Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 13 October 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Humble[edit]

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

Non notable. Promotional in tone. Sources provided are all either primary or paid content (Times of Israel notes this at the bottom of that article), or don't cover the subject in necessary detail. WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up much that I can find apart from more primary stuff or paid content. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, article was written like advertising.Brayan ocaner (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 15:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO. A quick Google search yielded exactly one case of significant coverage, and that too was obviously paid-for spam. JavaHurricane 16:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Participants believe these should be nominated separately if needed, signifying no prejudice against speedy renomination of individual articles. ✗plicit 03:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaklava Football Club[edit]

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

Per the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamley Bridge Football Club, these clubs represent local villages with populations of around 500-2,000 that play against each other. Given that around 12% of Australians are males between 15-35 years old, that means that these villages have around 200 prime-aged males to select for their teams, and these clubs are nowhere near notable in terms of sporting merit. The only refs are village newspapers or the books by Peter Lines on rural local football teams, which are self-published books Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, a quick look at these and they appear to vary significantly in level of sourcing. I think they should be decided on a case-by-case basis. There are multiple book sources cited in some of these articles. NemesisAT (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you that I clicked on the references, and many of them are just 1-paragraph listings of scores in the village newspapers, and as noted above, the two books by Mr Lines are self-published Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as at least some of the articles appear to have enough references, so the nomination should be broken up, and the articles nominated individually.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.The consensus above was clearly to break up the nomination and consider the articles separately. That is what should be done. The separate nominations should be over a period of a few weeks to allow editors to improve the articles and so perhaps keep them. --Bduke (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per BDuke. Deus et lex (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheru photography[edit]

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

Promotional BLP of an early career photographer and filmmaker with no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should not even be in the main space in the first place it was a denied article for submission, but then the creator of the article still moved it into the mainspace. Purely promotional and nonnotable. VVikingTalkEdits 13:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, preferably speedy. This doesn't even have a CCS and is a raging promo with no basis in actual sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked an independent source where it is proved that sheru is a photographer and cinematographer, and filmmakers who takes his career forward. Someone clear this up?
    Comment Misplaced !vote moved to correct location. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are nothing more than self published galleries... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing notable found in sources while I was cleaning up the article, most were either personal photo galleries, or little more than short quotes from him (among other children) in articles about Butterflies India. The one possible moment of notablility is that he was the primary subject of a short documentary film in 2018, again mostly about Butterflies India, but through the eyes of one of the "street kids" the organization helps. None of the other claims in this article have any sources to back them up. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ARTIST. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The person is not notable and the 2 reference are unreliable. Seems like the editor created the article about themselves. 007sak (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Promotional BLP. Eevee01(talk) 15:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG.Advait (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Walt Disney Company#Divisions. SpinningSpark 20:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disney General Entertainment Content[edit]

Disney General Entertainment Content (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm on the fence with this one. On one hand, it could be refactored as just a list article as many of the items under the "units" section have their own articles and can easily be deemed as notable, but I am not finding many sources for the entity itself, "Disney General Entertainment Content". I am listing this here as it has been repeatedly un-redirected and there appears to be at least a small consensus forming already that this does not have suitable in-depth coverage to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. ASUKITE 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a division of Disney, so I don't think WP:ORG is an issue as it's just a part of the bigger company. Considering that major branches of the company with lots of SIGCOV are part of this division (Walt Disney Television, ABC News, FX Networks, and National Geographic), I think it's worth keeping. I added some refs to the article. Granted most of these refs came out within a month of Disney announcing this shift in the company's structure; but this is a major international company so I don't think notability is an issue here.4meter4 (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Literally, I feel like that half of Wikipedia is pretty much Disney related articles at this point. Like every time there is a new division that is under Disney and also bears the Disney name, we have to create an article on it. Why can't we create pages on the more recognizable and the flagships brand of Disney, ex. Walt Disney Television or Pixar, and keep those pages instead of creating like a million pages about every single Disney brand. It just feels really forced and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.132.120 (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is bonafide WP:IHATEIT. – The Grid (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Walt Disney Company#Divisions and protect As it, just a directory to links to other articles within the same division that's duped by the main page. And more importantly, the corporate template duplicates it. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll agree, that seems like a reasonable idea. ASUKITE 22:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Walt Disney Company#Divisions as the most sensible decision. This company isn't notable in its own right, there are no references that meet NCORP. HighKing++ 15:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Calfopoulos[edit]

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

Survived PROD in 2015. She's a working photographer with some small gallery shows, but there's no sourcing found via BEFORE to indicate independent, in depth coverage. More of what's already included in terms of listings and passing mentions. Star Mississippi 19:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Alhatti[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. Most of the coverage of the subject is actually coverage of Cayan Tower. In this coverage, Ahmed Alhatti gives interview quotes because he is the head of the company that built the tower. In other words, the coverage is not about Ahmed Alhatti. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of water parks in the Americas[edit]

List of water parks in the Americas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles aren’t categories. Just an indiscriminate list of water parks, most of which aren’t even notable. Dronebogus (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and categorize: right now this is synonymous with a category. If this was a list within an article, or if water parks had difficulty becoming legalized or something like that, it may be worth keeping at that point. But right now there is nothing notable about this list. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Water parks in the United States by state Got water park by nation categories already. Valid navigational list, just eliminate any entry that doesn't have its own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 02:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are enough entries for the United States of America to have its own separate article. Dream Focus 02:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the point of that separate, purely redundant article is what exactly, besides existing for the sake of being “interesting” and “improving Wikipedia”. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The information would be removed from here with a link to the other article obviously. I did not make a claim it was interesting. If something is valid for a category, then its valid for a list article. List articles are more useful than categories since they can contain additional information. Dream Focus 10:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of which this list has none. Dronebogus (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment could somebody bundle-nominate all the similar “list of [tourist parks] by [region]” pages? They’re all seemingly identical and just as pointless, but I suck at multi-page nominations. Dronebogus (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is a good example of where lists can be complimentary to categories. This is more useful than dozens of categories split by state or country. Reywas92Talk 15:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could make a list article for literally any category based on the logic that it’s WP:USEFUL. I’m not sure liking the formatting better is a good argument to keep something. Dronebogus (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a trivial intersection contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Kalahari, Dollywood’s Splash Country and Water Country USA receive coverage on the following sites as a group of North American water parks: [1], [2] and [3]. Hot Park, Thermas dos Laranjais and Beach Park receive coverage on the following sites as a group of South American water parks: [4], [5] and [6]. Per WP: NLIST, discussion of any group or set within a list by reliable sources is appropriate for a stand-alone list. This passes WP:NLIST. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at List of waterparks, List of water parks in the Americas is a WP:SPINOFF to reduce the size of the main list. I think it's self evident that List of waterparks meets WP:NLIST provided that it stays within the scope of "notable water parks." That means all the redlink entries should be removed, but that's outside the scope of this AfD. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Qwaiiplayer.4meter4 (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a valid split for navigational purposes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fulfills our LISTPURPOSE. Lightburst (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uniphos[edit]

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

Not able to find any reliable sources that have news apart from stocks or shares. Fails WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Searches find primary-sourced postings and stock-price speculation, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. No evidence of attained notability found in searches. AllyD (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although many people wanted this kept on the grounds that this is a national competition, there is no basis for that rationale in policy. In fact, NSPORT has very little to say on competitions at all, even though it claims to be the relevant guideline for that. Two merge suggestions were made. Football in Gibraltar currently has nothing on women's football. If someone wants to undertake a merge, I will undelete on request and redirect to the chosen target. SpinningSpark 21:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Rock Cup[edit]

