Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< December 09	December 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to La Vansa i Fórnols. ✗plicit 00:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Colldarnat[edit]

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

Two references are given in the article. The first is to the INE database, however searching on the database for Colldarnat turns up no results. Even if INE has a listing for this location that is just not appearing, I suspect this is just as a population unit ("Unidad Poblacional"), which is analogous to a census tract, which is excluded from WP:GEOLAND#1. The second is the 2ua.org, which appears to just be a Google Maps skin, maps are not sufficient to show notability under WP:NGEO. Zooming in on the location shown in the map shows only some abandoned ruins of an unknown nature. A photo is used in the article, but nothing in the photo identifies it. Searching online I see a Catalan source describing it as a "llogaret abandonat" (abandoned village), but this is not significant coverage. This appears to be a ruined village, not a populated community, still less a legally recognised one. There is no article to be written about this place.

This case is very like the Iranian census case we had earlier this year which resulted from an editor going systematically through the Iranian census and creating an article for every location named in it regardless of notability. Not every location on the globe is notable, Wikipedia is not a gazetteer. FOARP (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Redirect to La Vansa i Fórnols, then. I also couldn't find enough on a quick internet search to support an independent article at present but it is described as an abandoned village that once had a small church/chapel, so it looks as though it was once a small settlement rather than just a couple of random cottages, and GEOLAND makes clear that notability isn't temporary. In any case the name (sometimes spelt Coll d'Arnat) occurs as a mountain pass / landmark in cycling and travelling contexts, so it's a plausible search term. WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment - As nom, I'm happy with Ingratis's proposed redirect. FOARP (talk) 13:38, 16 December 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 Peloton (exercise equipment company)#Classes and instructors. ✗plicit 00:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Olivia Amato[edit]

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

Submitting to AfD due to subject's questionable notability per WP:NBASIC. The article's secondary sources are mainly about Peloton and include the subject in a tangential capacity. Subject does not appear to (as of yet) have independent accomplishments or notability, and would be better suited to coverage within Peloton's article itself. Subject is also ineligible for WP:NCYCLING Headphase (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete : Does not seem to pass WP:BASIC 137.220.68.182 (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment I disagree, obviously, as I started the article, but will defer to consensus and not !vote. Suggest merge to Peloton_(exercise_equipment_company)#Classes_and_instructors as ATD, however, if consensus is against keeping the article. Star Mississippi 00:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete - as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:53, 17 December 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 10:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[]

University of Toronto Institute of Biomedical Engineering[edit]

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

Non-notable subfaculty at the University of Toronto. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field." Medical schools and law schools are mostly exempt due to usually being separate from the "main" school, so to speak. This just appears to be a subunit of U of T that may be an above-average biomedical engineering institute but hasn't really met the criteria for its own article. On the GNG front I haven't been able to find any third party sources that even mention this faculty after Binging "institute of Biomedical Engineering" u of t. All of the sources are affiliated with the university in some way. The best I could find was a press release from an affiliated company. [1] Much of the article appears to be written by someone affiliated with the university (username Bmeuoft) [2] so take the unsourced claims made in the article about the institute's importance with a grain of salt. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Merge any information that is not ~~COI-related to University of Toronto. – The Grid (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)~~ Delete per discussion below and there's nothing to save. – The Grid (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete We had a similar discussion for the Computer Science dept of U of T a while ago. This one is even less notable, GScholar brings up mentions of the faculty mostly as titles of where authors work. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete No reliable sources independent of the subject are cited. Notability is not inherited. Multi7001 (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete - as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: The way the article is written is so dodgy and definitely feels non-objective, bad sourcing, fails GNG and BASIC bop34 • talk • contribs 04:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Game Global[edit]

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

Apart from one (negative) article in The Sunday Times (and repetitions of that article's coverage in places like the Daily Mail and Business Insider), I don't see any coverage. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete as above - There are two good sources here, but that's all. I had a quick look and couldn't see anythign else. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Marcus Freeman (tight end)[edit]

