Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 24

Guide to deletion

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. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

MOBRO Marine, Inc.

MOBRO Marine, Inc. (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:NCORP. No indication of being notable as a shipyard. scope_creep^Talk 17:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Noting that the creator has been indeffed for running a massive spamsock farm. --Blablubbs|talk 17:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Unblocked again, not sure what happened there. --Blablubbs|talk 13:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Jalal Agha

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

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

Subject lacks references which demonstrate the significant coverage criteria of WP:GNG. Admittedly, there may be foreign language references available that other wikipedians may be able to find that are unavailable to me. Currently fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:NACTOR. Was a notable actor. Worked on 100 films. RationalPuff (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

RationalPuff From what I can tell, his roles were minor and not "significant" in just spot checking. He wasn't a leading actor. Just working in a bunch of movies doesn't automatically pass WP:NACTOR. You can demonstrate that they were significant by finding reviews that actually review his performance.4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I tried to clean and improve the article. Added several reliable sources. These should be enough to demonstrate WP:ACTOR. Other willing editors may wish to improve this further. RationalPuff (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. He may not have played leading roles but was a notable supporting actor and the article has enough references in it to keep it notable.Shakirfan (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Akshay KR Singh

Akshay KR Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article was deleted under A7 some time ago but there is a dubious claim to significant, which is why I'm bringing this here. Of the sources on the article, only No. 3 seems to mention him in any depth, not enough for notability under WP:GNG. I have not found substantial coverage of him and I'm unconvinced that, if coverage were to surface, he would be independently notable from the band. The article is also an autobiography. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Facts are independently verified and sources are authenticated, band and other wiki also have references of same article author. There’s no content of self promotion, page is not eligible for deletation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.36.125 (talk • contribs) — 223.225.36.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Checked: Proof exists no deletion requires — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.36.125 (talk) 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Outside of his own Linkedin and social media profiles, I can only find him mentioned very briefly in a few reports about the group Nizami Bandhu. Also, calling him a "member" of that group is misleading because he is their musical director and manager. His involvement with the group is mentioned at their article and that is sufficient. I can find no other evidence of notability in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• No Delete updated director instead of member, found him on music app and few YouTube music videos of Nooran Sisters and Nizami Bandhu and he’s also on some news portal for social worker. He’s Notable person but not only in music, found a few news links in Hindi and English.

• https://haryana.punjabkesari.in/haryana/news/social-worker-became-angel-for-needy-in-difficult-times-1388635
• https://www.updainikbhaskar.com/state/delhi/in-the-difficult-times-of-the-corona-epidemic-akshay-became-an-angel-for-the-needy/
• https://bhnnews.com/state/akshay-kr-singh-helping-people-during-covid-19-pandemic/?amp
• https://wap.business-standard.com/article-amp/news-ians/rajpal-yadav-to-endorse-celebration-management-company-116121600618_1.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.38.197 (talk) 27 June 2021 (UTC) — 223.225.38.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete I've reviewed the new sources proposed, and I'm less than convinced regarding the independence/reliability of punjabkesari and updainikhaskar. While I cannot read Hindi, there appear to be sentences that are verbatim repeated between the two sources, such as हऐसे कठिन समय में कई स्थानीय कलाकार ऐसे भी है जो एक समय का भोजन तक नहीं ले सकते हैं।, which machine-translates to In such difficult times, there are many local artists who cannot even take a single meal. There are other issues of extremely close paraphrasing/direct copying throughout the two documents, and अक्षय केआर सिंह ऐसे लोगों के लिए भोजन उपलब्ध करवा रहें है और अब उनकी यह सेवा केवल स्थानीय लोगों या कलाकारों तक सीमित नहीं, बल्कि वह शहर के 700 से अधिक जरूरतमंद लोगों तक, which machine translates to Akshay KR Singh is providing food for such people and now his service is not limited to only local people or artists, but he is reaching more than 700 needy people of the city. To me, it seems likely that these are related to some PR campaign, since it is extremely odd for an article to be written with similarities of that length. I'm unsure about the quality of the BHN source, though the company that runs it appears to be about one year old (and its contact email being [email protected] doesn't spur confidence in it being a longstanding company with a reputation for fact-checking and excellence). The source from the Business-Standard gives only a trivial mention of Singh. I concur with Modussiccandi regarding the sources on the page. As I'm not able to identify multiple, in-depth reliable sources that are independent from the source, I'm inclined to delete the page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Ambedkar Student Front of India

Dr. Ambedkar Student Front of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This political entity almost certainly fails WP:NORG. I searched for sources on Google, but got only namedrops in articles wholly unrelated to this organization. I'm surprised this page was patrolled in 2019 at NPP, when it should have been brought here at AfD. JavaHurricane 12:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 12:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 12:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Leading organisation in India representing Dalit students. In cases such as these, a BEFORE analysis should include searches in the appropriate local language(s). RS exists in Hindi; passes the GNG.

References

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I did a search myself but don't see anything that would satisfy WP:GNG. I also note that the creator with apparent COI was blocked for sockpupptery. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. The above sources which mostly concern some other subject only make passing mention of this non-notable organization. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Gervase Markham (programmer)

Gervase Markham (programmer) (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:BIO and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject is notable. He contributed to this book: https://books.google.com/books?id=G6ybAgAAQBAJ He is cited in the IEEE Xplore: ISBN 9-780-76952304-0. Actually, almost every other book about Mozilla mentions the subject. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• That book mentions him exactly twice in passing, and not even on "real" pages (xv and xvi). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Being one of 37 people listed as having contributed hacks, writing or inspiration to a book and being cited once are both way short of any notability standard. And why, if he is covered by almost every other book about Mozilla, does Google Books only find that mention and a nine-word long quote from the subject in the apparently self-published "How To Build Massive Subscriber, Membership and Social Media Lists" by Marc Charles, which appears not to even rise to the level of having an ISBN? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Google books lists many mentions: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q="Gervase Markham" Mozilla There are at least 6 matches on the first page. Anyway, not notable people are not cited by the IEEE. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I make it five mentions, and none goes beyond the simple fact that the subject worked for Mozilla. And if you want to get into citations, for which WP:PROF#C1 is the guideline, typically people who work in computer science need to have thousands of them before they are even considered to be possibly notable, not one. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You counted 5 mentions because the 6th book doesn't mention the subject and you assumed that the rest of the list doesn't either. If you keep scrolling you'll find more. If you really think that somebody needs thousands of citations in scientific journals, then why everybody knows Nicklaus Wirth, Richad Stallman, Donald Knuth? I know people who published dozens of computer science books and were never cited by the IEEE. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Because those people (if you spell their names correctly) do have thousands of citations to their work. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. I found this through the academics deletion sorting list, but for this sort of subject, academic notability is not really an option (because scholarly writing is not what he did, so it's unsurprising that he doesn't meet any criterion of a notability guideline based on that). The only reasonable option is WP:GNG. But the only thing we have in the article that looks like a published source about Markham is the Dr. Dobbs interview. There are some editors who think interviews shouldn't count for notability at all — I tend to disagree, but we should only count them when they go into some depth about the subject, rather than focusing on other topics, and this one is the kind of interview that's primarily about some other topic. It's also only one source and we need multiple sources. The passing mentions in books discussed above also don't add anything to the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• very weak keep. borderline GNG, the main issue is that the article does not clearly state the subjects claim to notability (instead talks about ancestry and him being the youngest employee at a company which does not qualify for notability). After reading the article, I am still not clear what the author really *did* that was notable, his role at Bugzilla should be more clearly elaborated in the article. On the other hand, Contributing to a book is not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. There is the German obituary on a probably notable site, there is the Dr Dobbs interview and the O'Reilly Open Source Award award which together make this a rather weak keep. --hroest 18:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• comment I also found this mention on LWN one of the leading open source outlets. I think overall there was enough coverage the substantiate the fact that he was an important contributor to Mozilla and Bugzilla and the community in general. --hroest

• I'm afraid I don't see how any of those qualifies as significant coverage in an independent reliable source. As regards the first, we seem to have many editors who don't even consider an obituary in The New York Times or The Daily Telegraph to be sufficient for notability, so one at a niche Linux web site would certainly not clear the bar. The Dr Dobbs interview is exactly that, an interview. I can't see any evidence that the award gets anywhere near WP:ANYBIO (once again, we even have people claiming that a knighthood is not enough). The LWN source just seems to consist of forum posts. Are you sure that you are not promoting systemic bias here in favour of people who work in the software industry, specifically those involved in open source projects? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The sources are not in depth enough to establish notability, and the subject does not appear to meet the criteria as an author, academic, etc. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The article has been around since 2006 and isn't really any less notable than most of the other members of Category:Mozilla_people or Category:Mozilla_developers. In fact, Markham's article is linked to by more articles than some of them, so there's certainly an opportunity to add more content. The work he did regarding browser PKI governance alone was fairly notable (even if it isn't well-known). It's possible that notability guidelines might need to be written for programmers and technologists, because most of them can't quite be compared to academics or creative professionals. dma (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is heading towards a no-consensus close – further comments would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, per the conversation above, the sources cited are nothing more than passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Tim Adams (politician)

Tim Adams (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 that does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete fails NPOL, GNG at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 15:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete mayors of cities that at present have a population of 54,000 are rarely notable, especially when the city is part of a sprawling urban county connected to a major metropolitan area as Prince Georges County Maryland is. Nothing here indicates that Adams is an exception to this general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NPOL Suonii180 (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, Mayors are not deemed automatically notable just because they exist, and as yet unelected candidates for state-level office don't get articles just for being candidates either. He would have to win the state comptroller election in November 2022, not just stand as a candidate in it, to stake his notability on the state comptroller position — but the notability of mayors is also not established just by single-sourcing their existence as mayors, but by writing and sourcing substantive content about the significance of his mayoralty: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. And no, "first [insert underrepresented group here] to serve as mayor of his own town" isn't an instant notability freebie either. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Pandya Store. Will also protect per disruption concerns. Daniel (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Akshay Kharodia

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

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

Unsourced article about an actor does not meet WP:NACTOR. A before search finds a couple of minor gossip column mentions of his forthcoming marriage, but nothing to indicate he is particularly notable. Prod removed, so taking to AfD. Laplorfill (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Redirect and protect article: WP:TOOSOON, does not meet WP:NACTOR, article isn't source, but a quick google searching didn't turn up anything with significant coverage Ravensfire (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: please reconsider this nomination for deletion. It would have been far simpler to revert to the prior redirect. In the absence of the nominator's reconsideration, my firm opinion is to revert to prior redirect Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sigh. Too late. Now we have to go through this unnecessary process, since we have a delete opinion, so a withdrawal is no longer possible. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  We also have an active sockpuppet edit warring to undo the redirect, and this will likely continue (as it has in the past). A clear decision at AfD will allow the option of CSD G4 if needed. So I disagree that this is unnecessary. Laplorfill (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  That is what WP:RPP is for, and WP:SPI but it is running now and will do what it will do Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Pandya Store per Timtrent, and protect to prevent further socky disruption. Pinging Ravensfire to see whether they would consider that an acceptable solution. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think that would be an ideal situation and have edited my comment accordingly. Ravensfire (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete an unsourced article on a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pandya Store. Restoration and protection of the redirect appears to be the more appropriate thing to do. The coverage he does have doesn't meet WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolute hot

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

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

PRODded by Quondum (talk · contribs) as a neologism originating in a NOVA epsiode that fails WP:NEO, and does not appear elsewhere. The deprodder, Jackattack1597 (talk · contribs), did not provide any sources that prove notability. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Absolute_hot.