Women's Rock Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG.  ||  Orbit Wharf  💬 18:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a recurring women's football tournament since 2013, cancelled twice due Covid. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a top level national competition in a FIFA-affiliated nation. Number 57 08:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per N57, national cup competition. GiantSnowman 08:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG. All I could find was passing mentions and routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of being a top level national competition. (And its Gibraltar) That's kind of a small community on that Island. I agree with the nomination that this clearly fails GNG. Also saying it's a top level competition is not clear grounds for keeping an article. GNG is pretty specific and the keep votes above currently have not provided any true evidence for keeping the article. Govvy (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others, a top level national competition. Women are under represented on Wikipedia and deleting this article does not help matters. NemesisAT (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per above.Maniik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 14:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's considered as a one of top level national competition.Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we generally keep top level national competitions for both men and women. There is no appropriate merge location so I support keeping the article as the only way of retaining this important info. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely a national competition. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the above opinions are certainly valid and I think ultimately this article *should* be kept, I haven't been able to find any WP:SIGCOV to justify my feelings. If someone is able to find sources to help this pass GNG, I'm more than happy to change my vote. GauchoDude (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it should be kept, WP:IAR exists. NemesisAT (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IAR would require that keeping this improve the encyclopedia. Keeping an article which cannot currently meet our most basic content policies [i.e. WP:V] (by not being able to be sourced to independent reliable sources) does not "improve the encyclopedia". Whether this is a women's tournament, or whether there is a systemic bias on Wikipedia, are not good reasons to write something about it when all of the sourcing is dramatically poor; and instead it quite strongly stinks of WP:RGW, which is an even worse reason to keep this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Number57 a national cup football competition.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The vast majority of keeps are simply asserting that "its important", but that's a strikingly poor argument if this actually fails GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources, apparently a minor local sports event similar to the games of the Gibraltar Women's Football League (perhaps merge with that to a Women's Football in Gibraltar article?) —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was always one source, I've now added a further two. NemesisAT (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Any reliable sources? The first one is user-generated, the other two look like blogs (and the Spanish one appears defunct). If this is a major sports competition, it should be written about in major newspapers, nationally and in nearby countries. Otherwise, this just shows that "top level national competition" isn't actually an indicator of notability. —Kusma (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/ Redirect to Gibraltar Women's Football League per WP:ATD. I could find zero significant coverage in reliable independent references. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT. If this were in fact a major national competition there would be some coverage somewhere. There isn't. Given that the GWFL only has three to five teams at any given time during its history, it's not surprising that the cup doesn't get much coverage. I would like to remind the closer that AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE, and there isn't a strong policy based argument to keep the article at this time. A merge and redirect would probably be the best solution given the lack of sources but the desire to maintain coverage. This seems like the best compromise. 4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Permastub with 3 sentences, except for an yearly expanding list of champions which must necessarily be referenced to a database and not a secondary source with significant coverage. A search for sources brings up nothing of worth, so this fails WP:GNG. Nothing substantial in the article itself that deserves the bother of merging, either. Avilich (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St.Mary Immaculate Heart of Church, Sathankulam[edit]

St.Mary Immaculate Heart of Church, Sathankulam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the article claims it's a pilgrimage destination, I find nothing on this church about pilgrimages or anything else other than in basic listings. I looked under such names as Immaculate Heart of St Mary Church and Immaculate Heart of Mary Church, restricting my searches to Tamil or Sathankulam. I also searched for "புனித மரியாவின் மாசற்ற திரு இருதய ஆலயம்" (from the infobox, which Google Translate confirms is the equivalent in Tamil), and found one match (not counting another Wikipedia page where it's found): this. So I'm not finding any evidence that this church is notable. I'd already draftified it, whereupon the author almost immediately recreated it in article space, so draftifying it is not, for this discussion, an available alternative. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Presumption of notability for a religious structure or building depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which this article does not have. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jenn Johnson#Discography. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Longer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Entirely sourced to either the artists' social media and websites, or online stores, and I can't find anything better. Normal procedure for a non-notable song would be to redirect it to the parent album, but in this case, the song appears on three live albums rather than a studio work, and so it doesn't "belong" to any album in particular. Not sure if WP:XY applies here and it should be deleted, or if redirecting to the earliest of those albums is the best option... bringing it to AfD to get a consensus about what to do with this song article. Richard3120 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SBKSPP: great suggestion, thank you – it could definitely be redirected to Jenn Johnson#Other appearances, to be more specific, and I'd be happy with that. Richard3120 (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandi Prasad Bhatt (Politician)[edit]

Chandi Prasad Bhatt (Politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of party official that does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ash (band). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hamilton (bassist)[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence that Hamilton is sufficiently notable (apart from his band Ash to merit a stand alone article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Redirect to Ash (band) if anyone is concerned about alternatives to deletion. The difference might depend on the likelihood of this title being used as a search term in light of the Mark Hamilton disambiguation page. Like the nominator, I can find no evidence that this Mark Hamilton has done anything notable outside of his main band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know if it's worth merging the one notable fact about Hamilton into the band's article first, but Doomsdayer520 is correct, he hasn't done anything outside of the band, and there are also a guitarist and two singers of the same name with Wikipedia articles, so this article should be deleted, redirected or merged (yes, I'm sitting on the fence, I haven't decided which one I would choose yet). Richard3120 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His youngest-ever appearance at the festival is possibly notable, but it was still as a member of Ash. I have added that fact to the band's article, so there is no need for an official merge process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ash (band) – now that the one piece of notable information about Hamilton is in the band's article, I think this can now be redirected there. Ash have been a very popular band in the UK and Ireland over the last 25 years, and Hamilton is well enough known as the band's bass player that he's a plausible search term. Richard3120 (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I initially floated the idea to delete, but redirect has emerged as the best option and I'm cool with that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 21:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international prime ministerial trips made by Imran Khan[edit]