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

Non-notable American football tight end. Was undrafted and did not play a professional game. Natg 19 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep, finding tons of coverage from The South Bend Tribune (e.g. this, this, and this), plus this from the Chicago Tribune and this from kare11.com, which shows a GNG pass to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Meets GNG per sources from BeanieFan above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Good work by Beaniefan to establish notability. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep, as meeting GNG has been established thanks to sources found.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep as above - enough coverage to meet GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:36, 17 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Operating system advocacy[edit]

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

This was nominated twice for deletion in 2005, and was kept for rationales that I believe do not or no longer apply. I don't believe having an article on OS "fanboys" has any current merit on Wikipedia, and the sources in the article do not convince me otherwise. Advocacy for certain operating systems should belong in the articles of those operating systems (or their own articles like Apple evangelist), and comparison of operating systems already exists. A keep rationale in the 2005 discussion was that the latter article needed a more user-friendly "introduction". Assuming that this rationale still holds (which I don't know if it does), either operating system or an introduction to operating systems article would work better than this article, which is currently (not that this is a valid rationale) a steaming pile of garbage. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep - clearly, from the article, this is a "thing"... including the examples of actual bodies formed to advocate for different OSs. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep, as it is a topic with many organisations and groups devoted to it.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Saeed Ganji[edit]

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

Cross-wiki promotion The article is created by a sock that is closed globally(Special:CentralAuth/Amr.ataeii) And it seems to have been created in exchange for wages and this issue has not been disclosed by the user.This person is not a professional fighter and is in the resources of advertising websites. Pklp (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pklp (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.--Pklp (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment:It seems that the article was created by ArmanAfifeh Socks because the person's article in Sample was created by Khadempour322 Socks.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete He clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. None of the references constitute significant independent coverage--it's all databases, routine sports reporting, and two links to the same interview. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Speedy Delete I agree with the User:Papaursa exactly that he does not meet WP:NMMA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.124.114.175 (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Weak delete no indication that the subject meets GNG.--Pklp (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Heavy delete Per all above and checking Farsi sources related to the subject Mardetanha (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:35, 17 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Shri Sanjay Singh[edit]

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

No assertion of notability in article. Does not qualify for the victim of crime criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Soman (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Fimbriata (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Fimbriata (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[]

ːː I probably shouldn't vote as the main editor, however this is a notable (Wikipedia:NCRIME) victim of crime, enough a university (community college?) was named after him and other accolades. I debated to make the article as the assassination event, although he has enough in his life to merit a biography. In terms of environmental protection in India related to mining and the Maoist group, itself notability at its max. Granted, it should be developed. Soon ... as of nowː Works for me Fimbriata (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, per WP:BLP1E, I could find some momentary coverage about him after his death but nothing else. Doesn't comply with WP:VICTIM as the nom says nor is the coverage sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Investigating... Published at least one paper on forest management in Garhawa (maybe two, or more), may have been principal author of Joint Forest Management strategies in Jharkhand. Fimbriata (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep or rename to Murder of Shri Sanjay Singh. Sources in the article range from 2002 to 2017 and are enough to establish notability of the event. Rusalkii (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete All the RS here is about the event of his death, not independantly establishing his notabilitu. WPVictim applies. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:41, 17 December 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 23:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

PointCast Media[edit]

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

A previous AfD in 2006 seems to have been a bit of a mess, bound up briefly with articles on other firms operating in a similar sector and then abandoned. Searches find mentions of "pointcast media" as a generic term, listings of similarly-named firms in various countries, and what appears to be a no-longer-available German-language mirror article. I am not seeing evidence that this defunct keyword ad firm attained notability. AllyD (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. Nothing found. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. NO RS Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Siaka Massaquoi[edit]

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

Not notable as an actor. His main claim to fame is his participation in the 2021 U.S. Capitol riots but I think this falls under the WP:BLP1E rule. Pichpich (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete Bit-player who made a bad life choice. nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete not notable as an actor. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:29, 16 December 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[]