The content is entirely about two different topics (Planck temperature and Hagedorn temperature) discussed separately, so it may fail WP:SYNTH as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as a poorly sourced neologism. It might become a notable term at some point, but definitely isn't at this point judging from how few sources there are for the term. SamStrongTalks (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This is a borderline case, but I deprodded it because I could find another reliable source mentioning the term ( This BBC infographic , which not only mentions it but includes it in the "headline" of the infographic. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as utterly failing WP:GNG: extremely few sources, none of them reliable, and then no more than an unscientific mention (the BBC link given by Jackattack1597 being an example). An exemplar of what does not belong in WP. —Quondum 00:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The BBC is a reliable source. A 'scientific' term doesn't have to be used scientifically to be considered notable, especially if it's been used by an influential source. Borderline keep. --jftsang 16:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft. Simple cruft. It's a non-notable neologism with passing mentions in gray-area-or-worse "references". None of the few items that searching has turned up constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. ("Futurism" is a schlock website for sensationalism, ScienceAlert is an aggregator that was literally just reposting an infographic that doesn't itself give a source for the term, etc.) These are the kind of marginal-to-outright-garbage "references" that might have just copied from Wikipedia themselves. Passing mentions in pop science aren't the kind of material we need to base an encyclopedia article upon. We don't need an article for a synonym for Planck temperature that scientists don't actually use. Actual scientific terminology has a far stronger presence than a pop-science infographic that doesn't even say where it got the term from. Headlines are not reliable sources, and for practical purposes, infographics are all headline. There are isolated cases where a topic becomes wiki-notable because the pop-science coverage was so intense that it overcame a dearth of peer-reviewed literature, but this is not one of them. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SYNTH of two totally different concepts that are covered in their own separate articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Per "adding two not notable topics does not make one notable" (WP:SYNTH). Cinadon36 10:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks any good source. It would be interesting if "absolute hot" were a thing, but it just isn't. The actual scientific concepts are Planck temperature and Hagedorn temperature, and joining them like this is WP:SYNTH as others have pointed out. Tercer (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Alan Cowen

Alan Cowen (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. Created by a new account who is apparently an WP:UPE (calls the subject Alan in edit summaries). Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The subject has one highly cited paper, but this is what I understand to be an extremely high citation field. I'm not seeing it as meeting WP:NPROF C1; indeed, it would be unusual if a 2019 PhD met NPROF. No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• (after edit conflict) Here is the subject's Google Scholar profile. The figures are not enough to give a pass of WP:PROF#C1 in these highly cited fields, and in particular I note that the article in Nature, which was cited in support of notability, has only attracted 15 citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Phil Bridger: Could you please clarify your remarks by "Comment", "Keep", or "Delete"?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• No. I believe that this is not a vote, and putting "Comment" before a comment is simply condescending in the extreme. Everything said here is obviously a comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete way to early in his career to meet academic notability under almost any circumstances, and he has not published some work that was so groundbreaking it gave him permannent notability all on its own, so he is not yet notable. Maybe in a few decades, but not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Way TOOSOON. I looked at his 17 coauthors and the 32 most recent coauthors of his 2 most frequent collaborators (cutoff of 5 papers).

Total citations: avg: 5318, median: 2322, Cowen: 373.

Total papers: avg: 84, med: 63, C: 17.

h-index: avg: 26, med: 22, C: 10.

Top citations: 1st: avg: 722, med: 378, C: 136. 2nd: avg: 372, med: 210, C: 59. 3rd: avg: 280, med: 157, C: 43. 4th: avg: 218, med: 133, C: 24. 5th: avg: 199, med: 114, C: 21.

Top first-author: avg: 511, med: 225, C: 136.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete clearly WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 16:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree this is UPE, and have blocked the author for it. This is not a good faith effort at writing an encyclopedia article. MER-C 13:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of whether this is UPE, we don't have enough evidence for WP:PROF or other forms of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Mark Rainey

Stephen Mark Rainey (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:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Unable to locate any reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - I have found nothing to substantiate the notability of this person other than a short mention in Asimov's SciFi magazine. The article sourcing is extremely weak: sales sites (Amazon, Crossroads), blogs, user-submitted sites (Goodreads, IMDb). Does not pass WP:GNG, nor the notability criteria mentioned in th nomination. Netherzone (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" !vote is not policy-based. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

World Class Schools Quality Mark

World Class Schools Quality Mark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is about a UK charity, which awards the title of "World Class School" to UK schools that meet their requirements, but I don't believe that the subject of the article passes WP:NCORP. The article is currently supported entirely by the charity's listing in the UK Charity Commission register (primary), and the charity's website (affiliated). I searched for better sourcing, but found nothing that was independent, secondary and reliable. There are lots of hits from websites that have been awarded its 'World Class School' status (affiliated), and lots of obvious press releases in the local newspapers covering the fact that a local school has been awarded the status (affiliated), but that's about it. The best I found was this article, which is published by a magazine which describes itself as being "written by teachers, for teachers", and is distributed free to secondary schools in the UK (unreliable). Note that searching for sources is somewhat tricky: the phrase "world class schools" is very generic, and comes up in all sorts of obviously reliable scholarly sources; none of them, as far as I can tell, are about this particular entity, they are all about the much more general concept of a world class school. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Reason for Creation

I created this article solely because of a number of articles about schools which claimed this award, and thought that Wikipedia would want to know more about it. I have created a number of articles on this basis. The award of the mark to an individual school is reported in many local newspapers, but I do not think they give any more information than that provided by the charity itself. However if a reader of such a paper wonders what the mark is, then they might turn to Wikipedia. At least they will find it is legitimate in the sense of being a registered UK charity, which submits annual reports and accounts. I have no particular brief or personal knowledge of the organisation. Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• To respond to this, without wanting to cast any shade on Chemical Engineer, who I am sure was acting in good faith: simply existing and being mentioned in existing articles is not enough to warrant an article. I've spent quite a bit of time looking for proper coverage of this scheme, and I've come to the conclusion that it's nothing more than a marketing badge. A school applies for the award when they meet the criteria; the charity gives the school the award; the school puts out a press release; and that's it. Unless anyone can dig up any decent sources giving the scheme significant coverage, I think that what we need to be doing is removing mention of it from our articles about British schools, rather than amplifying their PR push. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete From what I can tell this a fake award being used by schools as a paid for PR tool. There assessment criteria for who qualifies for their "award" are obviously crap that any school can easily meet. Same goes for the horrible state of available (or really non-existent) references. I totally agree with Girth Summit that the proper thing to do, instead of having an article about this, is to remove mentions of it from articles about British schools. Although, I don't put that on the article creator. I probably would have rolled the dice and created an article for it myself. Since sometimes you can't really tell what works or doesn't on here until after the fact and sometimes it makes sense at the time to create articles about things that are mentioned a lot in other articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Piyadasa Ranasinghe

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

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

Party apparatchik, never voted into or held public office and therefore fails WP:NPOL. Bibliography not referenced in article, dubious whether sources are RS in any case. Books search throws up an academic, not this gentleman. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I reviewed this and thought it would be a borderline GNG pass rather than NPOL which it certainly doesn’t pass. Mccapra (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Analysis of this type of biography is difficult because of language and cultural divides. The application of NPOL to this person would be incorrect - he was not a politician in the sense of somebody that participates in the political process of the state. He was a revolutionary in a leadership role of a communist party dedicated to overthrowing the political process of the state. In either case, WP:GNG compliance seems established by significant coverage in Silumina, an apparent Sinhalese weekly news outlet, and Lankadeepa, another Sinhalese news outlet. There is no reason to reject these as non-RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, largely per Eggishorn. He doesn't pass WP:NPOL, but the substantial coverage in two major Sinhalese press outlets is, in this case, sufficient to pass the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Jameh Mosque of Saveh. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The minaret of the Mosque Jame - Saveh

The minaret of the Mosque Jame - Saveh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This minaret is part of the Jameh Mosque of Saveh, and that article already has most of the information in this article. In objecting to my PROD nomination, the page creator raised the point that the minaret is not physically attached to the mosque, but sources treat it as part of the mosque complex, e.g.: This majestic mosque comprises of a courtyard, porch, minarets, a few nocturnal areas, dome and two archaic altars with inscription in Kufic script. [1] The minaret is not sufficiently independent of the mosque to warrant its own article. Rublov (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rublov (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rublov (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Rublov (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to the mosque article. Structure is associated with the mosque complex and can be described there. Hog Farm _Talk 15:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Merge >>> Jameh Mosque of Saveh. Djflem (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, The article meets notability for the following reasons:

1. This article already stands on its own in Wikipedia Persian and Wikipedia Arabic and has notability.

2. This minaret itself is registered in Iran's National Heritage (as explained in the article).

3. The minaret is outside the mosque and not a part of it.

4. In Iran and neighboring countries minarets normally have their own history and purpose, separate from the surrounding., Alex-h (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

References

• Merge to Jameh Mosque of Saveh per other merge recommendations. Looking at Google Maps, the minaret appears to be on the mosque grounds just a few feet away; this article is called The minaret of the Mosque Jame - Saveh which certainly suggests a close connection to the mosque. Contrary to the idea that in Iran minarets have their own history and purpose separate from mosques, the sources cited by Alex-h say "The minarets in Iran after converting to Islam have become parts and parcels of the mosques ...." [2] and "Basically, a minaret is a slender tower built at the side of a mosque ...." [3]. Both the article about the minaret and the article about the mosque are short and merging the two would be more helpful than keeping them separate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • By the way, if this minaret really were a separate topic from the mosque, wouldn't it have a separate name of its own? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Merge. I can see no value whatsoever in having two separate articles. The minaret is clearly considered to be part of the mosque, even if it stands on its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Jameh Mosque of Saveh as it was suggested Mardetanha (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Start-Up (South Korean TV series). Daniel (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Two Words (Wendy song)

Two Words (Wendy song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Although released as a single, the song does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. Sources like this constitutes press release. The recording has appeared on the Gaon Digital Chart at 143 but has not been certified or received major accolades. The fact that the song has charted or is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability requires independent evidence, and charting alone does not indicate that a song is notable. As an alternate to deletion, I am fine with a redirect to the drama article Start Up. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• REDIRECT I'm fine with redirecting. The article seems to be too short and is in line with your comments regarding not having a substantial coverage. Thank you. ReVeluv02 (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect only charting doesn't make a song notable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) doktorb _words^deeds 22:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

United Kingdom by-election records

United Kingdom by-election records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Largely uncited, unsourced, listicle of cruft, trivia, and miscellaneous items. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground of all this random stuff. doktorb _words^deeds 17:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep but revise. The article certainly has issues but it's a bit unclear why it's been proposed for deletion by the user who has made over 20% of the last 500 edits. Have they only just noticed? Could they not have addressed these issues with some of these edits? It seems the issues would be better dealt with by removing unsourced material and trivia, and perhaps splitting the article, rather than removing the information in its entirety. Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ted Park

Ted Park (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, coverage limited to primary sources and an article in a student newspaper Dexxtrall (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Can't find any coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable singer, rapper, and songwriter Rondolinda (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Suvodeep Chatterjee

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Suvodeep Chatterjee
• Articles for deletion/Suvodeep Chatterjee (2nd nomination)

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

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

Does not meet standards of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Awards won do not rise to the level required, and the one supposedly granted by Barack Obama is not evidenced in the sources. ... discospinster _talk 17:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Can't find any coverage in reliable sources. NickCT (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The notability here is sketchy. The fact that grainy photographs of the actual award certificates appear in some sources points to the fabrication of sources. I don't think we will lose anything by not having an article on the Guinness World Record holder for the most painted handprints (65 in one minute). --- Possibly ☎