List of international prime ministerial trips made by Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long list of items that are not in themselves notable. Alternately, redirect to Imran Khan PepperBeast (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of government Category:Lists of diplomatic trips All of these types of list are perfectly valid. They are significant historical events with coverage in both nations. Dream Focus 19:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: lists of international trips by heads of governments are valid and a notable. Mottezen (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my previous arguments at a similar place: this is a WP:NOTNEWS/WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL events (yes, heads of state/government make lots of international visits. Most of these are just routine diplomatic niceties, not any more historically important or noteworthy than the Queen of England's farts; and the few ones that are actually encyclopedically notable have their own articles). The keep arguments essentially sum up to an unsupported assertion of notability (worthless) and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: I contend that most of these lists should probably be deleted too, for the same reasons, and additionally that many of them also outright fail to WP:V, although that doesn't seem to apply here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per previous precedents, lists of international trips made by heads of government are notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you can provide some backing in policy, and evidence of it, that previous precedent is not a valid argument. All those previous AfDs (which unhelpfully I can't check, since you provide no substantiation) could be wrong, especially since this so glaringly fails WP:NOT. In short, your argument is a very poor appeal to tradition RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mccapra.4meter4 (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not address the concerns I have raised about Jackattack's comment, which is essentially the same as Mccapra's. It's an obvious example of a bad WP:PERX argument. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. The international trips made by heads of state always receive significant independent coverage in media of both the nation being visited and the home nation of the head of state (sometimes in international press as well). Clearly a proper WP:BEFORE was not done, because there is a snowball's chance in hell of this failing WP:SIGCOV. Use WP:COMMONSENSE. Further, the influence on diplomatic relations by a head of state makes these international visits automatically notable for their impact on international affairs. The application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE in these type of articles is frankly a poorly realized argument. 4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and every football game played in the top tiers of European football likely gets a whole lot of coverage too. Doesn't mean that we need to include it in an encyclopedia. Most state visits are routine and unremarkable, and coverage of each individual one is ephemeral, at best, while actual notability requires sustained coverage, and no, notability is not automatic, it requires verifiable evidence. In light of this last bit, your appeal to common sense is unconvincing. The topic as a whole is more likely than not an original compilation which cannot be verified as being either accurate and complete, due to it failing WP:LISTN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Activities of heads of state on international affairs have far reaching consequences globally, and your attempt to trivialize them through a false comparison to sports (which are inherently trivial) is an informal fallacy.4meter4 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it a false comparison? Both of these types of events get coverage in newspapers, at the time they happen; but that's about it; and Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we need to take a more distanced look. The vast majority of international visits do not have "far reaching consequences" (since you seem to think you're so well versed in the subject, can you give one recent example of such a "far reaching consequences" visit?), and you thinking that WP:ITSIMPORTANT does not mean it is. Nor does your comment address the inherent reliability/completeness and verifiability issue of these lists: if Wikipedia is the only website to host such a list, it unambiguously fails WP:LISTN and is almost WP:OR by definition and cannot be trusted to be accurate or to provide useful information to our readers. And the added issue of WP:RECENTISM, since what might seem important today based on lots of news coverage might really just be an unimportant footnote. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are minimizing the position of a head of government in that analysis beyond was is reasonable/sensible, and under valuing how the actions of a head of state visit impact government relations, politics, economics, legislation, war, etc. Sports teams are entertainment and don't mean much outside of their own little corner of entertainment. Heads of state visits build relationships between governments which influence a wide spectrum of issues such as foreign policy making, trade deals, political allies in international conflict, etc. Heads of state visits aren't vacations, they have agendas with real world consequences that are non-trivial.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I ignore the repeated WP:ITSIMPORTANT, how does that justify having a list of them? Lots of things can be (occasionally) individually significant without requiring that we compile an original and unverified list of them. And Khan isn't even head of state, he's head of government. Get your facts right. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same applies for heads of government; arguing semantics is not helpful. This brings me back to WP:BEFORE. Has that actually been done? It's all well and good to cry that this is an unsourced list, but we do have a supplemental guideline of competent searching before a deletion nomination, and frankly I don't think its likely that this topic would be difficult to locate RS for. Nor do I think that this is an odd cross categorization that would fail WP:NLIST.4meter4 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that is the case, instead of accusing me of being incompetent, it would be far easier and much more convincing for you to find a reliable source which discusses this topic and provides an accurate listing so that the information can be verifiable. LISTN is the same standard as GNG, but applied to lists: ie, there must be multiple independent reliable sources which significantly cover the list topic and not just individual elements of it. That would also be trivially met if you could find such sources. You haven't, ergo, I'm not convinced RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you of incompetency. I'm accusing PepperBeast of not doing a WP:BEFORE. However, I would like to know if you even bothered to search for sources at all (because you are usually competent, so my guess is that you didn't put in time and effort to seriously look for evidence). If you are going to make a claim that lack of sources is an issue, you have the responsibility to verify that sources don't exist and actually look for them before making that argument. 4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the misunderstanding (although, whether directed at the nom or anybody, such comments ought to be avoided), then. The rest of my argument still stands. As I kind of implied, coverage of routine individual trips is easy to come by, but I haven't found the kind of coverage needed for LISTN, nor have I found a full listing of these trips other than on WP mirrors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get that. However, individual entries in a list don't have to pass GNG. The topic as a whole does, which is supported by the repeated coverage of the subject's trips within media. So I am not really seeing how you can claim there is SIGCOV issue with the topic of the list because of the WP:SUSTAINED coverage of trips being covered in the press (meaning that as a set they are notable to be covered in a list but not necessarily have an individual article on every trip). This is one of the benefits of list articles.4meter4 (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of government contains dozens of articles. Are they all non notable, or just some of them? Or just this one? Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer That's still WP:OSE. Probably a fair bit of them (likely all of the "Lists of international visits by X") need to be deleted. This is likely the same situation as with Category:Lists of living people, which recently had a fair few articles deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as his trips aren't overly noteworthy. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The international trips made by heads of government always are significant. -GorgonaJS (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further contributions should be made with reference to policy/guidelines as against simple assertions of notability (or lack).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the topic is notable, and generates significant coverageJackattack1597 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To prove a point by making a parody: "Delete, because the topic is not-notable and does not generate any coverage". In addition to providing nothing to support your assertion, the argument that this fails WP:NOT (by being a list of routine, run-of-the-mill events) is still unaddressed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate vote struck RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep evidently the trips have gathered coverage. This verifiable information should be kept per WP:PRESERVE, and a list is a tidy way to contain it. The topic feels en encyclopedic enough to me, what is WP:MILL is subjective anyway and depends on the interests of the reader. NemesisAT (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And the encyclopedic ones can be covered at Imran Khan (where they already are, go figure!) without requiring a trivial listing of them (WP:NOPAGE) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At over 200,000 bytes long, I think it would be best to keep separate articles rather than add more content to an already very lengthy article. NemesisAT (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing "where they already are". In any case, the WP:SPLIT issues of another article (Foreign policy of Imran Khan would be a valid article, if that is what you are asking) are not a reason to keep this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a very similar discussion was had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international prime ministerial trips made by Sheikh Hasina. It is clear that the status quo is for articles like this to exist, and the "appeal to tradition" is valid; after all, we write our own rules here, and we do so based on tradition. If you (presumably RandomCanadian as the only editor who appears offended by a keep) don't like it, file an RFC. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well obviously I'm not the only editor (I am not the nominator). As for your keep vote, it is indeed a pure appeal to tradition which does not substantiate why the supposed tradition is correct (nor address the reasons why it is incorrect). As for the venue; well, deletions are usually decided at AfD... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is ample coverage of his foreign trips. The argument to merge material into Imran Khan isn't a valid one at all. If anything, that article should be further split considering length-related issues. Mar4d (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should not be deleted at all. It is very informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.144.249 (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Armenian Research[edit]

Institute for Armenian Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Center for Eurasian Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Institute for Armenian Research is a non-notable organization, and fails WP:NORG. Only covered by Turkish news as a mention when covering one of its leaders, as a brief mention. Besides, this is just your friendly, neighbourhood anti-Armenian and genocide-denying organization, whose activities include "the Armenian question" [7], and which has published some wonderful books including The Armenian Issue and the Jews [8] or The Armenian Files: The Myth of Innocence Exposed [9].