HKUGA Primary School[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable primary school. SL93 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tsang, Ian (2014). 小一入學全攻略 (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Sing Tao News Corporation. pp. 213–215. ISBN 9789623482288. Retrieved 2021-10-11.
  This book devotes three pages to discussing HKUGA Primary School's admissions process, pedagogy, and history.
2. 李世聰 (2020-06-09). "【小一報名】東區一條龍直資港大同學會小學　6月13日截止申請". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-12-12. Retrieved 2021-12-12.
  According to the Hong Kong Economic Times, the HKUGA Primary School is "one of the most sought-after DSS schools".
3. 李紫銘 (2021-06-01). "小一面試│港同小一每年約6千人申請　校長強調小朋友要有呢樣特質" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2021-12-12. Retrieved 2021-12-12.
4. 鄺嫻; 黃存新 (2021-11-25). "【校長專訪】受慈父啟發從不將孩子比較　港同校長：要扶持孩子不是踩扁他". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-12-12. Retrieved 2021-12-12.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow HKUGA Primary School (simplified Chinese: 港大同学会小学; traditional Chinese: 港大同學會小學) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Withdraw: Per the great work by Cunard. SL93 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you, SL93 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 23:40, 12 December 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. JoelleJay's interpretation of GNG is spot-on per sitewide consensus, and is sufficiently supported in this discussion. Daniel (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Rafael Dias (mixed martial artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria as he has only one fight in a top tier promotion. Also fails WP:GNG as her fight coverage is mainly through routine sports report. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep He passes WP:MMABIO as he fought in the WEC three times and Bellator once. 4 top tier fights is enough to pass. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Weak ~~Keep~~ Delete He does have four top tier fights, so he meets the criteria at WP:NMMA, though it would make things easier if he'd won more than one of them. I said my vote was weak because of the lack of significant coverage I saw on him. What I saw was just routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[]

I usually defer to the SNG, but based on JoelleJay's original comment, I went searching for more info. Rafael Dias is not an uncommon name, but I focused on MMA fighters and was not able to find sources that I believe show WP:GNG is met. That is why I changed my vote. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment. NMMA doesn't matter if there isn't GNG sourcing. Can someone provide the three best IRS SIGCOV articles on him? JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete. A news search turned up nothing substantive, just routine match accounts and results. MMA is subordinate to GNG so his meeting the former is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

That doesn't make any sense, by your logic we might aswell go and deleted hundreds of pages that meet WP:MMANOT but don't meet WP:GNG, because there are alot that don't. Why even create specific guidelines for MMA fighters if they don't mean anything? ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 09:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

...Yes, we should delete all the MMA articles that don't meet GNG. MMANOT, like all NSPORT guidelines, is intended to predict whether an article will meet GNG*, it does not directly confer notability. It allows editors to create articles based on database refs that confirm a subject meets a sport-specific guideline (and therefore is predicted to meet GNG) without having to demonstrate notability (through SIGCOV refs) from the get-go like other articles do; but once an article is challenged editors must prove the subject actually does meet GNG.

*The very first sentence of NSPORT is This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. See also the first section of NSPORT: ...the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. And the FAQs collapsed at the top of NSPORT: Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline? A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline..., Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline..., Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met? A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.... JoelleJay (talk) 03:36, 13 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Naina Singh[edit]

