the doctor to show that they pass WP:GNG. Of the current 19 sources, 3 are primary, 5 do not even mention the doctor, and the other 11 are not in-depth enough about him as to represent WP:SIGCOV. Searches did not turn up any additional sourcing which would put him over the notability bar. Onel5969 TT me 12:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


In depth at least this and this.

Eight articles in large international public media cover the doctor and quote his opinion on a number of topics of a large public interest.

Five articles that do not mention the individual cite the important information that is 100% relevant to the topics covered in the article, therefore included.

Three primary sources used only to cite the additional pieces of information, not used to establish notability. Zafir94 (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge to Weight cutting. I cannot find any significant coverage about the title subject and nothing to demonstrate notability. However, the title subject is certainly active, eg, here, and here, in the area of weight cutting (which is obviously notable). The current article is not really about Dr Patrick Golden. It is actually about (his views on, and political response to, events related to) weight cutting, and seems to me to be at least in part potentially valuable encyclopaedic content. It should be merged into Weight cutting, which definitely needs more content. Aoziwe (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Weight cutting The article deals almost entirely with the topic of weight cutting and not about the doctor himself. Merging would also improve the weight cutting article and provide additional sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 13 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finvasia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 12:00, 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 speedy delete. As WP:G5 (sock of User:CalabazaFénix2). (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adan Santiago Goc-ong Igut[edit]

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

All of the references fail verification apart from the extremely unreliable IMDb. I can't find anything about his Christian film and music career nor his general acting career, despite the grand claims. His video game career also seems to be unverifiable. Likewise with his fight for LGBT rights. Someone with more familiarity with Filipino sources may be able to do better but the several fake references make it very hard for me to WP:AGF here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to suggest the closing admin to salt this, Adan Santiago Igut, and Goc-ong. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Clearly not notable. Who is that person anyway? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Most of the sources listed in the article does not in anyway mention the subject of the page, take for example the BBC source here, amongst other sources. I believe it may all be madeup. Annie Kingdom (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt all possible derivations of the name. Already deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adan Santiago and other derivations were speedy deleted at least three times. The name is present in some Filipino fandom pages and media directories, so I'm not sure if this is a hoax or just a particularly desperate attempt at promotion. Due to the mentions of his parents in the infobox and the manic-depressive assumptions that his sexuality makes him notable, I suspect that this was self-written by a kid who fantasizes that he is famous. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for WP:G5 as a possible sock of CalabazaFénix2 (provided by HueMan1 and Doomsdayer520 above, whereas the sock master has been creating "Adan Santiago"-related articles), definitely a WP:HOAX. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The author of this page has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. (see the SPI here) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:37, 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13 Stars[edit]

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

Newspaper publishing company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP- lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:58, 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Less[edit]

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

Purely primary sourcing at present. May not meet notability criteria. I've searched for secondary, scholarly sources and only found trivial mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:45, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partha Ghosh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:24, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leba Chand Tudu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:21, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somnath Chatterjee Cpiml[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:19, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kartik Paul[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NPOL. The subject is a state secretary (not secretary for entire Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation), and has never been elected to any legislative council or assembly. It also fails WP:GNG. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:17, 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 redirect to TV.com#TV Tome. ✗plicit 04:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MovieTome[edit]

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

There are no significant, independent, and reliable sources for this defunct website from the 2000s. Pahiy (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:29, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Drescher[edit]

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

The subject is a deceased animal performer that does not meet notability guidelines. The only notability of the dog is that it had a role on its owner's TV show from the 90s. Pahiy (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:29, 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 13:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeni Kukulyak[edit]