Let's add salt to that. There was a deletion discussion seven years ago for Suvodeep chatterjee (lower case) that is not listed above and claimed to be the second deletion discussion. That means this is potentially the fourth AfD. There are multiple blocked socks associated with these creations. Salting Suvodeep chatterjee, suvodeep chatterjee, Suvodeep chatterjee (artist) and Suvodeep Chatterjee (artist) seems appropriate, although one can imagine that Suvodeep chatterjee (somethign else) will be next. --- Possibly ☎ 19:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The hidden AfDs are Suvodeep chatterjee (1st nomination) and Suvodeep chatterjee (2nd_nomination). --- Possibly ☎ 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete questionable notability, lacks in-depth coverage in RS to satisfy GEN or ANYBIO. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I agree the previous deletions are authentic that were held in 2013. And its a long time. I am aware of these AFDs already and same are mentioned on article's talk page just before creating the article. Now the subject clearly passes WP:ANYBIO on the ground of many notable awards like Guinness World Records, Limca Book of Records and Kentucky Colonel honors. I would also like to ping Explicit who recently declined a speedy here. Johnson Wagart (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Guinness World Records will authenticate any record that someone pays them to (see Guinness World Records#Change in business model). Likewise with the Limca Book of Records, which is basically a way for them to promote themselves. Being a Kentucky Colonel is not as prestigious as it sounds. ... discospinster _talk 15:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly passes WP:THREE. The best resources that are from reliable references and independent of the subject are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. On the basis of WP:THREE it passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Johnson Wagart (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Again, these are not much more than vanity publications. You can do pretty much anything and have yourself declared a record holder. ... discospinster _talk 15:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Johnson Wagart is the author of this article, which says (or rather said, as I deleted it) that Barack Obama gave this guy an award. The funny thing is, the source (in Bengali, with lots of original photos of the award) did not say that. There is no record of Obama ever giving this guy an award. The award memntioned is actually the "Presidential Champions Platinum Award", which is an award anyone in the world could get by self-reporting their physical fitness activities to a website. This was all based on the honour system. Since anyone could get it, it's no surprise that Suvodeep Chatterjee got right in there and applied. Regarding the Kentucky award, that is a silly thing that you pay for; they use the funds raised or philanthropy. This Wall Street Journal article says that Governor Beshear gave made 100,000 into Kentucky Colonels while he was in office for eight years. That means they gave out about 250 Kentucky colonel awards a week, or about one every ten minutes, for eight years running. In conclusion, the only thing I get from reading this article is that someone out there has an extremely strong urge to promote this individual. This latest version of the article is part of that promotional campaign. --- Possibly ☎ 08:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Please Note, as per User:discospinster 1 this is the vanity publication.Johnson Wagart (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnson Wagart: for a two-day old account, you are doing really well! You have used Twinkle to launch two other AfDs, citing appropriate reasons, and above you are arguing notability based on WP:THREE! How did you gain so much competence in only 48 hours? --- Possibly ☎ 08:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 of Asom Barta Cabayi (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Asom Barta

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

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

This paper fails WP:GNG. All three references are primary sources. Two are press releases. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tonay Borah. Infobox illustration (at time of this nomination) is up for deletion on Commons as a copyvio. This is Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Salt. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The Dusty Chaps

The Dusty Chaps (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 results on WorldRadioHistory.com were ads for their label and passing mentions in the context of other works. All of the hits on Newspapers.com were sporadic local coverage in Tucson's newspaper. None of the albums charted, nor did any of the singles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The Chaps were a band of note in the Southwest in their time, on their own and as an influence on others. Still performing occasionally. They were chosen for the first Route 66 anthology for good reason. The article does need a good bit of fleshing out, with good references. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Barefoot through the chollas: Liking them is not a reason to keep. I just pointed out that there are no good references because they so thoroughly slipped under the radar. The coverage I found from the Tucson paper is just routine "this band is performing at this spot" coverage. Literally zero coverage in any other state. None of the major music magazines of the day gave them so much as a passing mention, save for ads by their label. None of that is reliable coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not here to bicker. I'm here to suggest keep, for the reasons I gave. I saw what you had written, and as you see above, I said nothing about liking/not liking. I did say that the article needed fleshing out, with good references (obviously, there's a huge chasm between "I haven't found" good references and "there are no" good references). Paciencia. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Here are some other sources towards meeting WP:SIGCOV: [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. There's likely offline reviews in Billboard, Variety, Rolling Stones, etc.4meter4 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Some further offline sources include:

Enthal, Andrea (May 1, 1986). "UNDERGROUND". Spin. 2 (2): 38-39.

Mcdonough, Jack (April 22, 1978). "Talent: 'Different' Direction For Axton On Disks. In Clubs". Billboard. 90 (16): 64.

"Top Album Picks: Billboard's Recommended LPs". Billboard. 90 (8): 86, 88. February 25, 1978.

Nelson, Pat (May 20, 1978). "Singles Still Crucial For Country Careers". Billboard. 90 (20): 1, 58, 62.

Cooper, B. Lee (December 1, 2008). "Honky Tonks, Jukeboxes, and Wild, Wild Women: Audio Images of Blue-Collar Night Life-A Selected Discography". Popular music and society. 31 (5): 663–683.

Davis, Maia (21 November 1993). "Banjo-Plucking Teacher Shows His Other Side". Los Angeles Times. p. Ventura West Edition, 3A.

Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• @4meter4: so are you going to add them? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Not at the moment. I have other projects I'm more interested in at present. Feel free to add any sources I posted here.4meter4 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comments: I am having a problem with general notability considering WP:BAND. I ran across one source that states Domino Joe ranked 27,597. Almost close to the top but which "one" of the criteria (of 12) does it pass? -- Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the question re Domino Joe. But of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles, they satisfy 1, 5, 7, and 10 that I know of. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - meets NMUSIC#5, with two albums on a MAJOR label. SIGCOV in independent, reliable, sources (Have Not Been The Same), Billboard reviewed an album [8], and newspaper coverage not local to Tuscon [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. This was just skimming the top of non-Tuscon articles at newspapers.com. Clearly meets GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I consider Ten Pound Hammer to be an expert on country, but I think the Billboard review is a step in the right direction. I agree that most of the newspaper sources (that I can view) are from AZ. The 1983 Rolling Stone Record Guide indicates that the Dusty Chaps were reviewed in the previous guide (maybe 1979?), so perhaps there are some things from actual 1970s Rolling Stones as well... (edit conflict) Caro7200 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: per 78.26's provided references. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #4; the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a previously blocked account. No prejudice against renomination by a non-sock editor. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Rahul Mahajan

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Rahul Mahajan
• Articles for deletion/Rahul Mahajan (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Rahul Mahajan (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Rahul Mahajan (blogger)

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

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

it fails WP:GNG and has lack of reliable sources and also fails WP:NACTOR. He is also not notable only has been in reality shows like Bigg Boss. Preetykaur761 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Apphia Clara Manjoro

Apphia Clara Manjoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Set out to try and edit this mess of an article but am not convinced that it meets WP:GNG. Sources are limited to those covering her death, and several make only passing reference to her when discussing her husband Dexxtrall (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Sources are limited, it seems the article doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Article is more about the subject's causes. No in-line references WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nomination is so erroneous (literally showing GNG) that it has not a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and could just as well be also speedily kept by WP:CSK no. 3 (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
• Articles for deletion/The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (2nd nomination)

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (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 don’t understand why citations 7 through 11 are even being referenced or what their relevance to the subject of the article is as they mostly do not mention any keywords such as “skeptic,” “podcast,” or “Novella.” Novella is mentioned in passing a couple times but never in connection to the podcast. As far as I can tell the two Skeptical Inquirer articles are the only sources that aren’t self-published or from a blog, social media, or other unreliable source. However, these two articles are written by journalists (Rob Palmer and Susan Gerbic) who aren’t particularly well known from a magazine that isn’t particularly well known. It's also worth noting that these authors are part of "the Guerilla Skeptcism on Wikipedia team" according to the profile information at the bottom of both articles. These sources are also in interview format so almost all the information is directly coming from the hosts of the show as opposed to an independent or secondary source. I searched around for some sources that might indicate some level of notability, but the only sources I could find that had more than a trivial mention include book riot, The Hindu Buisness Line, Business Insider, and Thrillist. These sources only dedicate a short paragraph to the podcast and I’m unconvinced that the topic meets WP:GNG. The podcast won some People’s Choice Awards, which might qualify it for WP:WEBCRIT but the guideline says that an article “may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria” not that it’s guaranteed. Also, the People’s Choice Award is arguably not a “well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization”. If someone would like to add the sources I found to the hosts’ articles that might be worth the time, but I don’t think anything from this article is salvageable so I’m not sure that would even count as a merge.If the podcast is determined to be notable enough for a stand alone article I still think the majority of the article needs to be rewritten and given the available sources wouldn’t be much more than a stub. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The Skeptical Inquirer has been in publication for over forty years, has an international distribution and is widely regarded as one of the foundational publications of modern skepticism. To describe it as "not particularly well known" as part of an AfD argument strains credulity. The further claim that those two cites are the only independent ones is just blatantly false: I count 12 independent sources cited in the references.

The complaint about cites 7-11 above would have taken a single mouse click to verify: they're about one of the podcast's hosts, and are properly used to support content about that host. The claim that they don't contain the word "Novella" is categorically false. They're all about Steven Novella.

The complaints here about the Podcast Awards are even more strange. We have an article about them which has survived an AfD and is well-sourced, yet they're somehow not notable? That's an oxymoron.

The fact that even the nominator managed to find 4 references which aren't currently used in the article demonstrates rather clearly that there's no lack of sourcing (and thus, no lack of notability) here.

Finally, I'd like to draw any other editor's attention to the last AfD and the result: Unanimous "Keep". Have the sources which supported it then since ceased to exist? No. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - This podcast handily passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Here are several secondary WP:RSes which cover the subject in moderate-to-heavy depth at a national level. But here are also some local sources with even more significant coverage of the subject. It's also featured often as a "top listen" in features about science podcasts. Their book has been reviewed in national outlets. As a news/entertainment organization, they also pass WP:AUD with a whopping 132 million downloads and 100,000 weekly listeners. So, in my interpretation of the relevant WP:PAG, it's an obvious keep.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Remarkably, it's on several current Top Ten Science Podcasts lists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Shibboleth. "A magazine that isn’t particularly well known"? Pull the other one. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep When the AfD nomination lists multiple independent sources, one has to ask why we are even bothering with this. I mean literally one could vote "Keep per nom" without any trace of irony. This should be SNOW withdrawn by the nominator, followed by a light trouting. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Hyperion35 for introducing me to the term trouting. This is precisely what I needed in my life this fine Thursday.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it refers to WP:TROUT; the act of smacking someone in the face with a dead fish.

Which, now that I think about it, is far worse than what's described in your link.

And it gets better! You can also get whaled. Which is, of course, far better than getting whaled. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow yeah I would much rather get Urban Dictionary trouted than smacked in the face with a dead fish. The former is is a child's game, the latter is a recipe for giving somebody FACE GANGRENE. /s --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm stealing FACE GANGRENE for the name of my new Grindcore band. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