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

This article doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. I tried to search on Google, and couldn't find any independent "significant coverage". The best helping thing in this article is that the subject has been a winner at MTV Splitsvilla in 2017. This doesn't help the actress pass WP:ANYBIO in my opinion. WP:NMODEL isn't met because there is nothing substantial role except in the Kumkum Bhagya and I do not see any borderline pass for WP:BASIC. Comments please. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment This is a classic case of how liberal you want to be with WP:BASIC. She is listed in the main cast at Kumkum Bhagya so there is some notability at WP:NACTOR but even NACTOR requires multiple roles. So we can't use that to establish notability. I vaguely remember that winners of reality TV shows were considered notable but I am not able to find that essay now. Fairly possible that my memory is incorrect - hence refraining to use that as an argument. GNG is not met for sure. We are left with WP:BASIC and come back to how conservative we want to be. If we are on conservative side, we will see all sources as regular PR announcements driven by PR agencies. If we are liberal, we will take note of multiple WP:RS writing at least one to two paragraphs about the subject. So all depends on where we are on the spectrum! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with a prominent role in Kumkum Bhagya and winning Splitsville which I would consider as a reality television role and its certainly a prominent role in a notable production. There are plenty of reliable sources in the article already to confirm a pass of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG so there is no valid reason for deletion in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete It doesn't pass GNG as most of the coverage appears to be PR. I don't think it satisfies WP:NACTOR as well which requires multiple significant roles. It lacks here. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 04:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep - appears to be plenty of press on her, from established Indian Media (The Times of India, etc). Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:44, 17 December 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 Jean Valjean#Differences in the musical. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

24,601[edit]

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

The subject is not notable for being a number, rather is (minimally) notable for being a part of a work. Regardless, this article fails WP:NNUM. Previous AfD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24601 (number) JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Merge literary bit to Jean Valjean#Differences in the musical, not sure if the prime factorization stuff needs to be kept or merged elsewhere, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment. This has no great mathematical significance; any notability is purely related to Les Miserables. The factorization is irrelevant to its literary use and should not be merged elsewhere if this is deleted or merged. However, a year ago the article contained a long unsourced section of many references to the same number in other popular culture items [3]. It was removed, but if it could be restored with proper sourcing it might be enough to provide independent-enough notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]
- PS See also 1138 (number), which has more or less the same issues: again, not particularly notable mathematically, but might be notable for its many pop-culture references, if they could be properly sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Merge per Jclemens, no stand alone notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Merge per Jclemens - While the number itself might not be notable as a number as stated by the nom, there's a decent chance that someone may search for it due to its association with Les Miserables, thus keeping it as a Redirect would be a good WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Merge to Jean_Valjean#Differences_in_the_musical per the above. Valid and likely search especially as the one without the comma is a redirect to this one. Star Mississippi 18:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Charlene Ruto[edit]

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

Does not appear to have stand-alone notability. Notability claim seems clear for the parents less so for the children. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: No sign of notability here to warrant an article Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 16:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Monica Aissa Martinez[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a visual artist, not making or sourcing any strong claim to passage of WP:CREATIVE. The notability claim on offer here is that she exists, with no indication whatsoever that she's achieved anything (e.g. significant art awards, major exhibitions, etc.) that would make her existence encyclopedically noteworthy -- and the sourcing consists of three local human interest pieces in her hometown local media, being used entirely to support background trivia on her family life and personal hobbies rather than any potentially notability-building information about her work as an artist. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to contain much more substance and much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep - An emerging artist at the beginning of her career who does meet criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST as her work is in several notable museum collections. I added content + references for the Tucson Museum of Art and Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art and New Mexico State University Museum to the article. More collections are noted here.[4]. A review here [5]. Netherzone (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep - the collections added by Netherzone satisfy WP:NARTIST. I also added a link to an exhibition. The article probably needs some TLC but the notability is there. Lamona (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep her work is in the collection of several notable museums and there is sufficient (albeit not a much) coverage in independent, reliable source to base an article on. Vexations (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Clearly Passes WP:NARTIST She is notable for her works, and has been mentioned in various art galleries and exhibitions, which are cited in as well.Juggyevil (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep, museum collections, page improvements, and discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Azeezat Yishawu[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a member of a youth parliament. This is not a role that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, being the first woman to do a non-notable thing isn't a notability boost, and one footnote isn't enough coverage to get her over WP:GNG all by itself in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to have much, much more substance and referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete — Per extensive detailed rationale by Bearcat. I really do consent that being the first x to accomplish y isn’t indicative of notability and even worse is that the Nigerian Youth Parliament appears to be non notable. I’m afraid I don’t believe there is any real notability here. I wish her all the best in her endeavors but unfortunately as of now, this isn’t mainspace worthy. Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete Members of a youth parliament do not pass WP:NPOL and subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as per normJuggyevil (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. No RS Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete no indication the Nigerian Youth Parliament is at all notable. It appears this is only the 5th one assembled. Some first x to do y are cases for notability, but we as Wikipedia editors are not the ones to decide this, we need multiple in depth, reliable sources that cover any example of first x to do y to show it is an intersection that is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:08, 17 December 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 23:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