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

Russian football referee and former footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Previously deleted by PROD. Recreated, I assume, based on his debut as a referee in Russian top level (which happened after PROD), but referees are not in scope of NFOOTY and should satisfy GNG in the first place. BlameRuiner (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sport-express.ru/football/foreign/news/kukuyan-ne-voshel-v-spisok-sudey-uefa-ot-rossii-on-snova-ne-sdal-ekzamen-po-angliyskomu-1870367/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://gorod48.ru/news/336359/ Yes Yes ~ Contains some coverage of previous fixtures refereed ~ Partial
https://matchtv.ru/football/rossija/fonbet___fnl/matchtvnews_NI848659_Penalti_posle_kotoryh_vam_stanet_stydno Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://sport24.ru/news/football/2021-12-14-sudeyskiye-skandaly-oshibki-v-rpl-20212022-resheniya-esk-rfs-sudi-rpl-sergey-karasev-vasiliy-kazarets-pavel-kukuyan Yes Yes No Article moans about an alleged mistake he made but contains no significant detail about Kukulyak himself ✘ No
https://eng.premierliga.ru/rfpl/arbitr/arbitr_3827.html#content Yes Yes No Stats page ✘ No
https://www.sport-express.ru/football/rfpl/news/krasnodar-nizhniy-novgorod-kukulyak-pravilno-ne-naznachil-penalti-v-vorota-gostey-1870333/ Yes Yes No Moaning about an alleged bad decision, no sig cov ✘ No
https://www.sport-express.ru/football/rfpl/reviews/cska-zenit-2-3-match-23-tura-rpl-17-marta-2021-goda-kukulyak-poluchit-dvoyku-razbor-sudeystva-1768616/ Yes Yes ~ Coverage is largely incidental and not really in any depth ~ Partial
https://sport24.ru/news/football/2021-03-15-yevgeniy-kukulyak-naznachen-sudyey-na-match-23-tura-rpl-tsska---zenit-kto-takoy-igral-za-tsska Yes Yes Yes Contains a lot of info about his career prior to officiating and could be used to expand the article ✔ Yes
https://rsport.ria.ru/20210329/kukulyak-1603371777.html Yes Yes No About a match incident rather than him ✘ No
https://www.gazeta.ru/sport/news/2021/03/15/n_15742352.shtml Yes Yes No Gazeta is a great source but this coverage is routine and not substantial ✘ No
https://www.spb.kp.ru/daily/27252/4382431/ Yes Yes ~ It's more than a passing mention but it's not hugely substantial and repeats #8 a lot. ~ Partial
https://footballfacts.ru/person/9329 Yes Yes No Stats ✘ No
https://www.kp40.ru/news/perekrestok/75957/ Yes Yes ~ Just a Q&A, not much independent content ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: how can he fail NFOOTBALL when "referees are not in scope of" that guideline? Geschichte (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • He fails it as a former player, who only played in non-FPL league. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. As Spiderone showed above, there appears to be just one article that passes for GNG coverage. This certainly does not strike me as enough for a standalone article. I was unable to uncover any additional sources to add to this, however more than happy to review my vote should other sources (especially Russian/Cyrillic ones that I may have missed) are found. GauchoDude (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - in line with my analysis above, this looks to fall slightly shy of having multiple sources showing significant coverage Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per source evaluation, fails WP:GNG as there are not enough significant, independent sources about him. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Spiderone's excellent source assessment. Onel5969 TT me 15:43, 12 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 Subgroup#Subgroup tests as an uncontested alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subgroup test[edit]

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

It makes more sense to have this content as part of the subgroup page, because there is simply not enough to justify a separate page, and readers would be more likely to find it by searching for subgroup than subgroup test. In fact, this content is already in the subgroup page, in the "Basic properties of subgroups" section, without the proof. (Whether the proof should be included there too could be discussed, but that is a separate question. I would argue no, that it would be like posting the solution to an undergraduate algebra homework problem on Wikipedia with too many trivial details, but I don't have a strong feeling about it.) Ebony Jackson (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator and i agree with them that the proof is not needed. This term seems to be used frequently in algebra courses (pre google search) so maybe a redirect to the subgroup article would be appropriate (possibly with a light restructuring of the latter to better target the redirect). jraimbau (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did the "light restructuring" at subgroup (I created a "Subgroup tests" section there) to facilitate a redirect. Ebony Jackson (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to subgroup per nom (which should have references to high-quality sources that includes proofs, but not a proof itself because Wikipedia is not a textbook). --JBL (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No reliable, independent sources were added. For these highly logical and rationally-based subjects, such as arithmetics and mathematics, there must be strong/credible references to ensure no misinformation or misleading information is being provided. Multi7001 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect per nominator. I have also added a citation to the new section in the main article to address any concerns. Felix QW (talk) 11:13, 15 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Kouhestani[edit]