References

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Winifred Barker

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

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

Lacks enough significant coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. This kind of content might be better housed as part of a List of recipients of the Colonial Police Medal rather than in a stand alone article that can never develop due to lack of sources. 4meter4 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I think the nominator has fundamentally misunderstood something here. Her notability has nothing whatsoever to do with her holding the CPM, a fairly minor award. She is notable because she was the head of the Women's Branch of the Metropolitan Police, and was thus by far the most senior female police officer in the UK at a time when there were very few policewomen in the world. Only four people ever held this position and they were all notable. Given the prominence of her position, there will certainly be print sources out there if anyone is able to find them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Necrothesp That may be, but is there a source verifying that as a fact and affirming its significance? Otherwise that's an original claim which we can't make per WP:No Original Research. Ultimately we need sources saying that to prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I wrote that article long before Wikipedia became obsessed with sourcing. I believe I got the information from The Times, but I can't currently get access to the website. I'll try to see what I can find, but I have provided a citation as to her post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. I cannot find any significant coverage of her at all. The sources in the article mention her only trivially: the first one is simply a death index; the second mentions her exactly once in a brief note on a timeline; the third ([14]) just says "Other women among almost 600 present were the Chief Superintendent of the Women's Metropolitan Police, Miss Winifred Barker..." and continues to list other names; the fourth ([15]) mentions her in passing ("he was to have had a chat with Superintendent Winifred Barker, head of the Island's Women Police"); and so on. The article cobbles together probably most of the trivial mentions of her out there, but none of them say anything useful or constitute significant coverage. If another article could be found that this could be merged into, I'd be in support of that, but I don't know where it would fit. Aerin17 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Aerin17 Exactly what I was thinking. What might be better would be an article on the Women's Branch of the Metropolitan Police itself as opposed to a bunch of mini biographies. This could potentially be a subsection at Metropolitan Police as well.4meter4 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep This may have come up already, but I just had a look and she's mentioned in a Telegraph article here (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/law-obituaries/8949477/Shirley-Becke.html), but behind a paywall so I can't read it I'm afraid. Could I apologise in advance because I don't know the correct way to comment here at all, just stumbled on this. Persicifolia (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Persicifolia, I was able to access an archived version of the obituary ([16]). Unfortunately, it seems that it is just another trivial mention and doesn't particularly contribute to her notability. Aerin17 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

comment She seems to appear on pp. 197-200 of Joan Lock, The British Policewoman: Her Story (1979). Furius (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Notable as a senior woman police office in the Met Police in the 1960s, she was also awarded the Queen's Police Medal in 1965 https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/43529/supplement/32 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Piecesofuk: Well spotted. I'd missed that one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge to History of the Metropolitan Police Keep - per the sources reviewed in this discussion, my own research, and the sources in the article, WP:BASIC notability does not appears to be established for a standalone article, even with the Queen's Police Medal, and there does not seem to be a suitable article available for a merge at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Updated per Furius, and there is a 2015 edition of the book Furius cited that may be helpful for the merge generally and specifically for Winifred Barker. Beccaynr (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Updated per sources found by SusunW. Beccaynr (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• If we go down the redirect route, I think that it should be a redirect and merge to History of the Metropolitan Police (which currently doesn't mention the A4 Women's branch). Furius (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• COMMENT: There is a significant bio of her here[17] as well as other articles which confirm details of her career[18] and [19] There are 1/2 a dozen entries in this book[20], which while they are name checks, indicate she was a honoured guest at the Savoy's annual Woman of the Year luncheon, which was an exclusive event. SusunW (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I have expanded the article with the information I posted above and note that she appears to meet WP:BASIC. I think it is clear we have refuted the nominator's suggestion that the article can't be further developed. The issue here is that she lived in the pre-internet age and during the period where copyright is still in play and many sources are not digitized. I do not have access to a library, but hopefully someone can find Lock's The British Policewoman: Her Story (1979), as indicated by Furius. I also do not have access to British newspapers, other than as I indicated. Checking with editors who do, I was informed that the Gloucester Citizen which is likely where an obit of her was published, has not been fully digitized for availability on line. SusunW (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Enough independent secondary sources have been located to verify and confirm notability. Therefore my suggested course of action is to keep the article and build on it, if needed. --ARoseWolf 12:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ares Galaxy

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. None of the four sources provided in the article and on the talk page are both reliable and in-depth. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Moulovir Char High School

Moulovir Char High 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)

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES "following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG." Other than some listing site or passing mention, I didn't found any significant coverage in reliable sources about this school. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Page was created back in 2016. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  Brascoian When a page was created has no relevance in determining whether it is kept or deleted. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not nearly enough sourcing to justify an article on an organization. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, so we do not keep old articles just because they have been awhile. 2016 is actually fairly recent in Wikipedia time anyway. We currently have a deletion discussion on a 2002 created article alleging it is a hoax, and another proposed deletion on a 2005 created article suggesting it is a hoax. The ratio of the size of Wikipedia to the amount of editors who patrol against such problems, plus our failure to have an adequate process to screen articles while in creation has lead to this problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Then there are people like me who actually submit articles to AfC. I did so back in Feburary, and the article is still not reviewed. We have over 4,000 articles in AfC waiting for review. We need more editors to become AfC reviewers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I swear I voted on this already, but apparently I didn't. Given that that though, I'm going to skip the long winded rant about why this isn't notable and instead just say that I agree with Johnpacklambert about why it should be deleted. Hopefully that's good enough. If not, then "blah blah blah, fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG/Whatever..Etc. etc." ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Single Speed World Championship

Single Speed World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As the article itself states, this competition "is not sanctioned by any governing body" and "has little organization", and I cannot see that WP:SPORTSEVENT is met. I'm sure it is great fun for everybody involved, but of the many details that have been added to the article, almost nothing is sourced. I have looked for sources, and have found some articles about individual events such as this and this, but the coverage is all about how unofficial/irreverent/silly it is, and that is not much to base an article on. I think the best piece of coverage is this article from New York Times, but it is from 2008 and with no sustained coverage of the championship and no significant coverage in multiple sources I don't think that WP:NEVENTS or WP:GNG is met either. bonadea contributions talk 14:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete The competitors do not seem to meet notability criteria, the nature of the article seems to lend itself to anecdotal recount rather than analytical description in encyclopaedic tone if the content of the article is anything to judge by. Regardless of the ability of the athletes, this is not run as a high level sports championship, but as an informal jamboree. Kevin McE (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Midfield quartet

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

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

Contrary to what the article claims, a "midfield quartet" is just the 4 players making up the midfield in e.g. a 4-4-2 or a 5-4-1 (can also be in other sports of course). Which is just a dictionary definition.[21] No reason to create a novel definition for something rather mundane. Fram (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Not just the 4 players making up the midfield, midfield quartet article should be understood in the context of the Golden generation article

No, you claim that the term "midfield quartet" is used for an exceptional quartet, while in reality it is used for any such quartet. A "golden generation", on the other hand, is by definition an exceptional group (though, as with most such terms, it gets used way too often). It's not as if anyone is ever going to say "My God, these aren't just four midfield players, they are a midfield quartet!" or anything similar. Fram (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

OK I made a mistake about article name, I changed the article name to golden quartet and cited new sources. Thanks for your advice. Footwiks (talk)

You shouldn't move articles in the midst of an AfD, and you should be a lot more careful when sourcing stuff: your first source for the "golden quartet" of Zico, Socrates et al. mentions both "golden quartet" and "Zico", but isn't about this golden quartet[22], while your second source for the same supposed golden quartet doesn't use the term "golden quartet"[23]. And "golden quartet" isn't linked to football especially, every group of 4 people who together are seen as exceptional can be labeled "golden quartet", just like there are "golden trio's" and so on (e.g. for football, the golden trio Messi, Xavi and Iniesta is a much more common term than these golden quartets). Fram (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - even with the name change, this feels like a WP:NEOLOGISM that is only used in passing in a couple of articles, it doesn't warrant an article Dexxtrall (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to BBC News article. Reliable source - BBC used golden quartet in 2003. I don' think that this term is NEOLOGISM.Footwiks (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete clearly not a notable concept. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I have reverted the undiscussed move by @Footwiks:, which happened after the AFD was opened. If it happens again I will block Footwiks. GiantSnowman 19:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - as above, not needed. GiantSnowman 19:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete just a dictionary definition for using 4 midfielders. Not any thing here worth merging into the midfielder article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The whole article seems pointless and trivial, WP:OR ? I agree with the main AfD assessment by Fram for deletion. Govvy (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted. Daniel (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Palauni Tapusoa

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

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

Does not have SIGCOV, and as far as I can tell does not meet the football notability standard. The two matches in OFCCL were in the preliminary round. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep In my opinion the person have been part of Utulei Youth and is currently playing for Pago Youth. He have played 2 matches in OFC Champions League and have did 3 goals in these 3 matches. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 13:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  Playing for teams that play in an amateur league, the FFAS Senior League.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  To make this point clear: they would pass the "spirit" of WP:NFOOTY if the OFC Champions League matches were between 2 fully professional teams, but both teams were amateurs. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Keeping in mind that this article is a stub. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note After Reading through WP:SPORTS He is a Professional sports person. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Brascoian have you got any sources showing in-depth coverage of Tapusoa? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. not enough coverage to pass NFOOTBALL. Rondolinda (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG, 2 appearances in the OFC Ch:ampions League does not confer an "automatic" notability, especially when the matches were between amateur teams. 08:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - amateur footballer with no WP:SIGCOV anywhere as far as I can see. Please ping me if anyone manages to find some Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Kurt Wesley

Kurt Wesley (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 secondary references. Best source I could find in a BEFORE was [24] and that only gives four sentences of brief coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I couldn't find any notable sources searching via the ProQuest database of Australian and NZ newspaper articles, just 5 mentions of his name in brief listings of triathlons in local/regional newspapers. Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, no relevant achievements and correspondingly, no significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. The delete comments only argued that the subject being the oldest WWII vet does not inherently make him notable, which is true and not debated. All other editors determined the article passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in more than three reliable, independent sources, leading to a consensus of Keep. (non-admin closure)—FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 06:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Lawrence Brooks (American veteran)

Lawrence Brooks (American veteran) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Being the oldest known surviving American World War II veteran does not make him wiki worthy ThurstonMitchell (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete no basis for notability/WP:1E. There will always be an oldest veteran of every war and then they'll die and someone else will become the oldest veteran and so on until all the veterans are dead, that doesn't make any of them notable even if they do attract brief media attention.Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed. While it is remarkable he has lived this long, that in and of itself is not necessarily wiki worthy. More interesting would be what he did while in the military and what he did with his life since. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Subject has extensive significant coverage in reliable sources (National Geographic, CBS News, etc.), which makes him notable per WP:BASIC. Rogermx (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Roger, I can’t remember the guy’s name but there was someone on one of the American National morning news shows that would give shout outs to centenarians having birthdays that day. Ok, so you were mentioned on a national network news show. But being wished a happy 105th birthday is much different than a feature about your actions on the battle field. And as written, this article simply indicates he is the oldest veteran of his era. That is not inherently notable. ThurstonMitchell (talk)|
• Keep- Full disclosure: I am the creator of this article, so my vote is probably not unexpected. Lawrence Brooks has received significant independent media coverage, including a full article in National Geographic. If anybody reading this has a National Geographic subscription, I would appreciate it if they could add information from it into this article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Significant media coverage from well know and reliable sources and such passes WP:Basic. There also exists a precedent for such Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robley Rex. Jamesallain85 (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He looks in great shape for 111. I know this because I've read some of the coverage. And it's the coverage which matters per WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Plenty of people look great for the age. When it comes to Wiki, that is meaningless. And you could be written up multiple times in local publications for being the tiddlywinks champion of the elementary school you attend but the coverage for something like that doesn’t mean you deserve an article here. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• The nominator's heckling is not persuasive as we already have articles about tiddlywinks champions such as Larry Kahn. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete – About a decade ago we were measuring the last WWI veterans. We are nowhere near that point with WWII veterans yet. The oldest WWII veteran at this particular moment in time is not notable. Being the oldest of a particular accolade does not grant sufficient notability to be considered eligible for a separate article within an encyclopaedia. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, if there was only coverage about him in relation to his birthday, that would be a WP:BLP1E fail, but there is coverage out there for other reasons. The NatGeo article is a good example, and I also found this in the The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate, which provides SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Then edit the article to share the information. This is a site to share information not keep it secret. Include the wiki worthy information in the article. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Notability is based around the existence of coverage, not whether that coverage is in the article as of yet. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: GNG is very easily met. But the page as it stands isn't doing anyone any favours. Since this is a BLP it should be built up quickly. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. As written, there are enough sources to meet GNG, and below are 4 more clippings. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80806435/wwii-veteran-turns-107-with-a-party-in-n/
• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80807390/wwii-veteran-turns-107-in-nola/
• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80806849/wwii-vet-celebrates-his-107th-anniversar/
• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80807062/wwii-veteran-celebrates-110th-anniversar/

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 14:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Tomasz Kamusella

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

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

The article was created and heavily edited by the subject themselves. Much of the language reads like puffery and I am unsure just how well-sourced it is (as I am not sure some of it is even actually about him). Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• ... but all looks sourced. Let’s take a closer look at it. I’ll be back with my opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Of the few I checked none seem to be reviews, they are all link to the books (or publishers) site or other book selling sites, as I said above there seems to be a degree of classic cite spam going on.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

    There are several reviews of one book listed in a WP:PROMO fashion at the end of the "Academic career" section. I'll go to move them to the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

    • So the book might be notable?Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