C.P Sankara Panicker[edit]

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

Not notable, one of many freedom fighters from the era. Does not have significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Needs improvement, not deletion. Do not let western centrism effect us.Super (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]
Is there any source other than the one in the article? I can find some for a similarly named medieval poet, but not for anybody later. Hemanthah (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More consensus required
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 16:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete There aren't any quickly verifiable sources apart from the two sentence list entry in a "Who's Who" book. The other two sources are autobiographies of two other freedom fighers. I haven't checked them, but even if they cover the subject at length (highly doubtful since their wiki pages don't list the subject at all), they are almost WP:PRIMARY sources. --Hemanthah (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Deleteper nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Betty Tanner[edit]

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

As far as can be determined from the article, Tanner only appears to have had one role in film that was close to significant. However, we actually just know she was part of a large ensemble that were part of the cast. There is no indication that her actualrole in The Wizard of Oz" was notable. She is mentioned on two consecutive pages in a comprehensive book about the Munchkins in the work, that is not enough on its own to show notability. IMDb is not reliable, and is clearly more comprehensive than Wikipedia is meant to be. The one other source is an article about an event in 1992 recreating Oz that mentions 8 of the original cast showed up, that has a one line quote from Tanner and mentions she was in the original cast, but says nothing more. A search for additional sources turned up no more reliable sources. We are not even told a second role she had, notable or otherwise. Some of the muchkin roles in The Wizard of Oz may count as "significant" roles, but there is no inidcation that Tanner's role did, and nothing to indicate that she had any other significant role ever, so she clearly does not meet the "multiple significant roles" prong, her specific rule is not enough to pass any other actress notability prong, and the sources here do not add up to passing GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: Good grief, if she's best known for a role in which she was uncredited, that's damn near the dictionary definition of failing WP:NACTOR. Ravenswing 18:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: Yes, just one uncredited role in a movie, even if it is the Wizard of Oz, is not a highly notable actor! Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Hell no. Heck, one of my brothers-in-law was an aspiring actor, and did gigs as extras in Hollywood movies to try to get his toe in the door. He has four times the number of IMDB credits as Tanner, and with actual screen credit ... granted, entries such as "Neighbor #4" and "Rash Man." No article for him any time in the foreseeable future. Ravenswing 09:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: I created the page (almost 13 years ago) and likely when I didn't really know what I was doing on here. I've searched to see if I can find more sources for her via Google (incl. Books), Newspapers.com, etc. and the answer is I can't, so I agree she fails notability standards. --Jkaharper (talk) 00:16, 14 December 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 23:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Oakville Blue Stars[edit]

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

A page for a random youth team's progress over the years from U9 to U21. Just a collection of random youth rosters and results over the years. Not really what Wikipedia is for. Maybe move to the creator's userspace if they really want to keep it. RedPatch (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: Youth club which fails WP:SIGCOV. GauchoDude (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Matthew Salisbury[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet GNG or any other relevant notability guidelines. An actor/playwright with a local theatre group, and apparently a musician, but notable on none of these grounds. JohnmgKing (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete. No indication of notability, very local. Pikavoom (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Animorphs books. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

The Extreme (novel)[edit]