The Institute for Armenian Research has recently been rebranded as the Center for Eurasian Studies. Again, here we could just delete the article per WP:GNG and WP:NORG, but you know maybe it would be interesting to just check what they have been... oh shit. JBchrch talk 15:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 15:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 15:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 15:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Center for Eurasian Studies. After some searching, I cannot find independent sources that cover this organization in depth. Keep or merge Institute for Armenian Research, it is definitely not a reliable source but it does have some coverage in independent, reliable sources. There is a paragraph on the organization in Dixon, Jennifer M. (2010). "Defending the Nation? Maintaining Turkey's Narrative of the Armenian Genocide". South European Society and Politics. 15 (3): 467–485 [478]. doi:10.1080/13608746.2010.513605. and several sentences in Sanjian, Ara (2006). "Öke's Armenian Question re-examined 1". Middle Eastern Studies. 42 (5): 831–839 [832]. doi:10.1080/00263200600828147. as well as this book. These are reliable, non-fringe sources and examine the issue from an independent perspective. I think there may be potential for an article that covers Center for Eurasian Strategic Studies (also translated Eurasian Strategic Studies Institute—covered briefly in this book), its successor Center for Eurasian Studies and subsidiary of both Institute for Armenian Research. (edit: Alternately, since virtually all the independent coverage relates to the Institute of Armenian Research (not to be confused with the Munich-based organization of the same name) it could be kept and the other two organizations redirected there.) (t · c) buidhe 19:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: To which article do you suggest we merge Institute for Armenian Research? JBchrch talk 20:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would support that option. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JBchrch: First I would like to thank you for everyone's input. First to @JBchrch concern regarding references for the Center for Eurasian Studies article. One English language newspaper, one source from Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, one source from Istituto Affari Internazionali, Washington Institute For Near East Policy, and one academic journal article from jstor (World Review of Political Economy) was added. In total there are 18 references which should be enough for an article for this length. If you believe there should be more references more can be added.
  • Second, I have never been affiliated with Institute for Armenian Research from their archive page I have not found anti-Armenian language. Having a different view regarding events of 1915 is different from being anti-Armenian. Since this is not a political forum I will not delve into details.
  • Third regarding @JBchrch statement that Institute for Armenian Research has been rebranded as Center for Eurasian Studies. It has not. If you do check the history of Center for Eurasian Studies It is the combination of three groups. One came from Institute for Armenian Research, the second one came from Research Institute for Crimes against Humanity and third group of independent researchers. That is the reason for name change and focus change. You are right it does publish 2 of the journals ( refereed, academic, and indexed journals) from Institute for Armenian Research. It also publishes on a journal from now closed Research Institute for Crimes against Humanity. It also publishes its own journal. We should keep in mind think thanks can change even Rand corporation was not originally known as Rand Corporation and had a name change.
  • Instead what propose is removing "consider the deletion notice on both pages" and put " draft status" on both (if I remember correctly Wikipedia has that option) so that both pages can be improved. Thank you again.Tetulun talk10:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Tetulun, wrt "You are right it does publish 2 of the journals ( refereed, academic, and indexed journals)", could you indicate which journals, either here or on the relevant articles? John Vandenberg (chat) 04:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John Vandenberg: Thank you for your question and suggestion. Center for Eurasian Studies publishes four journals. International Crimes and History (bilingual) (taken over from Research Institute for Crimes against Humanity), Review of Armenian Studies (English) (taken over from Institute for Armenian Research) and Ermeni Araştırmaları (Turkish) (taken over from Institute for Armenian Research) are peer-reviewed and indexed journals. Eurasian World is a semi-academic (bilingual) journal (launched by Center for Eurasian Studies). I added this information with references to the Center for Eurasian Studies article. Due to time constraints, I wrote a short paragraph and added four citations. If required I could however add additional citations. Institute for Armenian Research already has publications sections I did not change it. Tetulun talk19:52, 05 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John Vandenberg: Again thanks for everybodies contribution. Then would it be possible to remove the deletion notice from both articles or at least should they be changed to "improve notice" or "draft notice". Tetulun talk23:48, 08 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Editors arguing ANYBIO should seriously consider showing the "decent amount of coverage" they found; as "meeting one or more [of the ANYBIO criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included.", but in any case, the consensus of this discussion is that this should be kept. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Hellring[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not independently notable. Loksmythe (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources provided qualify as "significant coverage" (WP:SIGCOV) about the subject. Loksmythe (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Passes WP:ANYBIO criteria 2 as the co-founder of a notable sport. Admittedly sourcing is relatively thin, but his posthumous recognition would seem to pass WP:SUSTAINED. 4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the purposes of making it more clear w.r.t. discerning consensus, would those who are arguing about WP:GNG please provide more in-depth analyses of the sources that they are referencing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the coverage in each source might not be enough to be considered significant, the fact that he's credited in multiple sources as a co-creator of Ultimate Frisbee and was posthumously inducted into the Hall of Fame for the sport, taken together is enough to pass WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO as a person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as they pass ANYBIO and have a decent amount of coverageJackattack1597 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mass media in North Korea. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photojournalism in North Korea[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Photojournalism in North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one source, google search came up dry. Has been whittled down signifigantly since last nom. NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 00:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different potential merge targets are suggested at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Azevedo[edit]

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

Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play consisting of 49 minutes in the league and 20 minutes in the cup. At least 100 and I would believe closer to 150 deletion discussions have shown this to be the consensus. Geschichte (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom, no indication of notability. Does it meet A7? bop34 • talk • contribs 13:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and this does meet WP:A7. I was unable to find anything that would pass WP:GNG in searching for 'Alex Azevedo' and his full name, 'Jorge Alexandre Oliveira Azevedo'. The sources already referenced on the page fail WP:SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He doesn't meet A7, as there is a claim to notability, as he has played in a fully professional league. Speedy deletion is for the very rare cases when there is absolutely no chance someone is notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, and a couple of FPL appearances doesn't override that. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. A7 entirely inappropriate. GiantSnowman 08:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in principle, passes GNG and has active career.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If he's passed GNG in your opinion, can you please provide the sources which led you to this conclusion? It would behoove the conversation if you have evidence the rest of us may have missed that could alter this conversation. GauchoDude (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasco Rodrigues[edit]

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

Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play consisting of 34 minutes. Many deletion discussions have shown this to be the consensus. At least 100 and I would believe closer to 150 deletion discussions have shown this to be the consensus. Geschichte (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with what GS said. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in principle, passes NFOOTY and has an active playing career.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find evidence of GNG, which is far, far more important than the technical NFOOTBALL pass Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL, fails WP:GNG which supersedes. Consensus for this situation resulting in delete on AfD discussions for Olymbios Antoniades, Agapios Agapiou, et. al. GauchoDude (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. North America1000 11:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kriski[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television meteorologist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for meteorologists. The stated notability claim here, various awards for his work, is not referenced at all, while instead the few actual references in the article are supporting personal life trivia like the name and career of his ex-wife, his subsequent engagement and remarriage to his second wife, and a short-term health leave that he took ten years ago -- but even that is referenced to sources like his own employer or unreliable sources (blogs, industry trade newsletters) that aren't support for notability at all.
And on a search for better sources, I found absolutely nothing in ProQuest to support notability in his 1980s Canadian career before joining KTLA, and on a Google search I get (a) sources published by KTLA, (b) glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him, and (c) one article in an independent source about his sick leave, which still isn't enough coverage to get him over the bar all by itself.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived American media coverage than I've got can salvage it with older sourcing that may not have Googled well, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have significantly more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He appears to have made a lot of cameo appearances in television shows portraying a weatherman; all of which is found in google books. Not sure if that lends notability, but generally unknown television reporters don't get hired to do cameo work.4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: You're correct, Kriski is well known (I watch the morning news every day) here in southern Calif.
"Well-known in one local market" is not the inclusion criteria for television personalities — everybody on any local newscast is always "well-known" in their own local market by definition, but we don't want a bad and poorly sourced article about every local television journalist on the planet. The inclusion test requires evidence of nationalized significance, not just Angelenos saying they know him from watching LA's local news. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to a local market. He's been in major TV shows (like a recurring role as a weatherman/reporter on Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and films with a wide international audience. But again, I'm not claiming that makes him notable, just makes me hesitant to argue for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bit parts in films and television shows don't help to establish notability if they haven't made him the subject of reliable source coverage to support an article with. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Dickinson[edit]

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

Remixers for other artists are not considered notable per NMUSIC when those songs chart. Especially true for this person who wrote his own promotional autobiography on wikipedia that now closely follows the structure of the bio on his own website: [10]. The lack of reliable sources available online is appalling, the best source in the article is a q&a with a blogger. Mottezen (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NMUSIC and GNG. As an aside, I can't even find any evidence that his remixes have charted besides his own claims. The article doesn't give the dates they supposedly charted, and I can't find them on Google either. Mlb96 (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. North America1000 11:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moidu Vanimel[edit]

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

Journalist and Photographer. No major coverage of the subject. Venkat TL (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bom Hyon Sunim[edit]

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

No evidence that she meets WP:BIO. Most sources are not independent ones, and the others are either passing mentions or interviews with her (and others) but not about her (like [11]). No better sources were found when looking online either. Fram (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melcous, I did the changes you suggested, and removed the tag. Fram has reinstated it. What is the next step? DrMushEa (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could it be that sources exist in a different language? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • She's an Australian working in Australia. Chances seem slim that there will be better, independent sources in other languages. Fram (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability shown. Geschichte (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. 1 gnews hit only. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. No such user (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Lewis (musician)[edit]