      • Slatersteven, At least one (I name below) clearly is. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• keep he has multiple scholarly reviews for his books: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] which are enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR and his GS shows hundreds of citations which make him pass the bar for WP:NPROF. The article may need an overhaul especially with the list of books being half of it but should not be deleted. --hroest 14:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - after a closer look, I equal with the nominator’ judgments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the multiple published reviews identified by hroest. I find this argument more convincing than the NPROF argument also made by hroest. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: The article needs a major overhaul and is the puffiest of puff's, and really should be re-written by someone other than the subject of the article. Oy, why am I not surprised. Anyway, I am of the view that he fails at WP:PROF but does pass by WP:AUTHOR per others research, and therefore should be kept. Tautomers_{(T C)} 03:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep. At least one of his books (The politics of language and nationalism in modern Central Europe) is clearly notable (several academic reviews). He would be kept on pl wiki which is more inclusive for European academics (due to treating habilitation as sufficient). He is probably notable. That said, as COI was already mentioned, I'll point to User_talk:Hyrdlak#Tomasz_Kamusella (it seems that the article was started by the subject themselves, and even edited quite recently). Some COI tags may be necessary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I see a pass of WP:NAUTHOR here, with at least three books that are reviewed, one significantly. (The reviews for two are in the article, there is also this review [32] ). The WP:NAUTHOR case is not so strong as I expected, but I think it's enough to not WP:TNT the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Lyster (British Army officer)

Thomas Lyster (British Army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't inherit military notability from Charles George Gordon, and his book With Gordon in China doesn't appear to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 09:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Zaza Amarov

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

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

This is also up for deletion in Russian Wikipedia. The references do not demonstrate a passing of WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:NACTOR. In my search, I found a brief quote in Gazeta but I doubt that that is enough to establish notability on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The category "singer" should be removed because the subject released only 1 song and it's not popular. The source #5 is a very short gossip and the website is flagged as yellow press (according to WoT). Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 09:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I note that two sources were added recently but none of those show WP:SIGCOV either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - It's possible that he could qualify under rules for business people, if his gigs in fashion and hairdressing have received any coverage from the business press. I can find nothing of the sort under either spelling of his name. In all of his endeavors I can only find his own Linkedin-like entries in various self-promotional services. I can also find nothing on his singing side gig except minor notices of him being present in a few productions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was moved to Death of Asaki Akiyo. Consensus is now clear. BD2412 T 01:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Asaki Akiyo

Asaki Akiyo (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 notability policy per WP:ONEEVENT. Generally city council members are not notable for their political careers, and this particular politician is only notable for a shoplifting scandal leading to her suicide. 4meter4 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Tokyo city is a prefecture (i.e. state/province level), so membership of its legislature counts under N:POL. If that fails (say, she's actually a councillor of a subdivision of the city), then Move to Suicide of Asaki Akiyo. The media coverage around the event and the subsequent defamation charges seem likely to make this notable. The Japanese language article is enormous and has 144 refs. Furius (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – I have no opinion on notability, but I just wanted to note that WP:NPOL doesn't apply. By its terms, the provincial-legislator provision of NPOL only applies to federal states, not unitary ones like Japan. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Surely the prefectural system counts under the "or similar" part of that guideline? Furius (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 09:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Given that we aren’t likely to get much more input, I would be ok with a move to Suicide of Asaki Akiyo for the sake of closing out this nom and reaching a consensus if that is ok with Furius.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm happy with that. Furius (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment the provincial-legislator provision of NPOL only applies to federal states, not unitary ones like Japan. That's not a quite correct interpretation of NPOL; there are quite a number of non-federal states with sub-national parliamentary jurisdictions whose members satisfy NPOL, eg Faroe Islands, Åland, Curaçao, Zanzibar. There's also cases such as the French conseils régional or the Indonesian Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (especially since the fall of the Orde Baru and the reforms of the late 90s) which sit in an undetermined (AFAIA?) area vis à vis NPOL. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Goldsztajn, I did find a brief discussion of the French regional councils and NPOL; you can read it here. Everyone there seemed to agree that members of the regional councils didn't meet NPOL because they lacked substantial discretion to decide policy. (See also this AfD, which followed the same premise.) Broadly speaking, I'd say the same reasoning applies to Japan: our article states that the prefectures only exercise delegated power subject to the ultimate oversight of the central government. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Extraordinary Writ, am in heated agreement with regard to prefectures and Japan. I was just trying to emphasise that a unitary state is not per se exclusionary of having subnational parliamentary bodies that meet NPOL as my cases of Denmark, Finland, Netherlands and Tanzania demonstrate. Thanks for the link on the discussion regarding France, will read through it. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Death of Asaki Akiyo because the article and the jawiki one focus on her death and contain little info about her life. (t · c) buidhe 07:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Move not clear to me that death is better than suicide for the title (is there anything more than conspiracy theory that suicide was not the cause of death?), but leave that to others to conclude. There's a fair amount of bumpf sourcing in the Japanese language article, but also clearly enough RS (I can at least see pieces from the Japan Times, Daily Yomiyuri and Asahi Weekly). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Move agree that the article is more about her death.
• Move per Goldsztajn. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

K. A. Statz

K. A. Statz (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:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 09:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The awards are mostly a bit obscure, but the Webby Award ain't nothing. pburka (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, appears notable per WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Only the article creator argues to "keep", but their arguments are mainly giving reasons why there is no coverage (because users are blind). This is not a policy-based argument. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Sylheti Braille

Sylheti Braille (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 PRODded this article because it was immediately obvious from search that there are no non-mirror references from anyone except the creator of this script. It was deprodded by the creator, who demanded "further review" and pulled up a reference in their edit summary ([33] from The Hindu) that does not mention the Sylheti language. That user, Slake000 (talk · contribs), has a history of problematic edits in this topic area; see ANI for details. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, the article uses trivial mentions as references, some of which are not even WP:RS. The alphabet section cites no sources, and could possibly be invented by the author or be the same system as another Indo-Aryan language (the latter is just a guess as from my understanding, braille writing systems can be shared between closely related languages for example Bharati Braille). UserNumber (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, (1) Invented by:Louis Braille. (2) Other org. who made systems/adjustments to support different language. (3) Similar to Bharati Braille. (4) I would suggest to keep it and improve the article with better contributions. Slake000(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 09:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• (continued from earlier comment Keep), Reasons to keep it: (1) It is currently being used in Europe, specially in UK and India; (2) It is for blind and disable person, we can't expect they can edit on Wikipedia without our help; (3) There is similar page in other languages, wich I already connected in Wikidata in language section; (4) All popular and currently used languages has braille system for inclusion, as disability support. Slake000 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  No need to vote twice. edit your first comment and add there. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Edited Slake000 (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. I need WP:RS sources which supports this Sylheti_Braille#Alphabet table (source from other than duxburysystems.com). Until then i will vote for delete. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Also, Sylheti_Braille#Usage contains false info. No mentions of Sylheti Braille here. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  (1) First are you Usernumber? Second, It is not false information, may be you did not understand braille systems. Sylheti Braille, Punjabi Braille, doesn't mean a complete different system to Braille, but "language name braille" means that specific language literary texts to braille. (2) In UK website, where it says Braille available for South Asian languages (including Sylheti), it does not need to repeat itself saying Sylheti braille, punjabi braille etc etc. (3) Regarding WP:RS Orbit website mentions that, Duxbury Braille Translation (DBT) the braille translation software used by virtually all of the world’s leading braille publishers, in the second paragraph. In the third paragraph talk about inclusion of Sylheti language [here]. Slake000 (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  1) If you have doubts, please see my contribution to find out who i am. 2) There is zero mention of "Braille available for South Asian languages". If you want to use UK website as source, then yes it is needed. There are many south asian language. You cannot simply assume. 3) Again, i need WP:RS sources which supports this Sylheti_Braille#Alphabet table. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  UK website removed, replaced with other usage based on Orbit Research, qhere it is clearly mentioned about Sylheti Language. - Slake000 (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  You know that is a primary source. Wikipedia needs secondary sources. Anyway, i still need WP:RS & secondary sources which supports this Sylheti_Braille#Alphabet table. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  (1) Alphabet table moved from main article to the talk page. - Slake000 (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. AustralianRupert (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

John B. Selby

John B. Selby (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:BASIC, none of the citations are substantial, they are about the general topic of aces, which there were a lot of. I looked at Eastern Approaches, again he is mentioned on a few pages in a 600 page book. In my opinion this does not meet WP:Basic as the citations are trivial and do not support his notability. Jamesallain85 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

MilHist:RfC on the notability of flying aces No consensus on the notability of Flying Aces Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jamesallain85 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep long-established that Flying aces are notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Since when does simply being a Flying Ace make a person notable. An ace must have 5 aerial kills, Selby barley met the minimum. Nothing notable considering achievements, rank, or awards, just his Ace status. Again this goes back to the standard placed on other military biographies and notability. If a US Navy Captain and submarine commander with multiple ships sunk and was awarded two Navy Crosses fails to meet notability, I cannot understand how a run of the mill Ace with 5 kills and nothing else is notable. Does being in a book that lists all aces make a person notable in itself? Please explain how one is notable and the other isn't. Jamesallain85

Who is this USN captain? Given two Navy Crosses has generally been held to be notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree. This couldn't possibly be WP:POINTY could it? Note that most editors so far have !voted keep for Tyree. I'd be surprised if it was deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Alan B. Banister was also nominated in the past. Another page I worked on, Albert H. Clark was deleted and in my opinion more notable than Selby. I think the community should form a more objective standard so people do not contribute only to have their work deleted. Jamesallain85

It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that WP:SOLDIER (which would have covered Tyree and Banister) was deprecated, but WP:POINTY nominations are never helpful. I'm not sure, however, why you think Clark is more notable than Selby, who outranked him and was more highly decorated than him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Jamesallain85 these come across as WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, which don't fly. If you raised this discussion because you were frustrated about a different one, I guess that's understandable, but if you don't have any specific arguments about why this particular article ought fails our notability criteria (as opposed to observations that other articles were deleted, about subjects which you think were more notable), it would be a good look for you to withdraw this to avoid wasting any more of our most precious commodity: volunteers' time. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 14:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