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

Not notable, almost no reviews from reliable sources Artem.G (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

comment The same about almost every entry from List of Animorphs books, they should all probably be redirected to this list of to the main article. Artem.G (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

comment There are over 50 books in this *very popular* series, and there seems to be a Wikipedia article for each one. I'm not sure how this one was singled out, but there are others with no reliable references or none at all. That makes this a very large cleanup project. Note that the books were bestsellers in their category [6] although they appear to be treated as a series. (Then again, so was Harry Potter...) Lamona (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Redirect This is a Huge kids series of books, with over 50 books in the series. The individual books don't warrant their own page. There's no RS to establish particular notability. Huge kids series of books. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Redirect to List of Animorphs books (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I searched for reviews and news coverage about the book and was unable to find significant coverage about it. The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 11:26, 14 December 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. Withdrawn by nominator. No editors in favour of deletion. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Worarat Suwannarat[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants), not a winner of a Big 4; has a single mini-series film credit on IMDB. Insufficient depth of coverage to meet WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment: The subject's main claim to notability would be not from her pageant titles but her acting career. The Thai Wikipedia lists eight TV roles between 1999 and 2005, including a lead role in the highly popular 2000 production of Angkor. In-depth news coverage most likely exists from the period of her peak career two decades ago, which is naturally not available online but would be archived in research libraries. Recent entertainment news columns from major outlets still cover her now and then, and describe her popularity back in the day.[7][8][9][10][11] --Paul_012 (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Paul_012 So she passes WP:NACTOR or not? VocalIndia (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[]

It would depend on whether her other works (apart from Angkor) are also considered notable. เพชรตาแมว (Phet Ta Maeo, 1999) and คู่อันตรายดับเครื่องชน (Khu Antarai Dap Khrueang Chon, 1999), in which she co-starred, don't currently have articles on the Thai Wikipedia, but comparable titles from today would most likely generate enough coverage to satisfy the notability criteria. These magazine covers also suggest so.[12][13][14] (PS A ping won't work if you add the signature in a later edit.) --Paul_012 (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete The sourcing is no where near the level we would need to show notability. Nothing she did is even close to showing default notability, so we need actual sources to show notability.~~John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)~~[]

Sources certainly exist but need trip to national library to find those printed newspapers and magazines. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment According to [15][16] Angkor, which Worarat Suwannarat was the leading actress, was the TV series director Chalong Pakdeevijit's top TV rating at 30 (means 30% of Thai population were watching the TV program). According to [17], top 5 ever for Thai TV series had ratings of 40 (by 1990 version of Khu Kam), 38 (by 1994 version of Dao Pra Sook), 36, 34, and 32 respectively. According to [18] a recent top TV drama Love Destiny (TV series) only had rating of 23.4 in Bangkok and 18.6 nationwide as fewer people watch TV these days. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[]
- Angkor appear to ranked 8th in all-time Thai TV series rating according to someone's unofficial list posted in a webboard [19] but high ratings are rare back then and modern day TV rating is only in single digits like this one from yesterday [20]. None higher in the list was aired in the same year so this should be top rating of that year as well. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep It appears her roles as a lead actress in TV are enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Withdraw nomination I'm now convinced that she's reasonably notable in Thailand. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:41, 15 December 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 The Lost Prince (Burnett novel). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Samavia[edit]

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

No external notability or reasons to describe its history here. I don't think it even needs to be merged to the main book article - I can't find references to some of these things outside the text of the novel itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

~~Delete~~ Redirect. I can't find any coverage of this fictional country, which is from a work by Burnett so obscure I have never heard of it despite having read quite deeply into her back catalogue. It might be useful to distill this down into 3-4 sentences on Samavia in a "setting" section for the main article, but that is the most that is needed. And it would be fine to simply delete. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

I went ahead and added a "setting" section to The Lost Prince (Burnett novel); I now think the best course is a redirect, to better preserve edit attribution. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[]