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

About everything we know about John Lewis is already in the article, scraped from the three sources. The sources mostly mention him in passing; most can be found in "The Mark of the Rani" about his early involvement in writing the music for the Doctor Who episode, not completed due to his health (btw, the alleged death in 1982 does not fit well with the episode release in 1985, but the source might got the dates wrong). He's not mentioned in Pop Muzik article, although he might be credited on the cover. Sadly, that fails even WP:BASIC. I could not find anything more about the subject, and his common name-surname combination and the fact that he died 40 years ago did not help. No such user (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Users ‎Eastmain and Rrsm13 improved the article after its nomination by adding references to the article. The majority of commenters at this discussion have argued that these sources demonstrate the subject meets our notability criteria (i.e. GNG) but without a source analysis backing up that claim. Star Mississippi and Mikehawk10 questioned that the sources were significant enough to meet GNG or NCORP, but they also provided no source analysis to rebut the keep arguments made by the majority of commenters. The questions surrounding the quality of sources in relation to GNG and/or NCORP remain unanswered by both keep and delete voters. With the lack of a strong policy based argument with supporting analysis on both sides, the result is no consensus. Given that this discussion has been re-listed multiple times already, a further re-listing is not warranted. No prejudice against a re-nomination if the nominator is willing to do a source analysis as outlined at WP:SIRS. Any further issues with the title can be sorted out on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ángel Óscar Ulloa Gregori Museum Room[edit]

Dr. Ángel Óscar Ulloa Gregori Museum Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Dr. Ángel Óscar Ulloa Gregori Museum Room : (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sala Museo Dr. Ángel Óscar Ulloa Gregori : (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable ; i would ordinarily say merge, but this would be a merge to the faculty of medicine which does ot I think yet have an article, and a merge to the main university would be disproportionate coverage DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I added a newspaper article that starts out with memories of the Spanish Flu of 100 years ago but whose final third is about this little museum. The two journal articles are mostly about the career of the doctor who donated his collection to the museum, but they both mention the museum. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep; obviously there has to be a cut-off point where a museum is not very notable, but in general museums are interesting to our readers, and they are, like us, involved in the spread of information. It isn't great for the look of Wikipedia:GLAM if we expunge articles on museums without careful thought. @Eastmain:'s efforts are appreciated on this one! Elemimele (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel like the content is appropriate and should be kept, but concur with DGG that a university merger would be undue. Thinking some on where it might make sense, if a standalone isn't it. I think if it is kept, it needs a better article name as that is not helpful to the English speaker looking for it. Star Mississippi 17:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Museum Hall "Dr. Ángel Oscar Ulloa Gregory" I thought this subject looked familiar when I saw it come across my alerts. No issue with recreation as it was functionally an expired PROD, but so folks have full picture. Star Mississippi 18:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Delete because there's no evidence that this passes WP:NBUILDING or WP:NCORP/WP:NGO; notable article subjects need to have significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources in either case. Salt because this was recreated by the same editor whose previous article was deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would be inappropriate to salt in this case. If the article had been discussed at AfD and deleted as a result, its recreation without significant new sources would be wrong. But since it was soft-deleted without a single comment, this must be taken as, functionally, an uncontested PROD as per User:Star Mississippi. Not everyone hangs around on Wikipedia all the time; it's quite possible to miss a complete PROD or AfD merely by being away a week. There is no obvious mechanism to undo a soft-delete or uncontested PROD except recreate the article and wait for a "proper" AfD (which this now is); as such nothing's gone wrong yet. Should this debate end in "delete", then creation of the same article for a third time would render it saltable. We should also be rather cautious in salting articles on subjects that may well become notable, museums being likely suspects: once something has been salted, it's rather hard to create an article (that's the point!), so it should only be done to things that we think are almost certain to remain non-notable, in the face of repeated re-creation; not to things that might reasonably become notable, in the face of a single re-creation. Elemimele (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourcing is adequate and has been improved since nomination. Per WP:PRESERVE, there is verifiable information here and this should be kept, if there is no valid place to merge it this shuold be retained as a separate article for now. NemesisAT (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please identify the three best reliable, independent, in depth sources that provide notability. While the creator has added links, I do not see anything that meets criteria. Star Mississippi 14:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming comment: If the article could legitimately be titled "Dr. Ángel Oscar Ulloa Gregori Museum" it would come across better to all concerned here. I get that it started in, and/or is contained in, one large room, but the point should be that it is a museum. The article is to be about the museum, not the room that it is in, and the room itself is probably not separately notable. There will be very few individual rooms or halls in any museum which get separate articles, though perhaps there is some great hall holding dinosaur skeletons in the American Museum of Natural History in NYC which might be separately notable from the museum, say. Using the term "Hall" would be better, too. In English language names of buildings at universities, a "Hall of Languages" or a "Hall of Science" or whatever might mean an entire building/department. A hall can be understood to be a bigger thing than a room, e.g. see University Hall (Ohio State University). But in English a room is literally just one open space enclosed by walls. Are you sure that it does not have a coat closet for visitors, or any storage room/space at all, or any other kind of closet, or a bathroom (even if only for use by staff not the general public)? If it does, then calling it a "Room" is incorrect in English, and translating as "Hall" or otherwise would be better.
So, can a proper translation be "Dr. Ángel Oscar Ulloa Gregori Museum" or similar? If not, could some translation using "Hall", like "Dr. Ángel Oscar Ulloa Gregori Hall of Medical Artifacts" or "Hall of Medical History" or whatever, be used?--Doncram (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although it is odd that the title suggests the topic is the room not the museum, I interpret the article to be about the museum. And although it could be developed more, it is about a museum open to the public, and wp:ITSAMUSEUM (an essay I helped develop) applies. --Doncram (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The deletion nominator suggested that merger to the university article would be difficult, but was apparently not aware of a List of medical museums which is pretty much a list of medical history museums, AFAICT. I just added mention of this one. Merger to an expanded entry in that list-article would be preferable to deletion, although I see there is not yet expanded treatment of any of the named museums there. I !voted for and prefer "Keep" however. --Doncram (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming comment should this be kept (whether keep/no consensus or merge) I agree with Doncram that Hall would be a much better name as we don't require a literal translation for the English language name of an article and I assume wikidata magic could connect the articles regardless of precise name. Star Mississippi 00:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only circumstance in which "Room" should be used in the name is if being a one-room museum is specifically a significant feature that is a core characteristic of the place, to be promoted and celebrated. Like they would never put in a partition wall and they would never move it to a larger multi-room space. Like how historic one-room schoolhouses in rural areas of the United States are notable for being operated by just one teacher. Google searching on "one-room museum -school -schoolhouse" yields a couple hits: this one about a tiny modern art museum being transported from Guatemala to Los Angeles, and this one in Wellington New Zealand for fans of Lord of the Rings. There certainly are many museums that are in fact in just one room, like I am aware of some Masonic local history museums that occupy an empty, one-room upper floor in a small building, but the fact that they have a single room is not something they are proud of, not something promoted or acknowledged. --Doncram (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone is advocating for "room". I'm guessing English isn't the creator's first language and s/he took a best guess at naming. Star Mississippi 19:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is adequate sourcingJackattack1597 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 09:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Padvish Antivirus[edit]

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

fails Wikipedia:Notability (software) 3000MAX (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 3000MAX (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hohhot#Education. The opinion by Liusine must be disregarded because it starts off with a personal attack ("The editor, Kudpung (from England), is biased towards Inner Mongolia and China ..."). Everybody else, with one exception, agrees that this does not merit an article. Sandstein 20:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hohhot No.2 Middle School[edit]

Hohhot No.2 Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill middle school/junior secondary school. Redirect turned back into a non notable article. Middle schools are not automatically notable. No specific claims to notability. No reliable independent sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The editor, Kudpung (from England), is biased towards Inner Mongolia and China by marking this page for deletion. Hohhot No.2 high school is the most notable one in Inner Mongolia. If the editor’s argument were true, that will automatically qualify the deletion of hundreds of England high schools from Wikipedia. Kudpung is also biased in his communication with me. If he can dominate Wikipedia in a way already shown like this, I will advise my American and Chinese colleagues not to trust a word on Wikipedia, especially those edited by him. For example, he edited a page Hanley Castle High School, which is not a selective school. But Hohhot No.2 high school is more famous and more selective in Inner Mongolia. In Kudpung's view, any England middle school is superior than the notable high schools elsewhere in the world? Does English speaking people have the right to understand the world?