In this instance I felt compelled to make the nomination to establish a standard which is missing. I normally avoid WP:POINTY nominations, but if the standard changed then it is a legitimate nomination. Alexander K. Tyree was deleted and if the bar is being set that high then a lot of pages should be nominated. I do not like in general the idea of nomination for deletion when historical value is there. In the instance of Albert H. Clark, his achievements should be notable, when he sank the Sakito Maru, he wiped out the entire Japanese 18th Infantry Regiment. Had he survived the war patrol he would have likely been awarded the Navy Cross, but his accomplishments only became known later. As far as wasting volunteers time, that is exactly what has been happening to me, again and again, the issue should be addressed so people that contribute stop wasting their time because of silly nominations Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not the way to go about a change like that. Please consider withdrawing this nomination, and starting an RfC at MILHIST or similar. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I made specific arguments about the citations being trivial and of little substance, which they are. Two of the books are about Aces in general and the third source is an autobiography that mentions the person in the article a couple of times in 600 pages. If this is the standard for notability I am very confused when I compare it to other actions made. I just don't see this as notable. If Aces are notable then it should be documented. As far as starting a RfC, I agree it would be a good idea, I am not sure of how to do it.Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Jamesallain85, if you're not sure how to do it, you can ask for help (the folk at the WP:HELPDESK are really helpful with things like that). An AfD discussion is not a proxy for a properly formatted RfC; even if this goes your way, all it will demonstrate is that the community thinks that this particular person doesn't meet the existing notability guidelines, it won't do anything to change those guidelines or to prevent other articles from being deleted. Again: please consider whether this is really the tack you want to take. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• I was able to start a conversation, but it doesn't seem to be much interest in solving the issue. So most likely the issue will perpetuate and pages will continue to be arbitrarily deleted.Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I don't know anything about a general consensus on the notability of flying aces, but unless the OP is able to expand upon why they believe the subject fails BASIC, I'm of the opinion that this should be kept. As it stands, the article is supported by two reliable sources (both offline, so AGFing that they give the subject significant coverage). One of them is a primary source (it's an autobiography), so we can say that the current sourcing doesn't meet BASIC, but the threshold for deletion is that sources must not exist. This isn't a BLP (the subject died 30 years ago), and it isn't promotional, so I don't think that it's doing any particular harm by existing: it's entirely possible that there are more offline sources that give him coverage, so unless the OP is saying that they have done an exhaustive search of offline sources covering this topic area and can find no more mentions of the subject, I don't see any compelling reason to delete. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - notable as a flying ace and some coverage in RS (Shores & Williams at least). Would suggest moving to a better name though e.g. John Selby (RAF officer), the initial for the middle name seems to be an unusual way of disambiguating a British subject. Zawed (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Indeed. We have long held that being a flying ace equates to notability. Many AfDs have come to this conclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• It has been brought to my attention that actually there isn't a consensus. MilHist:RfC on the notability of flying aces Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, the RfC was inconclusive, but AfDs have clearly produced a consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, I am not aware of a separate notability standard for aces (none of the people asserting it exists have linked it) and the subject isn’t currently passing WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Consensus at AfD is just as important as written policy. But here are some examples of where being a flying ace has been said to make someone notable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Luther Burgess, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Ackerman Hill, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neville Bowker, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Victor Gascoyne, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur William Hammond, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McKinley Hargreaves, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Russell (aviator), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Drummond Matheson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Broch. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Aces High is not really about the general subject of aces, it is a series of potted biographies of aces, with an entry of a paragraph a table of credited kills. There are a fair number of entries in Volume 2 of Shores et als comprehensive Mediterranean Air War 1940–1945 about Selby, mainly about air actions he was involved in, but also including his takeover of command. I've added these details to the article. This coverage may get past the requirements of GNG, while Selby is also likely to be covered in histories of 73 and 23 Squadrons, serving as commanding officer of both.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - per wp:wedonotdeleteaces. 'Nuff said. - wolf 20:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I'm not a fan of the automatic retention of aces, but it does seem to be an established convention as indicated by Necrothesp above. Hence the weak keep. Intothatdarkness 16:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He had quite a substantial (eight paragraphs) obituary published in The Times "Group Captain John Selby, Thursday, Feb. 21, 1991, Issue: 63947, Page: 16" Piecesofuk (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep not on any "automatic" aces retention policy (which doesn't exist, articles should be kept or deleted based on GNG) on the presumption that the eight-para Times obit provides enough material on his early and later life (which should be added asap by anyone that has access, I'd do it, but don't). There is more than enough in reliable sources on his RAF service (both already in the article and presumably in squadron histories, given he was the CO of two). Alsos agree with Zawed the article needs to be moved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't think there should be an "automatic" aces retention policy necessarily, but Selby appears to be passing the GNG between the Shores sources cited in the article and the obituary referred to be Piecesofuk. Hog Farm _Talk 05:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be enough to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep in case of doubt, I lean towards inclusion MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

ZywOo

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

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

Failed WP Notability Guidelines for a Biographical article. Only have 3 references from the same non-notable website> Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 08:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This Afd case has been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 24 and the creator of the page has also been notified. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 08:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Tremendous media coverage in search. Listed in 30 under 30 by Forbes[34]. Covered in French national media such as Ouest-France [35] and Le Parisien [36]. Boatloads of coverage in gaming media, of course.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Eostrix. I shall add the sources to the article so it doesn't look as bad. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep After looking into it nore this article is also available in 4 other languages on Wikipedia. I didn't know earlier that the article was poorly written like how can you don't put reference from Forbes. Sorry my bad i proposed this to be Afd without looking into it more.Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 12:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator.Topic is notable. (non-admin closure) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Components of medieval armour

Components of medieval armour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced old article, a case when someone confused encyclopedia with a hosting place of an image description. At best, it's very incomplete list that needs renaming and verification. I am surprised we don't have an article about medieval armour, and maybe this could even be salvaged into making one, but at the same time there is likely a problem with even defining this concept (chronological range and geographical scope - European armor is not the same as Asian, for example). Not sure what is the best course of action here - rename and a list and leave unreferenced(?), rename to medieval armour (ditto but will need more rewriting) or apply WP:TNT? Certainly can't leave this as it is as "components of Foo" is not a notable concept (which is why we don't have articles like components of firearms, components of T-34, components of mobile phones, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Agree that this isn't a great list. However, in theory it looks helpful especially since we lack a proper "medieval armour" article. Yes it's unreferenced, but there most certainly sources available since almost all linked articles have sources. It would need some overhaul, but I believe deleting it would not be the right thing to do. The thing I would immediately scrap is the section about Japanese armor – that one feels really off, as some are just links to images. Simply have a "see also" there that points to Japanese armour (for which, surprisingly, there is an article). --LordPeterII (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep This just seems to be a drive-by nomination of an article because it lacks sources. But sources are very easy to find and so WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST apply. Examples include:

1. How to Read European Armor
2. European Armour, Circa 1066 to Circa 1700
3. The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Weapons
4. Brassey's Book of Body Armor
5. Arms and Armour
6. A Record of European Armour and Arms Through Seven Centuries
7. Arms and Armour, from the 9th to the 17th Century
8. Armour and Weapons

See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: per. nom. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• The nom doesn't especially propose deletion; it talks vaguely about rewriting and renaming. It's classic WP:NOTCLEANUP, confusing AfD with AfC. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: It's easy to forget what people do with encyclopaedias. How many kids through history have found themselves writing about medieval castles and knights, and turned to an encyclopaedia to find the names and functions of the different bits of armour? We would be failing in our duty at a very, very fundamental level if we didn't tell them. This page may need a lot of work, particularly with references, to bring it up to scratch, but it's a subject that ought to be here, and there's definitely salvageable stuff on the page. Elemimele (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and possibly rename to List of medieval armour components. This is basically a list article, and as list articles go, it's a far better list than the usual crap-list articles that can be easily substituted by a category. Each entry has not only an illustration but also its own article with its own sources. Sources are not needed here. And AFD is the wrong venue for discussing cleanup. I recommend the nominator withdraw this. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  I do think this article is WP:ITSUSEFUL (per Elemimele) too but can you direct me to a policy that states lists don't need references? If it can be found, I'll withdraw it and rename it myself. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: Lists absolutely do need references. Of course they do. But the point is, these references exist, conveniently already in the listed articles, and via the examples listed by Andrew above. And as per Andrew Davidson, this discussion isn't about the article being in a bad shape (you are right about that), it's about whether it is possible to overcome this bad shape. If you want to delete every single article that needs rework, you would have to nominate each and every one currently tagged with {{unreferenced}}. And I can guarantee you that there are A LOT of these XD But most of them just need work, and shouldn't be outright deleted per WP:NOTCLEANUP. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I don't understand either the nomination or the comments about this being a poor list - it's clear in scope, well organised, the listed items are all clearly described and illustrated. Feel free to retitle it to "list of..." if you must, but that's not an AfD matter. This is exactly the sort of content I would expect to find in a general purpose encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw. While I rarely find WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments sufficient, rethinkign this I belive this can be rescued. Ping User:Uncle G for a fun project I may even try to help with a bit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Walter Masterson

Walter Masterson (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 seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT Pipsally (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete After looking at the references, its about the movie he did not about the person. And Failed WP:NACTOR. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 07:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete this article is basically a coatrack about the film L.I.E. which we do not need because we have an article on that film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Paul Perry (radio)

Paul Perry (radio) (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 am just not seeing the notability inherent in being a sometime-radio DJ for relatively short stints, nor am I seeing the prospects for enlarging this fourteen-year stub. BD2412 T 06:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Local radio hosts are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to single-source the fact that they exist(ed) as local radio hosts — radio personalities need to either (a) be associated with a national radio network, or (b) have enough reliable source coverage about them, in media outlets other than their own employers, to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing and substance. There's just nothing stated here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia used to have no inclusion criteria so we allowed these hyper local articles. We now have actual inclusion criteria, and Perry is in no way close to meeting any of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against a redirect if it can be sourced in the target section. czar 05:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

N4 Axis Centre

N4 Axis Centre (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 Citation and failed WP:GEOLAND. Not even one source. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't meet NCORP. Could plausibly be WP:A7ed.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This Afd has been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 24 and will further be added to related categories. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Longford: This article is little more than a list of former and current firms renting premises at this retail park, which in the absence of references could amount to WP:OR. Searches find brief local coverage in the Longford Leader of retail openings and incidents at the retail park, but nothing that indicates specific notability. The brief coverage already at Longford#Economy seems sufficient; a redirect to there seems a reasonable option. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NBUILDING, WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. An Irish Times search, for example, returns just a single passing mention. And a similar Google News search returns similar passing mentions (almost all of which about traffic queues in the McD's drivethru post-lockdown reopening). I can find no news/academic/book/other sources which cover the subject directly. Otherwise, while WP:MALLS doesn't provide for a specific notability criteria for shopping centres, WP:NBUILDING and WP:NCORP cover this type of topic/category; And neither is met. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:TENANTS also apply. Guliolopez (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: (no redirect) per Guliolopez. Might or might not deserve a cited one liner in the Longford article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - one line in the Longford town article is sufficient. Spleodrach (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Longford#Economy, it is mentioned there and I see no reason not to have a redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Pine Creek, Idaho

Pine Creek, Idaho (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 not sure why this wasn't entered from GNIS, as it is in there and does show up on topos, but at any rate what the topos show, before interstate construction scrambles the area, is a rail spot; meanwhile, searching turns up tons of references to a mining district, and also brings up references to a "Pine Creek Railroad", which probably is associated with this location. I can't find anything that suggests it was a town. Mangoe (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No evidence this area was populated. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The vast majority of comments voted keep, in large part due to improvements made by editors including Cullen328, Andrew Davidson and Jamesallain85, and the only delete vote other than the nominator was a weak delete. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexander K. Tyree

Alexander K. Tyree (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 former submariner. Fails WP:BASIC lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Page was previously PRODed but page creator requested restoration: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 23 Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This might be in relation to an ongoing dispute between Jamesallain85 and Mztourist, lodged at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jamesallain85 and WP:REVENGE, in which I am involved. I am not sure, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I PRODed the page on 7 January 2021, it was De/unPRODed yesterday and so I am proceeding to AFD it. Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I recuse from this AfD. Just figured that the uninitiated might want to know of our involvement in the dispute. Further comments will be made at ANI. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A Navy Cross is about the only real claim to notability, and that's generally not considered enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• The Hall of Valor site changed its format (the sneaks). Two Navy Crosses, but is that enough? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• That is exactly the issue, there needs to be a set standard so people do not waste their time. In my opinion a double Navy Cross recipient should be notable. If a contemporary person was twice awarded the Navy Cross it would be notable, why wouldn't it be then? The real issue here is the lack of a standard to follow, this process is too subjective. I started the article when WP:Soldier was the standard, and at that time two awards of a second tier medal was sufficient, then they just dropped the standard. Does that mean they should retroactively apply the standard and begin deleting pages? If the individual had not met the standard at the time I would have never created the article in the first place. I am seriously considering avoiding any future contributions simply because I am tired of trying to defend its existence. I have no personal connection with this individual, he was a WWII submarine commander that commanded the USS Bowfin on her last three war patrols and was twice awarded the nations second highest medal. His achievements are of historical value and in my opinion that should be notable. Navy Crosses were and are not just handed out. Jamesallain85

• Keep If it were just one Navy Cross I could understand and would possibly agree. He was awarded the Navy Cross multiple times. There are several wikipedia pages of military fighter Aces with less than ten kills, nothing close to the Navy Cross in terms of awards and ranks below that of of Colonel or Captain(Navy). If this page is deleted because it fails notability, then I will also nominate those pages because in terms of notability they are simply less notable. In my opinion the standards are unclear, but a multiple winner of the US's second highest award is notable. If the Navy Cross was awarded twice to any sailor in modern times they would surly be considered notable. IAW WP:BIO a person is notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." He won the Navy Cross multiple times, to delete the page one would have to argue that the Navy Cross in not either well known or significant, which simply isn't the case. I think there should be a clear cut standard for notability for military biographical pages. Is an Ace notable? Is a multiple winner of the Navy Cross notable enough? Is a General Officer notable? These questions should be clear cut, I am tired of trying to contribute what I feel follows wikipedia's guide lines, only to have all my work deleted and have to constantly defend its existence. Until things are more clearly defined in way of notability I will refrain from contributing in the future. Jamesallain85