'Redirect to The Lost Prince (Burnett novel). I see some passing mentions but no in-depth coverage. The article is a plot summary with no attempt at analysis. Redirect will do perfectly fine here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete/redirect per all. There isn't coverage to support this topic as its own article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Brenda Barrios[edit]

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

This is a biography of a third-year art transfer student at UCLA, although the article doesn't clearly show that she studies at UCLA, who has no professional accomplishments to speak of, but has received coverage in two student newspapers. Is that sufficient to base a biography on? Note that this article is part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment by UCLA's Chicanx and Central American Studies' Chicana Art and Artists course. Vexations (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST criteria. This emerging artist is at the very beginning stages of her career and it's definitely WP:TOOSOON. All a BEFORE search revealed were social media, a kickstarter campaign, Pinterest and other user-submitted content, none of which contributes to notability. I do think it is sad when student work gets deleted, and really wish that the Wiki-educational component might consider advising teachers to assign notable subjects for their students. It seems like it would be a real bummer for a student to work on an article as a class assignment that has no chance of being kept. It seems like that would discourage, rather than encourage editor retention. Netherzone (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment that's a problem with the teacher, not the creator of the article. Still nothing notable. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Not necessarily. Students in WikiEd supported courses should have completed a training module that discusses notability: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/wikipedia-essentials/notability-continued Vexations (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete student publications covering students are not a source of passing GNG. They lack the full indepdent from the subject we require. This subject is no where near meeting the notability guidelines we have for artists, and we have a clear failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 13 December 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. Sandstein 08:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

List of right-wing terrorist attacks[edit]

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

a synthesis, no evidence of definable scope ~ cygnis insignis 12:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Strong keep Although current version would benefit from tightening, we have an article Right-wing terrorism which defines the scope and shows this is a clearly notable topic. I don't understand the claim that the article is synthesis. It may be the inclusion of some incidents would be synthesis (if RS 1 said x was an incident of terrorism and RS 2 said it was carried out by the far right, and we called it an incident of right-wing terrorism would that count as synthesis?) but how can you say the article itself is synthesis? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]
In answer to your first question, yes, that is a synthesis of two sources. Each item added to the list can be sourced, and challenged as NOT a right-wing terrorist attacks by any other editor, because there is "no evidence of definable scope", the relevant line is

"This is a list of right-wing terrorist attacks. Right-wing terrorism includes terrorist acts motivated by neo-Nazi, neo-fascist, white nationalist, anti-Semitism, Christian terrorism, white separatist, anti-abortion terrorism, and ethnonationalist ideologies.[citation needed (July 2020)]"

That is what I concluded, something might change my mind. ~ cygnis insignis 12:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

I think we can easily address that particular cn as the right-wing terrorism article itself has plenty of sources. I don't understand the negative sourcing. If sources say all these attacks weren't right-wing terrorism fair enough, but so long as RSs do mention these attacks as examples of right-wing terrorism, it's a case by case issue not a question of the whole article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