I have added references about "key school of Inner Mongolia and news reports in China". If you can Goolge translate Chinese, please go ahead and verify the sources! Liusine (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination of Hohhot No.2 Middle School for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hohhot No.2 Middle School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hohhot No.2 Middle School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect. It seems like the sort of place that could be notable, but is lacking any evidence of notability. As I write the only sources are to the school's web site, to a local government web site, and to another wiki, so a mix of primary and tertiary sources. Nothing in it indicates why it's notable, and absent reliable secondary sources better to redirect it until sources are found. --2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: this is a PUBLIC SCHOOL, meaning it's affiliated to the local government. So the webpage on the Inner Mongolia government's website is the official recognition of the "key school" (notable) status. Liusine (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect - clearly no indication of notability of this primary school. Even though the article incorrectly states that it is a high school, all 3 current references make clear that this is a middle school. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the first reference "12 key middle schools in Inner Mongolia became the excellent student base of Nankai University". The graduates directly go to Universities (e.g. a very notable univerity Nankai University). So this is a "high school". Please translate carefully before making inadequate judgements like the one above. Liusine (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's a secondary school rather than a primary school. I think the "middle school" comes from a mistranslation of 中学, which China uses for secondary/high schools. But it's a high school: in the logo at the top of most pages of the school's website it calls itself "HOHHOT NO. 2 HIGH SCHOOL".--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 Agreed. It should be HOHHOT NO. 2 HIGH SCHOOL (the US naming convention). Initially it was written as "high school" on Wiki. But someone changed it... In China, 高级中学=senior middle school or high school; 初级中学=junior middle school. Liusine (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpytoo Talk 18:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striked out the ranking part, see my comment later on. Jumpytoo Talk 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumpytoo Thanks a lot for providing these secondary sources from academic research! They are reliable and independent.

  • Keep @ All others, reliable secondary sources have been found, thanks to @Jumpytoo's findings! Please come to update your previous votes and verify these sources using google translate or Chrome browser translate. To some editor like Kudpung, you can consult with some professor colleagues specialized in East Asian language/culture if you do not have accurate translations. Isn't it widely advocated to adopt Diversity and Inclusion practices in US universities (also some UK universities)? Hohhot No.2 is the top one in Inner Mongolia, which is a huge province in China with many ethic minorities. Liusine (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry I cannot change my !vote as the reasons for it still apply. The above are not good references. The first e.g. is (according to Apple's translation tool) "Selection and Analysis of Greening Tree Species in the East Campus of Hohhot Second Middle School". I.e. it is an agricultural/horticultural study carried out at the school. But there is nothing special or remarkable about that. Studies often are done at schools, to engage the students, as students make good subjects (they don't need to be paid or recruited), or as staff are interested. Or all of the above. There's a small army of academic researchers who carry out such studies, touching pretty much every school at some point. I.e. they don't establish notability for me.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The user:Liusine is misinformed (and very impolite). I am not a 'profressor in England', not do I hold any 'position' on Wikipedia. I was however, always a staunch advocate in keeping articles about high schools. Following years of wrangling, a community consensus decided that primary and junior secondary schools are not notable simply because they exist. And that's the 'position' I maintain. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to learn that you user:Kudpung are not a 'professor in England'. That makes you less authoritative :) Based on your judgements and comments, you sound like a senior gentlemen in UK, proud to include a UK top 100 school Hanley Castle High School while trying to delete a top 1 high school in Inner Mongolia, China. Do you have problems with Mongolians/Chinese or cannot admit to be simply xenophobic?? I am ASKING ANOTHER EDITOR TO HANDLE THIS DELETION PAGE AS Kudpung is BIASED AND IMPOLITE. Liusine (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 Hi, You clearly ignored the fact the Hohhot No.2 is a High School. Did you translate the main content of those references? Peer reviewed academic journal articles are reliable 2ndary sources. Liusine (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Kudpung , Hi, please stop posting on my personal pages. Please come over here and clarify your logic in the rebuttal. Plz stop using the power as an editor or show any judgments/biases. For example, you edited Hanley Castle High School which is a non-selective UK school. Sources claim that it is a top 100 UK school, while the sources I listed prove that Hohhot No.2 High School is top 100 high school in China. Since China has 20 times the population of UK, the Hanley Castle High School is about top 2000 high schools in China. Does that still sound notable to you? Do NOT challenge Chinese K12 education qualities.

Besides, the listed 2nary sources show that Hohhot No.2 Middle School has both junior and senior middle schools, and senior middle school=high school in China (the graduates directly go to colleges). Again, Kudpung intentionally ignored multiple evidences and do not even bother to translate the abstract/texts of the references... Liusine (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The full studies are behind a paywall so no, I had mostly or only the title to go on. And no, I am not Kudpung, and I ask you to withdraw that accusation and your attacks on him. Personal attacks are not constructive, and if kept up will likely see you blocked.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HI @ 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13, your IP v6 address shows you are from London, England, similar to Kudpung's. I'm only pointing out this fact. Whatever your excuses for not looking further beyond the title is, the abstract (摘要) is directly below the title and is free. You need to Google translate that. Do not complain for foreign languages because if the source is in French, do you need to translate that? Books are not free either. Do they count as reliable sources? Liusine (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Per the other people that have already recommended it. This clearly doesn't pass the bar required for schools of this type to be notable. Even with the new sources that have been found since the AfD was started. Which don't seem to be up to muster. For instance, the first one is an analysis of species of trees on the campus and I'd hardly call it in-depth or direct information about the school itself. Unless you want an article about trees, I guess. Also, the back and forth nonsense is a little disconcerting and doesn't speak well to either side of this. So better just to redirect it IMO then have an article about only extremely loosely related information. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adamant1, did you check this news report? Liusine (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liusine. Yes I did. Unfortunately there isn't really anything in the notability guidelines stating that highly ranked organizations are notable because of it. So the fact that it's ranked number two on that list, whatever makes them an expert, doesn't really matter. Slightly off topic, but I think that's for the best. Since anyone can create a ranking system of the top schools and use whatever criteria they want for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict) While after further review, I don't think the rankings are useful (can't find any proof its made by an authoritative source), I disagree on the other editors analysis of the academic sources I provided. Even though the primary subject of the research articles is for example the trees at the school, as per WP:GNG (the applicable guideline here as this is a public school): Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. For example, that article about trees has 138 words (when Google Translated) of the school's history in the abstract, which is absolutely enough for SIGCOV. I did some more digging and found additional sources which seem seem to be more directed on the school:
Jumpytoo Talk 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new references. Unfortunately I couldn't get them to load. Anyway, unless I'm wrong all of the references you have provided come from a single website/source. So they would only count as one reference. Which means we have a single good reference (in the ones that are combined) and one that is OK, but doesn't seem to be great. So we still aren't there yet IMO. Although I commend you for the effort though. I'm sure more can found, but preferably it should be from somewhere else then the other references and not a research paper. Unless it is actually published in a peer reviewed journal. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@Jumpytoo Appreciate the new links. The CNKI abstract only show up on a cell phone browser (e.g. Safari on iPhone). For the CNKI articles, I download the CNKI手机知网 App from US Apple store, and log in as a guest (游客登录) to download the full text. It is free. I also share a Dropbox link for two journal articles PDF above (呼和浩特市第二中学简介; 呼和浩特市第二中学创建绿色学校工作纪实) [15] . One can use Google translate for images. Liusine (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpytoo Thanks for the new references. Unfortunately I couldn't get them to load. Anyway, unless I'm wrong all of the references you have provided come from a single website/source. So they would only count as one reference. Which means we have a single good reference (in the ones that are combined) and one that is OK, but doesn't seem to be great. So we still aren't there yet IMO. Although I commend you for the effort though. I'm sure more can found, but preferably it should be from somewhere else then the other references and not a research paper. Unless it is actually published in a peer reviewed journal. As conference papers and dissertations have questionable reliability. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 The new sources found by Jumpytoo are from different printed newspapers/journals. CNKI or CQVIP are online journal databases. If you check my Dropbox link for three articles PDF above (呼和浩特市第二中学简介; 呼和浩特市第二中学创建绿色学校工作纪实;呼和浩特市第二中学欢庆60华诞) [16] Liusine (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was looking at CNKI a minute ago. Which says it includes "journals, doctoral dissertations, masters' theses, proceedings, newspapers, yearbooks, statistical yearbooks, ebooks, patents and standards", not just journals. So the articles could potentially be any one of those. There's no way to tell from your Dropbox links. At least not that I can see. I can't read Chinese though, but I'd still need a definative answer that they are journal articles to give them a thumbs up. Since it's like a 1/9 chance that they are (I'm at least pretty sure the source about the tree species is not from a journal). That said, someone could probably at least make a weak keep argument at this point if nothing else. Adamant1 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adamant1, it is very easy to tell whether it is a journal or something else. Jumpytoo also listed journal name (for example, journal=内蒙古教育) in the references. The journal name is ALWAYS printed in the PDF file in Chinese. For master's thesis, the title and website will indicate that category (呼和浩特市第二中学学生信息素养的调查研究--《内蒙古师范大学》2007年硕士论文 means it is a master's thesis=硕士论文). If you open Jumpytoo's links in a cell phone browser (e.g. Safari on iPhone), the journal name and publishing date is also shown. Liusine (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Other editors whose opinions were based on expired early sources: please come here and update your votes considering the multiple new references from different newspapers/journals. If not, your votes will not count. Liusine (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure their votes will count anyway. They aren't voided just because someone finds a couple of new sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for revealing the dark side of Wiki's AfD. Liusine (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a "vote" anyway. 99% of the time if the rational someone gives is bunk the closing admin will just ignore it. Either that or list the AfD to get more opinions. Both are perfectly fine. Realistically it would be way to convoluted if a ton of people who have voted already had to cross out their votes and do the whole thing over again every time new sources come along. Especially for people who still agree with their original reasons. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tejgaon Circle Upazila[edit]