He was apparently awarded the Navy Cross twice. Since WP:SOLDIER was deprecated, multiple awards of second tier medals is a debatable basis for notability. He fails WP:BASIC because he hasn't "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Your dePROD rationale claimed there were more sources available about him, so if they exist they might amount to SIGCOV.Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

When you originally placed the nominated the article for deletion the first time, WP:SOLDIER was still the standard, and changed shortly thereafter. As far as multiple awards of second tier medals being debatable, it shouldn't be. I feel it was a mistake to remove WP:SOLDIER as a guideline because in the end it simply made everything unclear. If multiple second tier awards does not meet notability then WP:SOLDIER should have been edited to reflect the standard. Would three second tier awards be notable enough? The decision of notability should be more objective and less subjective. What is widely reported? Two, three, or four articles? There should be a set objective standard to follow, so when I start to write an article I can check off the list before I start wasting my time. I spend too much time over petty issues and less time contributing to documenting history, which is the objective. Jamesallain85

WP:SOLDIER is gone. You are welcome to try to raise support for a replacement if your time permits it. Mztourist (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Oh I see you have but its not gaining much support. Mztourist (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You didn't abide by WP:Soldier when it was the standard. All of my pages you nominated to delete was while the standard still stood. Jamesallain85 (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I agreed with some parts of SOLDIER and disagreed with others. It was never a WP:SNG and many people ignored that and the fact that SIGCOV in multiple RS was always required. Mztourist (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep - a double award of the Navy Cross should be notable in my view but the coverage in RS is admittedly skinny. I came across a couple of books in which he is mentioned, but those are verging on passing mentions rather than substantive. Zawed (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He went on to become a maths professor and so there is clearly scope to expand the article and policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The article says nothing about a PhD, only a master's degree in math. His tenure as an instructor according to the article appears to have been short as well. If you have access to more solid sources about his academic experience maybe you could add them to the article. Intothatdarkness 18:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Two Navy Crosses (second-level awards) is clearly enough for notability per WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak delete. There is one problem of double standards and another of encyclopedic usefulness. By double standards I mean the ANYBIO#1, the "a well-known and significant award or honor", is imprecise, and I very much regard that WP:SOLDIER was retired. How are we to know now if this award is well-known or not? It's the "second-highest military decoration" for the US Navy. Is second-highest major enough? How about the third? Fourth? Why did the experts at milhist decide to withdraw their guidance? That's unfortunate. In light of it being gone, I am going to say that second-highest specialized award for anything doesn't cut it for me. Which takes me to - what do the sources say about him? And we have very little here. Not even the context of him receiving the awards. As a rule of thumb, I'd consider him notable if we had at least a short biography of him that would tell us what did he do to receive his two second-tier awards. Heck, right now we don't even know which war, if any, he received them in. If this article is expanded and notability is more apparent, ping me and I'll happily reconsider. But right now, in light of WP:SOLDIER being gone, I am not prepared to treaty any non-first-tier military award as conveying notability to anyone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Delete along the lines of Piotrus above. Intothatdarkness 16:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Intothatdarkness, I've decided to withdraw my vote, see discussion below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    • While I understand your reasons for changing your vote, I am going to remain in the weak delete column. Being able to verify sources is important to me, even if the concept seems to be under appreciated by others (they are of course entitled to their opinion on the subject, just as I am to mine). I suspect the end decision will be "Keep" in any case. And to Cullen328's comment below...I have known a fair number of military veterans who served between 20 and thirty years and went on to teaching careers. It's actually somewhat common for American military veterans within a certain time period (which you'll notice if you look at the post-service careers of many Vietnam-era officers). So no, based on my experience I don't consider that especially notable. Intothatdarkness 22:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:HEY and the two Navy Crosses - wolf 22:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEYMAN. ——Serial 11:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see that WP:HEY is even close to being satisfied here. What has been added are a photo; the book The Washingtons that apparently covers his early life and is unavailable online; 3 minor newspapers that are unavailable online unless you have a newspapers.com subscription; Silent victory: the U.S. submarine war against Japan also inaccessible online which is only a source for details about his much more famous brother; and then more from Hall of Valor which is debatable as an RS. The original inacessible newspaper article (presumably an obituary given the date) remains as do fleetorganisation.com and navsource which are both blogs. I don't see any of these as providing the necessary indepth coverage required for WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible." In any case, the Washington's book covers more than his early life as it's a "detailed biographical narrative". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Equally the sources may be unreliable, contain minimal content and are just used to fluff up a page and a HEY argument, but we'll never know because we can't read what they say. Strange that a "detailed biographical narrative" is not used for any other purpose than provide date and place of birth and confirm his brother. Mztourist (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Since you are still unsatisfied, I have taken the time to clip a few of the more important articles and linked in the references. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• No, Mztourist's contrary view is not equal because it is based only on ignorance. I know that the Washington book provides a detailed account because I have read a page of it, as I cited. I didn't detail its lengthy account of his wartime service because that would take some time and I have plenty of other things to do while my usual reward is personal attacks, insults, and vexatious interference. But it's being so cheerful as keeps me going so here's a brief sample, now I've found the page again, "A few minutes after midnight on Feb. 17, the tubes were readied when radar picked up two small, fast ships which Tyree calculated were enemy destroyers. At 3,000 yards one of the ships—indeed a Japanese destroyer—headed straight for the surfaced sub. Tyree ordered the bridge cleared and prepared to set up for a "down the throat" shot. ..." Andrew🐉(talk) 23:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

So Andrew you accuse me of ignorance, but then complain about suffering "personal attacks, insults, and vexatious interference" no double standards there. So the Washington book has some details about a torpedo shot, do you really regard that as indepth coverage of Tyree? Silly question, of course you do. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist tells us that they are unable to access that source and so they are ignorant as to its contents – that's just a plain fact. I've studied it more closely and so am better informed. The quotation I provided is just a sample. There's plenty more where that came from and so this is a clear pass of WP:SIGCOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Andrew you very clearly weren't just referring to me not knowing what the Washington book says.Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist made the same complaint about other sources too. And it appears that they were unaware of our long-standing principle that Sources do not have to be available online.... Their hostile position was therefore based on both a lack of knowledge of the sources and a lack of knowledge of our policies. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Being able to verify sources is important to me, even if its not to you, especially when a bunch of inaccessible refs are added to a page and then you and your ARS crew claim HEY. Mztourist (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I second the concern for verifiability. I've done some cleanup of articles that were "saved" and then abandoned...the amount of simply incorrect information I was able to remove and improvements made were all done thanks to verifiable reliable sources. This is compounded when (as seems to happen far too often) unverifiable sources are added without page numbers or other basic information. Some people may be ok with crap articles with bad information lingering for years...I don't happen to be one of them. Intothatdarkness 16:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears that Intothatdarkness has only ever created one article: United States Army Remount Service. Most of the citations in that article do not have URLs and so they are not readily accessible online. See WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Tyree is mentioned 35 times in the 1985 book Bowfin, published by HarperCollins. That plus the references in the article show quite clearly that Tyree is notable. I've expanded the article and added references. It is clear that any editor who can get a copy of that book can easily expand this article further. The fact that Chester W. Nimitz personally awarded one of Tyree's Navy Crosses is a point in favor of notability because Nimitz was the senior admiral in charge of US naval forces in the Pacific during WWII. The Navy Cross is a highly prestigious honor for bravery and Tyree was awarded it twice. Tyree's involvement with the USS Bowfin Submarine Museum and Park at Pearl Harbor is another point towards his notability. The submarine he commanded is preserved as an extremely popular museum in Hawaii, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I have toured that submarine. Piotrus says they do not know whether the Navy Cross is a notable medal and was not able to determine which war, if any, Tyree won those medals. I guess Piotrus was looking at a much earlier version of the article because it is quite clear that the war was World War II and that winning the Navy Cross requires unusual bravery in combat, not good service in peacetime. So, I respectfully request that Piotrus re-evaluate their !vote in light of improvement of the article. Belittling his twelve years as an associate professor of mathematics is a cheap shot. How many people do you know about that have served 30 years in the armed forces, then get a master's degree in math, and teach for another 12 years after that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 if that's the case then why didn't you add Bowfin as a reference and add some detail? Instead you copied more information in from Hall of Valor, an excerpt from a Hawaii tourist guide, tourist information from another minor newspaper and a non-independent source, the Bowfin museum. The fact that Nimitz awarded a Navy Cross isn't notable unless you can show that he personally only awarded a few. Mztourist (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist, I didn't add anything from the Bowfin book because I just learned of its existence a couple of hours ago, and not even Amazon could get it to me that quickly. However, I will buy a copy if you pay half. Deal? Please stop criticizing reliable sources as "inaccessible" because that is an invalid argument for deletion. Adding referenced encyclopedic content to the article is a good thing despite your implications to the contrary. Non-independent reliable sources are perfectly OK to flesh out non-controversial content about notable people. I challenge you to produce a reliable source that says that Chester Nimitz handed out Navy Crosses like popcorn. I will be waiting for that reliable source. It is Tyree himself who is notable, and Nimitz's attention is more evidence of notability, not notability itself. But you knew all that, didn't you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 you make a big deal of all the mentions in the Bowfin book, but then don't add it because you haven't actually seen it...right. The whole point I am making is that if books and newspapers are inaccessible, we have no way of determining if they provide "referenced encyclopedic content" or are just fluff. I don't need to prove how many Navy Crosses Nimitz handed out, you're the one who is pushing it as evidence of Tyree's notability, which is pure OR. As I see it this page has been bulked out with a lot of inaccesible references and non-independent sources, because there is clearly so little in the way of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject." All I see is "trivial coverage... by secondary sources... not... sufficient to establish notability." Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe the articles are now visible, I posted above in response that I clipped the articles and linked them in the references, I believe anyone can now view them. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the version I was looking was a tiny stub, the article has been much improved. Btw, do we know the dates, even rough, of when he received the Navy Crosses? I couldn't find that information in the current text. In either case, this does address the lack of context, the article is useful to the reader now. That said, WP:ITSUSEFUL... Btw, would the article be kept under WP:SOLDIER if it was still active? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, it is clear from the sources already in the article that his first Navy Cross was awarded by Chester Nimitz sometime in 1945, well before the Japanese surrender, and that the second Navy Cross was awarded after the war ended, for the 9th Bowfin patrol in the final months of the war. I think that the dates that the medal was awarded are much less important than the descriptions of the submarine patrols that he commanded in the Sea of Japan in the last year of the war. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

As for WP:NSOLDIER, that is irrelevant because it is inoperative, so why spend time discussing it? The guy is notable. He commanded three of nine patrols of probably the most famous US submarine serving in the Pacific Theater and a book from a reputable publisher mentions him 35 times. Plus all the other sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Mhm. I am withdrawing my delete vote as I think the book your expansion push it sufficiently to the gray zone. Cheers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep in case of doubt, I lean towards inclusion MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The article was nominated for deletion when it had only one sentence in it plus an infobox. It is now a full article. This person won the Navy Cross twice, and winning a notable award makes anyone notable. WP:ANYBIO Dream Focus 18:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Point of information, that is not what ANYBIO says. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor is not the same as "Person has one an award that is notable of itself to have a Wikipedia article". Otherwise anyone with a Purple heart (aka any US soldier killed or wounded after 1917) would have an article. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep this is getting tiresome and pointy. Clearly there is enough in the sources that are there already for SIGCOV ie GNG, including some information about his early and post-war life, and there is still more to be added. He has an albeit fairly brief obit in WaPo... There is also certainly going to be more in the various histories of the submarine service, given Tyree commanded the famous USS Bowfin on two or three war patrols and was awarded the Navy Cross twice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep thanks to awards and the coverage in Bowfin. Have I seen Bowfin? Yes. Libraries are pretty good things, right? You can borrow for an hour, or join the waitlist for a full-length lending period thanks to the great Internet Archive: Link. The first three pages introducing the main text are pretty much dedicated to him. Later, you won't have any content in Chapters 8, 9, and 10 if you remove him. Do I think anyone will get a full-length loan? No. This seems pretty pointy as others have stated. Will I add any content from the source? No, the source WP:NEXISTS, so the article should be kept. There appear to be parties interested in improving the article here, so I hope the link is useful to them. Regards, 2pou (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Added the book to the talk page in a {{refideas}} template as well. -2pou (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. All of the commenters other than the nominator voted keep, thanks to forces found by Biruitorul. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ștefan Bănică Sr.