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

Iranian futsal player who fails GNG, NFOOTY and NSPORTS BlameRuiner (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Kouhestani is a professional futsal player who has a history of being a member of the Iranian national futsal team. You can search for his name on the reputable site of Futsal Planet! He has also played in the Iranian Futsal Super League for many years. In my opinion, he is famous enough. Pournia 16:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide some of these sources showing significant coverage? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So this sportsman has played international futsal for Iran, I am somewhat confused, does that not count as being notable for GNG? I assume those in the sport and Iranian sport that this player is notable, however I am confused by the lack of from the nomination. I would need a better reason for deletion other than straight up policy delete argument. Govvy (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He would need to have significant coverage to pass GNG. It's possible that, because he is an international futsal player, he may have achieved such coverage but none of the 6 references currently in the article demonstrate this. Futsal players don't have an SNG so the caps for Iran don't make this automatically notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: That is the highest level of the futsal game, playing international football, and #1 of WP:NFOOTBALL, Players who have played in, competitive senior international match. Forgive me, but surely this player actually passes #1 ? Found one English article here, it's unclear if he played at the 2016 AFC Futsal Championship after the article, there is no name for him as a scorer anywhere, however, it says 3 goals for the Iranian team, which is clear, which means he has play those games. There seems to be primary source erosion on many Futsal articles. He was in the squad for the tournament [11], there is still an language barrier problem, but to me, he probably does pass GNG in Iranian sources. I am just having a hard time with those to find. I don't consider this article a delete. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: Futsal's inclusion in NSPORTS has barely ever been discussed. I found one discussion here but little else. Hopefully someone with skills in Persian will see this AfD and be able to confirm whether he meets GNG or not. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After reading that short discussion, it just felt like bias over the two different footy sports. It's clear to me, that Futsal needs some better cover in NFOOTBALL, but that's a different discussion. Govvy (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as can be seen from discussion above, there is no current accepted SNG for futsal players, therefore, they all need to meet WP:GNG. Whilst playing for Iran might provide a weak presumption of notability, because this article has been sent to AfD, I believe we need to see some concrete evidence of WP:GNG rather than just a weak presumption that some such coverage might exist. The coverage cited in the article is all routine. Persian League is just a stats page on the association for the league, which every futsal player will have. Futsal Casa is a tiny transfer announcement, which never counts towards notability in any AfD. We then have another stats page with no content. Press TV then has a passing mention in a squad list, not significant at all. 2020news provides the best coverage, however, the article is just one long quote from him with very little in the way of independent content or analysis so, at best, it might count as half a source towards GNG. The last source is a Futsal Planet stats page. Searching "Mohammad Kouhestani" in English yields nothing, of course, but even searching "محمدحسین کوهستانی" yields very little. The hits are all just trivial mentions like Isna and Qom News. Again, these sorts of passing trivial mentions never count towards GNG regardless of whether the sportsperson has played at an international level. If you scroll through the archives of sportspeople AfDs, you will see many sportspeople being deleted despite representing their country at some sort of level. Even WP:NOLY now requires the sportsperson to win a medal at the Olympics rather than just compete. For that reason, I don't think simply representing Iran at futsal is enough to qualify in absence of meeting any other Wikipedia guideline. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:20, 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. a 2008 AfD isn't binding on 2022, and there is no indication that sources found are independent or reliable to meet WP:ORG (nor are they asserted to be). Star Mississippi 03:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MapNTL.com[edit]

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

The Domain is for sale :) Grabup (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - doesn't meet GNG and reads like an advertisement -CameronVictoria (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on above- I didn't see the previous discussion before where a consensus was established for notability of MapNTL as a service. Issue of non-encyclopaedic tone remains as well as the fact that mapntl.com goes nowhere for me but my vote for delete is now much weaker --CameronVictoria (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the article is kept, there is a problem in that the domain no longer belongs to the subject of the article, but the article's title is the domain name. Thus, if anyone buys the domain, we'll have to clarify the status of the domain, and the purchaser will automatically acquire at least a hat-note in a Wikipedia article ("this article applies to the defunct cartography service in Nigeria, not Mike ap Nuttal's fish-and-chip-shop in Aberystwyth, open now for the best chips ever!") without being notable. Perhaps if the article is kept, it should also be moved to a title making it clear it's a former website, either "MapNTL.com (former Nigerian map provider)" or just "MapNTL" to avoid the article advertising an irrelevant website. Elemimele (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination statement is weak, per WP:NTEMP. No argument explains the inadequacy of the current sources, or otherwise available sources. Nor are there any arguments to indicate the topic is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only sources I can find are rather low-quality, mostly interview-based. They're things like this interview describing what happened to it (it became LagosLocation) [12], and this, which reads like routine publicity and is repeated in several sites: [13]. I still believe strongly that if the article is kept, it should be moved to MapNTL to distance itself from a particular domain-name, which will undoubtedly be used by someone else. We usually list businesses by their business name, not by their domain name, although it will often be the same but with dot-something. Elemimele (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No indication that RIMA Foundation Awards is a reliable organization. No reliable, independent sources are cited. Does not meet WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 02:42, 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 Baeckea. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Baeckea species[edit]