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

No source found stating that this is an Upazila. The two cited sources do not mention the Upazila. Sun8908 Talk 05:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 05:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 05:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The creator of this stub, banned long ago, operated by scraping factoids from typically unreliable lists of things about which he knew nothing. So speedy deletion is in order. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject to the caveat that I withdraw this !vote if any of the linked websites which are not in English corroborate the claim that this really is an official sub-district. I don't think that this is likely given what it says at Dhaka_District#Subdivisions. If anybody finds something genuinely notable to write about this place later then they can always make a new article. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(/redirect) User:Shevonsilva#Bangladesh has the other bulk-produced pages of questionable verifiability and notability. Reywas92Talk 13:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no upazila in Bangladesh named Tejgaon Circle Upazila. Completely hoax. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Newport[edit]

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

Non-notable person; only sourced to iMDB, significantly expanded by article's subject wizzito | say hello! 04:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - WP:CSD#A7 applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Love (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable, article created by member of the band, no sources I could find except primary ones and indie blogs like http://www.itsallindie.com/2016/09/listen-red-love-does-it-make-you.html and https://www.thelineofbestfit.com/new-music/discovery/matt-tong-ex-bloc-party-and-alex-newport-air-gone-tomorrow-their-debut-sing and https://buzzbands.la/2015/06/22/stream-red-love-gone-tomorrow/ wizzito | say hello! 04:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Self-promotional article on a non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND criteria for inclusion. A BEFORE search reveals nothing beyond user-submitted content and social media. Netherzone (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creativity and mental health[edit]

Creativity and mental health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically I think that this article is original research. It's written by student(s) in an essay like format using primary sources and has a lot of original synthesis. This would be better placed in a student assignment or a submission to a medical journal. I don't think there is any salvagable content here and so propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but clean up. I can see Tom (LT)'s concerns, but there's no doubt that a tremendous lot has been published on the links between mental illnesses/conditions and creativity, with lots of speculation about how possible mental issues affected great artists and composers; there's material in books, newspaper articles, all over the place. Inevitably it's all a bit wobbly because it usually involves someone speculating on the mental conditions of a person who died many years previously, carrying out a diagnosis that would normally require a living patient in the same room as a doctor. But the material is there, and society has a legitimate interest in such questions. This isn't a case for TNT. The article has a lot of usable references and quite a lot of helpful discussion of whether the phenomenon is correct, or which way the cause-and-effect go. Incidentally, I don't think all the medical-citation-needed, and unreliable-medical-citation tags are helpful; this is an area where medical research escapes into historical research and general interest. Elemimele (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The connection was widely debated and investigated, as reflected in scientific publications and books [17], [18], [19]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is plainly not a topic invented by a Wikipedian. If one searches for "Creativity and mental" on google scholar, there are hundreds if not thousands of articles discussing creativity and mental health/illness/disorders. There is a chapter on it ("Creativity and mental illness") in the Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, one of the basic go-to texts for learning about creativity scholarship. The article as it stands has dozens of references to published research. Deletion is done according to WP:DEL-REASON, not the quality of the text at any time. None of the criteria there are met. It's not even clear what the WP:OR claim is, as the article is well-referenced. I don't see any evidence of WP:SYNTH either. OsFish (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The movie won the awards, not the actress; unless the coverage of the awards discusses her, it doesn't confer any notability on her. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mei Kayama[edit]

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

An actress who has appeared only in one film doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Htanaungg (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has had a significant role (main protagonist) in a movie that won 11 prestige awards User:silversonicaxel (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any reliable sources about her career or biography. She seems to be known solely for her one role. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosha (subcaste)[edit]

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

Fails WP:V for lack of substantive reliable (ie NOT Raj-era) sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Surprisingly old article with no sources. Fails WP:V per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I thought we discouraged articles on castes. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there really should be a speedy delete option for one sentence stubs with no references. Alas. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pressley Hosbach[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent and/or significant coverage exists for this subject. The three sources used (YouTube, as well as her personal Instagram and TikTok pages) are unreliable. I also feel there might be some WP:COI issues here. Nevertheless, it's better for the community to make the final decision. Keivan.fTalk 03:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I've discounted the votes of sockpuppets. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G. Suresh Kumar[edit]

G. Suresh Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as current article lacking reliable sources INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely not appreciable as the nominator nominated the article for deletion. As I checked the user details of the nominator and I found that a user with just a year-old on Wikipedia (Not much experienced) and has just 1000+ edits also an extended confirmed user. Does he have the right to nominate an Articles?, because most of his edits on Wikipedia is Afd and still nominating development articles for deletion. According to the article, G. Suresh Kumar is one of the tops contributed Malayalam film producers and produced about 32 films. I accept that he has not much coverage in English that is why I had put a stub on the article and seek help to expand it. There are media coverages in regional languages also the IMDb. You can also check Revathy Kalamandhir which is his production banner. While improving the articles, Nominating the article for deletion is so disappointing and that kind of practice might affect the editor's interest in Wikipedia. Instead of nominating for deletion, he can try to improve the article. He nominated the article because it lacks source, but he can add a citation tag instead of doing it. I request to keep the article -Author- Ambili123 (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: Could you please explain the coverage of the article T. P. Madhavan (only 6 references cited, first one is not working, also cited facebook. Rest of them are not covering his notability.. then why did not take a nomination to get it deleted ?? Is that still falling under GNG? I suspect the nominator and User:Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla are closely connected. Suspecting Sockupuppetry. Ambili123 (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ambili123 T. P. Madhavan has acted in more than 600 films which makes him pass WP:NACTOR. Could you explain how G. Suresh Kumar passes NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER. BTW if you think Im a sock of the nominator, open an SPI rather than accussing me for it here. It is considered as a form of personal attack. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 20:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Striking comments by blocked sockpuppet: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: You don’t need to be worried. Nobody is attacking you personally. If I suspect you, definitely I will report it to the admins. Leave it!!