Ștefan Bănică Sr. (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:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR 4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy keep — one of the greatest Romanian actors of the 1960s-‘80s. Plenty of reliable sources, e.g. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Bizarre nomination, WP:BEFORE was clearly skipped, should be withdrawn forthwith. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Please WP:Assume Good Faith. I did do a search in ProQuest and my university library and nothing came up. I also searched in google books. I don’t speak Romanian and these sources didn’t pop up. Clearly you have a different skill set at researching in Romanian, which is great.4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong keep — I added in the past couple of days more info and references that should clearly establish the notability of this well-known actor. Clearly, the article could be further expanded, but I hope those additions should be enough to avoid deletion. Turgidson (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep — As noted above, clearly notable.Anonimu (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert Somerset, Marquess of Worcester

Robert Somerset, Marquess of Worcester (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 don't think peerage is among Wikipedia notability criteria Lembit Staan (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: I was initially torn on this. A previous attempt to establish notability criteria for nobility failed, so we have to go by WP:GNG. The only major source that is not a passing mention is the Daily Mail, which is depreciated. Regardless I was hovering around weak keep until I saw the following snippet of information in the article Duke of Beaufort: "The title Marquess of Worcester is used as a courtesy title by the duke's eldest son and heir". This confirms to me that this is a non-notable position. Now, if this guy eventually becomes the Duke of Beaufort, then he will likely have the established notability for an article. Curbon7 (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete not notable in his own right. He is a courtesy marquess but there is no certainty that he will become Duke of Beaufort. We should cross that bridge when we come to it. For now he is not notable in his own right and doesn't pass WP:GNG. For now just noteworthy for who his father is Uhooep (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Notable as he has an entry in UK Who's Who https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U17226 Piecesofuk (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Not among our notability criteria. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete While the Who's Who mentioned above can be considered a reliable source in some cases, which is not the case for the other Who's Who, just being mentioned in a reliable source does not give notability. The actual guidelines calls for multiple, mentions in reliable sources that are significant. The mention of this person in Who's Who does not really meet the significant coverage requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Escambia County, Florida#Board of County Commissioners. Sandstein 14:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Escambia County Board of County Commissioners (Florida)

Escambia County Board of County Commissioners (Florida) (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 about a county commission, not reliably sourced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. While there's nothing wrong with articles about county governments if they're properly sourced, they're not considered "inherently" notable topics in the absence of proper sourcing. There are 3,243 counties in the United States, but Category:County governing bodies in the United States actually contains articles about just 10 others besides this -- and while I'll grant that there might be some others whose articles just haven't been categorized here yet, there certainly aren't 3,200 of them. But this is referenced entirely to the board's own self-published primary source content about itself on its own website, with no indication provided of any real reliable source coverage about it in any sources independent of itself. Essentially this seems to exist entirely to get a list of the board commissioners into Wikipedia, about whom the page creator has also tried to write (all now deleted) standalone biographies without actually attempting to source any of them beyond the commission's self-published content either. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Escambia County, Florida#Board of County Commissioners per nom (which I realize is a recommendation for delete rather than redirect). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Escambia County, Florida#Board of County Commissioners as a reasonable alternative to deletion; redirects are cheap. The subject is likely non-notable (there's no sigcov of the board itself, as opposed to its actions), and in any event there's no valid reason to divorce this topic from the main county article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cubone

Cubone (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 Pokemon with no SIGCOV. Most refs in the article are listicles of "the ___ (creepiest, disturbing, etc) Pokemon". Alternative to deletion is redirecting to the list article List of generation I Pokémon. Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite: has some sources with [42], [43], [44], and [45]. It also has [46], but I am unsure about it's reliablity. Current article needs guidence. Please also remember to Please do not bite the newcomers (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. This doesn't look great, but his sad story has been mentioned in passing even by scholarly media, for example [47]. I wish I had access to [48] as it may be in-depth but I can't find it anywhere, and I can't assume it is in-depth (it may or may not be). That said, what I see is hardly in-depth. I'll wait to see what others can dig up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Piotrus: I have access to the second source you provided. It has around one page of content regarding the story of Cubone's mother in the games, with half of it providing a description of what happens and the other half providing synthesis. Here is a snippet: Rather than simply frame the undead Marowak as a violent ghost, easy enough for video games to accomplish, the most recent version seeks instead to present our contact with dead loved ones as something that can bring healing. This presents the deceased not as inanimate or hostile bodies, but as agential and in continued possession of their best qualities from life. The encounter with Cubone’s mother is an emotional highpoint for the game that feels as if it could be at home in games purpose built to engage with death..

  I believe the scholarly article provides SIGCOV of both Cubone and Marowak's backstory. Jumpytoo Talk 22:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Jumpytoo, Thank you.I'll sit on the fence for now, while seeing if this is improved and/or more sources found. Ping two experienced rescuers of such topics: User:Daranios, User:Toughpigs. (Note: I'd have improved it myself but the sources I saw and had access too didn't seem to contain much to use - but perhaps others can succeed where I gave up). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect - restore as previous. Coverage is all not significant enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and improve per Oinkers42 and the sources suggested by Piotrus. Haleth (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Hmm, I did not realize this, but as Onel5969 alluded to, this was a redirect since 2016 until an IP editor created this as an article a few days ago. Natg 19 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This Pokemon has had enough synthesis and persistent coverage that makes it non-ROTM compared to the other Pokemon that have been AfD'ed recently, as per the sourcing provided by Oinkers and Piotrus. Jumpytoo Talk 22:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The article makes my eyes bleed, but there's a satisfactory amount of coverage to show notability. Mlb96 (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep While the article could use improvement, I think the sources brought up so far are enough to show that the subject is notable. A merge to List of generation I Pokémon would in my view be preferable to deletion, but if the existing source material was used, it would bloat that list. Therefore a merge would be worse solution that keeping the article. Daranios (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, I feel it passes coverage, and I think nominating an article that was only just created for deletion is behavior that would make someone less interested in participating in the Wiki. Discussing this kind of thing with the article creator(s) before rushing to deletion is preferable. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:NEXIST but prune heavily of listicles and other trivial coverage._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, obvious notability, extensive coverage. Pikavoom (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Has enough coverage for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Two of the "(weak) keep" !votes boil down to just WP:ITSNOTABLE and I ignored them in the close. Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Haynes (actor)

Stephen Haynes (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It’s hard to work through the ref bombing, but there’s no indication of awards or distinctions, and no in depth coverage, just dozens of passing mentions in cast lists and similar sources, so I don’t see that this passes WP:ACTOR. Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, the work history is impressive enough and sufficient for passing WP:NACTOR. As far as WP:GNG is concerned, I think majority of the acceptable references are from the The Stage newspaper, which is a reputed source. What I presume, as most of his theatres are from 80's and 90's, only the printed copies are available which are achieved by British Newspaper Achieve, but not visible without a subscription.Chirota (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry but I don’t think that rationale makes sense. The problem here isn’t that we can’t find online refs for him - we have fifty-six! The issue is that not one of them is in depth coverage, and almost all are just his name in a cast list. For your case to be true we’d have to suppose there were good in depth references until 1995, when they suddenly stopped, and the subject went on with his career gathering less notice than he ever had before. I don’t really think that’s plausible. As to passing WP:ACTOR, his list of roles looks on the whole minor so I’m not convinced he passes that either. Mccapra (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the actor don't have a filmography to pass the WP:NACTOR. But his theatrical career is impressive. Since the British theatrical scene has historically received reverence, where he has acted extensively and that makes him pass WP:NACTOR. His work details is documented in The Stage references, which give us the required sigcov. According to your assumption that his career had a sudden drop from 1995 onwards, we can't anticipate anything that we don't know. What we see, from the references he had a solid theatrical career with no problem to get pass WP:NACTOR. So I think my rationale indeed makes sound, possibly I could not convey it properly. Chirota (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see any in depth coverage of the subject, just cast lists. If this is enough to make an actor notable then any actor with a career is notable. I don’t think a claim of notability can rest on reverence for the UK theatrical scene either. Mccapra (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete really don't think that he does pass WP:NACTOR. Not really evidence of 'significant roles', and certainly not of any kind of fanbase or unique contributions Dexxtrall (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Dexxtrall, he passes WP:NACTOR#1, as he had lead roles in significant stage productions. Please refer to the stage references for more, which cover him significantly. Chirota (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence that he had lead roles in any of these productions in the references. He has played the odd named character but none that are mentioned directly in the source material other than 'Some Voices' which hardly looks like a leading production. In fact, almost all of his stage performances are limited to small productions that don't really provide the notability you are assuming from ' the British theatrical scene's historically recieved reverence' Dexxtrall (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The works and available references pass the notability criteria and WP:NACTOR. GermanKity (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep As it passes WP:NACTOR. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails NACTOR. When you get roles like "Cafe Customer" and "Producer 2", it's not a good sign. Lots and lots of "references", but nothing substantial about him specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, the author of the article for some strange reason has put the 'Filmography' section before the theatre section. There is nodoubt that the subject is primarily notable for his theatre acts and his filmography is noway making him notable per WP:NACTOR but his extensive and impressive theatre career is which some editors are failing to consider while deciding his notability. Chirota (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• As Dexxtrall has noted, his theatre work isn't all that "impressive". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Akosua Amo-Adem

Akosua Amo-Adem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an actress, not adequately referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. The only notability claim being made here is that she has had acting roles, which isn't an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage -- and the only new thing that could be added is that she was one member of a cast who were nominated for (but did not win) an ensemble award at Toronto's theatre awards in 2018, which still isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on her sourceability.
But for sourcing, four of the nine footnotes are her primary source "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of theatre companies she's worked for, which are not notability-supporting sources as they aren't independent of her; a fifth is a magazine piece she wrote about herself in the first person, which is not a notability-supporting source; and a sixth just glancingly namechecks her existence without being about her to any non-trivial degree. There are just two footnotes here (one of which is redundantly repeated as two distinct footnotes) which say enough about her to count toward GNG, and that's not enough. (I've also had to remove one other footnote, a video in which she was the interview guest on an unreliable and non-notable YouTube channel, which is also not a reliable or notability-supporting source.)
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim and/or better sources than this, but nothing here, either in the substance or the sourcing, is already good enough today. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I can't find how many episodes of "Kim's Convenience" she's been in, which would be what makes her notable or not. I think it was a bit part. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment According to IMDB, she was in 25 episodes (out of 65 total) of "Kim's Convenience," which is more significant than a bit part. But I did have a tough time finding many reliable sources about her, so it may be true that she isn't notable according to WP:NACTOR. I appreciate your guidance with this! Rynb99 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I've removed a couple duplicate sources in the article, leaving it with a total of 7. The breakdown that currently leaves us with is as follows: three of the sources constitute third-party coverage (1, 5, 6), and the remainder are primary - either self-published by this individual or profiles from her projects or theaters she's worked with. Nothing mentions the Kim's Convenience role in much more than passing. A search of other news articles returns only two pages of search results, and most of those are simply mentions of the name in credits or cast lists. There simply isn't enough coverage of this person as of right now, I believe. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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