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

Now that the number of Baeckea species has reduced from 75 to about 30 (Australian Plant Census and Plants of the World Online), I have included the species list in the Baeckea article, making the "List" article redundant. Gderrin (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, the list is now redundant. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 8. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whether the list should be upmerged to the Baeckea article is not is an editorial question, not one for AfD. This article meets the requirements for a stand-alone list article in Wikipedia. In addition, I'm not sure what the copyright situation would be if the list was copied from this page to the parent article (as it seems to have been). While you could argue that a list isn't copyrightable, it seems iffy to me to copy and then delete. Guettarda (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is a merge discussion, no need for a deletion discussion. You could've also just replaced it with a redirect if no one objected. This article was created in 2008. But somehow things that were part of this species before have been removed [14], reclassified is something else I suppose. Some places list more names [15] than others. I have no idea how this works though so won't comment on it. Just put in a redirect and if anyone protest, then start a proper merge discussion. AFD is not meant for this sort of thing. Dream Focus 11:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect A discussion was not needed here. Reywas92Talk 19:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:CHEAP, do not keep. (It rhymed.) Geschichte (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There's no reason to have a stand-alone page listing all of the 30 species in a genus (even with 75 species, it's not unreasonable to list them all in the article about the genus). But there's also no reason to actually delete a long-standing title; redirecting is appropriate. Plantdrew (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. desmay (talk) 13:14, 12 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) ––FormalDude talk 06:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danko/Fjeld/Andersen[edit]

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

Starting discussion as this does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. ––FormalDude talk 02:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strong, speedy etc. per WP:HEY after I added reviews. I stopped at 9 reviews, but it should be enough to ascertain that the album was highly notable in Norway (where one of the guys is from). You can withdraw this if you want, and if there are other albums lacking reviews, drop a note on my talk page and I can help out. Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree, with new sources seeems notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francium fluoride[edit]

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

Procedural nomination; I am neutral. PRODded and then BLAR'd shortly after creation in 2008. Restored by consensus at RfD just now, with agreement to take to AfD. Courtesy pings @Mdewman6, 1234qwer1234qwer4, Lenticel, and Thryduulf. I'll ping IP65 the old-fashioned way.

PROD rationale in '08 by User:Itub was:

very little is known about this compound, and none of it is reflected in this speculative stub. If anyone wants to add actual referenced facts, they can fit with no trouble in the francium article. The only references I could find are a handful of Russian papers from the 1960s and 1970s

Itub later BLAR'd it while the PROD was pending.

BLAR rationale by User:PlanetStar was: Francium fluoride is very likely to exist because francium is, like other alkali metals, can react with fluorine to form fluorides; and add expand and unreferenced templates

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected a mixup on my part as to who did what when. PlanetStar's quoted ES was in defense of the page, which he created. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are added to the article discussing francium flouride. It's fine if these are just hypothetical sources, but there needs to be some discussion of this somewhere for it to be encyclopedic. BD2412 T 00:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cringe when I see these old, unsourced articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaktree b (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now due to reliable sources issues --Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: compare with Francium hydroxide, which at least has a couple sources. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reliable sources (calculations, etc.) are needed. --Leiem (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this can be sourced, it should merge into electronegativity -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced. Possibly could be merged to a relevent article. Bobherry Talk Edits 03:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Experimental and theoretical studies have found that francium is likely actually slightly less electronegative than caesium, due to relativistic corrections. So the lone statement of this article is probably incorrect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article stinks. No content and barely any edits in 13 years. Into the bin with it. –D2h (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sources were added. This qualifies for speedy deletion, as one cannot assume that the subject is common knowledge or notable. Multi7001 (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As this article is misleading, and looks to be (wrong) original research. For example the compound may have been made in Russia. I found 3 sources though, so a valid article might be rewritten from scratch. [16] [17] and [18]. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 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.
  1. ^ Hagen, Per Erik (16 July 2012). "Fikk oppleve Rigmorhavari i Sandvikselva". Budstikka.
  2. ^ Bjørkeng, Per Kristian (2012). "Foretrekker levende foredrag". Aftenposten.
  3. ^ KIRKEBøEN, STEIN ERIK (2000). "Høye mål i liten idrett". Aftenposten.
  4. ^ FIVE, HENRIETTE (10 March 2000). "Siste stikk før Sydney-OL". Aftenposten.
  5. ^ RISVAND, NILS EIVIND (31 March 1992). "Silvia tok kongepokal". Aftenposten.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_8

Leave a Reply