You told that he acted 600 films and I also know that he passes WP:NACTOR, but where is the reliable sources ? You said in case of G Suresh Kumar that it fails GNG, that’s why I wondered. As you are a Keralite, you also know him, If don’t please try to know about him, he haven't much english coverages. I have collected his informations from IMDb as well as other sources. Also he acted in 21 films as an actor. His production house is there on Wikipedia then why you two are opposing him. We know about him like you do in case of T.P Madhavan sir, also why you don't take actions against unesassary articles from this industry!! Do it!! Thank you. I'm not warring!! I'm just sharing the thoughts. How some impossible things are possible to someone!! Ambili123 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambili123, There are millions of articles in en-wik. Im not a WIKIGOD to identify the unnecessary articles and I dont have time for it. I only voted here because I came across it. And you are taking things to a wrong path here. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 20:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Striking comments by blocked sockpuppet: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable producer who has contributed significantly to malayalam films, instead of deleting this page, more creation needs.

Priyatungi (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This appears to be notable and should be retained.Advait (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Creation science#Creationist cosmologies. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist cosmologies[edit]

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

I last nominated this article for deletion in 2014. Since then, the article has gotten worse and the consensus on Wikipedia clearer for what fringe content deserves preserving and which needs trashing. In the case of this article, the vast majority of the content is sourced entirely to creationists. Because of the WP:FRINGE nature of the topic, we really need to find some independent evaluation of these ideas for them to be properly discussed at Wikipedia... but such sources are lacking. There are a few topics which have been mentioned by independent sources, but these can be safely discussed at creation science or Young Earth creationism. The detailed exploration of the minutiae of how various evangelical Christians try to square the circle of their religious faith with scientific facts cannot properly be handled by Wikipedia as we service only to repeat what has been identified as the verifiable and reliable ideas that have been noticed enough to be properly contextualized. This article cannot do that because most of the ideas are so marginalized as to be ignored. Thus, the article is essentially a WP:POVFORK of physical cosmology and also something of a synthetic amalgamation of ideas various creationists have about cosmology (you won't find any other reference on the planet which puts together all the different cosmologies creationists believe in as one coherent topic like this). All around, this is a pretty bad article and I don't see how it can ever get to the point of being salvageable. jps (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure whether to call it a POVFORK of physical cosmology, a worse version of creationism, or what exactly, but it's not adding value to the encyclopedia. Strip out the "references" to Answers in Genesis and the like, and there's just not much left at all. This page would need a complete overhaul to bring it up to a bare minimum of respectability, and even then it would be redundant with better articles that we already have. XOR'easter (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Creationism: while creationism is notable, an article already exists, making this article redundant. Per my other comment below, the various forms of Biblical creationism are already well covered in other subarticles and linked in a template. There also are other articles on cosmology. Moreover, this article that would be expected to be a WP:SPINOFF of a too-large section from the main article, is not that... Moreover, it's clear from the epoch of the first AfD, that thre was an effort to portray creationism as "branches of science", i.e. see creation geophysics that is now a redirect. —PaleoNeonate – 10:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm unclear, what's the specific WP:DEL-REASON for nominating this article? We have other pseudo-science articles on Wikipedia. Praemonitus (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasons 5, 6, and 8 all apply at the very least, with WP:NFRINGE being the relevant notability guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll accept reason 5 perhaps, but for number 6, people's stated beliefs can surely be reliably sourced. I'm skeptical about #8 because it appears well cited. WP:NFRINGE already states that the topic of Creationism is sufficiently notable. (I'm not propounding a belief in the same, just looking at it from a WP notability perspective.) Praemonitus (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't well cited at all. "References" from places like AIG violate WP:SECONDARY and WP:PROFRINGE. The topic of creationism is notable, which is why we have the article Creationism, but this artificial subdivision of the topic isn't. XOR'easter (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll look at it again tomorrow, but a problem I can see is that the article is really about biblical cosmology interpretations, when another article already exists as well, Biblical cosmology, that can include major interpretations... Yet another related article is Religious cosmology. And of course we already have Old Earth creationism, Day-age creationism, Young Earth creationism, Gap creationism, Progressive creationism and the {{Creationism sidebar}} template linking them. Perhaps if not deleted, this article could be a small disambiguation page to those as well? —PaleoNeonate – 08:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that that would be redundant with the Creationism article. Since creationists have to reject, well, most of science, their complaints about geology, physics, biology, cosmology, etc., all blend together. So, it's not really a good representation of the subject to split off the part where they complain about physical cosmology specifically. XOR'easter (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So obvious that I missed it... That makes sense, now when I check the creationism article, it links to this very article in YEC, specifically, claiming that this is about Usher's. This may explain some of the debates I saw on the talk page, pressure to change the article's scope. The original version was an unsourced collection-table. —PaleoNeonate – 10:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Religious cosmology. Fringe arguments aside, if it's already covered in Religious cosmology, there is no point to this article, as far as I can see. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (or merge somewhere) -- I am not a young earth creationist, and reject many of their views, but it is not appropriate to delete it just because is is a fringe view. This is a widely held viewpoint among a certain kind of evangelical Christian. IDONOTLIKEIT is not a ground for deletion. This is a properly written article, with a load of citations. A redirect to religious cosmology would not do, because each religion has its own ideas on the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A problem with separate articles on creationist cosmology, biology, geology etc is that schools that differ on one of these subjects might also differ on the others, so that the real taxonomy is of schools of creationism and not at any finer level. To "organize" creationism by scientific subtopics obscures that as well as being in itself a level of synthesis that creationism itself has not developed. For some of these topics the whole notion of "creationist X" is that sort of volunteered synthesis. So I think only an account of flavors of creationism (detailing for each one any noteworthy views on particular questions of cosmology, biology, history, etc) is suitable. Sesquivalent (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not redirect - I would expect an article called "Creationist cosmologies" to deal with various historical cosmological theories that were formulated from a creationist perspective. This is much broader than both Biblical cosmology and religious cosmology: see, e.g., Kaiser 1997, or Sedley 2007. While the literature on that is not enormous, it would be more than enough to base a separate article on. Since thus conceived, Creationist cosmologies is a notable subject that really deserves its own article, it should probably not redirect elsewhere based on a different, non-notable conception of it. Such a non-notable conception lies at the basis of the current article, which takes it to refer to contemporary creationist 'cosmologies' (in the contemporary context, this should really be 'pseudo-cosmologies'). Now in fact almost all of the text is taken up with an originally researched and largely conceptual refutation of creationist pseudo-cosmology, rather than with the descriptive presentation of actual pseudo-cosmological theories. This is likely due to the fact that creationist pseudo-cosmology itself is such a marginal phenomenon that independent secondary sources on it are all but non-existent. While sources like Numbers 1992, Numbers 2006 or Rosenhouse 2012 may contain some relevant info, this would at best perhaps be enough to expand the Creation science#Creationist cosmologies section a little. The fact of the matter is that there is just not enough scholarly interest in creationist pseudo-cosmology for independent reliable sources to produce significant coverage of it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not redirect - obscure sub-set of religious cosmologies, to the extent that there even are such things as creationist cosmologies separate from the regular cosmologies of the sects they come from (and I'm not convinced by reading this article that there are such things). --Orange Mike | Talk 03:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Creation science#Creationist cosmologies per WP:TNT; the useful material is largely on other topics addressed at Young Earth creationism, Old Earth creationism, and Answers in Genesis. Quite a bit of this also feels like WP:SYNTH. The one paragraph on the actual topic at Creation science#Creationist cosmologies is probably sufficient. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies per 力 above. Delete as an acceptable second choice. Ajpolino (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rubén Aguilar[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Completely unsourced and written like a mess. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOTCV. I don't see a firm basis for notability as written. LizardJr8 (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Cites no sources and is not even written like an article. Has been tagged as needing sources for a long time. The portrait being listed as original work hints that the original creator may have a COE or have been paid to write it. Half the article is just a list of his work. bop34 • talk • contribs 13:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_October_14&oldid=1051809237"