That is one of the places I thought to look for a reference. For example, SPLC does not arrange its extensive content on hate crimes in a classification 'right-wing' that is defined as being inclusive of the terms mentioned in the list. There is some preliminary discussion at the NOR board, where I suggested delete? a couple of days ago. ~ cygnis insignis 13:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete Just a bias media thing trying to call everyone they don't like a Nazi. Right wing politics does not equal "everyone is a Nazis if they disagree with me". The list includes Anti-communism, religious terrorists, "anti-religious beliefs" terrorists, "Opposition to abortion", and every hate crime they could find as long the victim wasn't non-Jewish White. Some of these entries have no deaths and no injuries. Dream Focus 16:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment The worst this page can really be accused of is grouping together a list of ideologies under the somewhat imprecise label "right-wing". It could potentially be split into List of white nationalist terrorist attacks, List of anti-Semitic terrorist attacks, etc., which would obviate concerns about a fuzzy scope. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment For what it's worth, Europol's TE-SAT (their annual Terrorism Situation and Trend report, for those not familiar with it) categorizes terrorism into the following (non-mutually exclusive) types: jihadist terrorism, ethno-nationalist and separatist terrorism, left-wing and anarchist terrorism, right-wing terrorism, and single-issue terrorism (though that last one was absent in the latest report). TompaDompa (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]
That works, with attribution, for Europe at least. The definitions are clear enough, in this case it ends "Racist behaviour, authoritarianism, xenophobia, misogyny and hostility to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) communities and immigration are common attitudes among right-wing extremists." 2021 report. p. 80. ~ cygnis insignis 18:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep I would oppose the deletion of this article for the same reason I opposed the deletion of "mass killings under communist regimes" in that I don't consider synthesis as it functions as a list article and that deletion of this article could be interpreted as partisan. The issue arises in how we define right-wing terrorism, right wing economically? socially? Islamist extremist terrorist attacks could be considered right wing but so could white supremacist attacks, also there is a time issue, would a group that would right-wing nowadays be considered such when the attack took place etc TheFinalMigration (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep but remove any attacks for which there is no single reliable source which specifically describes it as both terrorism and right-wing. The topic of right-wing terrorism is itself notable, and right-wing terrorist attacks are often discussed as a group, so the criteria for a list are met. The SYNTH problem is solvable and does not necessitate deletion. The description in the second sentence of the article should also probably be cut entirely, because it implies that Islamic terrorism, which is often motivated by antisemitism and/or ethnonationalism, would also be included. Mlb96 (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep As per Mlb96. Initially I was wondering if a merger to Right-wing terrorism (and yes, there is an equivalent Left-wing terrorism article) would be worthwhile, however due to the size of the article I believe that maintaining this separate list article is warranted. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Certainly a notable article, and in line with other articles in similar context. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Revisiting the topic a couple days later, I think that Mlb96 is correct, and whatever WP:SYNTH issues present are fixable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment - I chose to comment since I'm ambivalent about such lists. Like for a number of sensitive list articles, I recognize how it can be a challenge to get right. It currently at least seems to have a strict inclusion criteria, as all entries link to an existing article. It's also important per WP:TERRORIST to make sure that reliable sources have described the event as such. The topic is obviously notable (so is far-left terrorism) and whole books have been written. However, Right-wing terrorism already exists that can certainly provide the best examples of notable events. Presumably, with that article and categories, encyclopedic coverage could be enough. —Paleo Neonate – 18:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment I'm not unsympathetic to the nomination; for example, there's a marked conflation between terrorism and hate crime. Nevertheless, right-wing terrorism is a distinct historical activity, I suspect clean-up here would be possible. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Question A number of editors have sensibly suggested that rightly raised SYNTH issue is easily dealt with via reliable sources, e.g. Mlb96 suggests every listing needs at least a "single reliable source which specifically describes it as both terrorism and right-wing". I wonder if this is necessary where our WP article on the listing describes it as both terrorism and right-wing, citing reliable sources? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep As per Mlb96 and User:MrsSnoozyTurtle 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:22, 17 December 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. No consensus for the nomination has been established. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 08:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

FK Obilić Stadium[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer stadium that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NARENA, which holds that athletic stadia are neither presumptively notable nor inherit the notability of any teams that play there. Significant coverage has not been demonstrated to exist, the article has been inadequately sourced for over fifteen years now, and I'm seeking a redirect to FK Obilić, a now-defunct club that played there (although a redirect to Vračar, the municipality in which it's in, may make more sense). Ravenswing 12:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Here is some in-depth, subject specific coverage: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] The stadium until 2015 was a host of FK Obilić, one time (1998) football champion of Yugoslavia (!). It hosted also Yugoslav Cup final games, European competition games as well as youth national teams matches, including group stage of 2011 UEFA European Under-17 Championship final tournament. [26] It is also home venue of women's team ŽFK Obilić. Clearly an important, notable venue. Olos88 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Reply: NARENA (and WP:NRVE) explicitly debars inherited and transitive notability from a venue; what competitions occurred there or teams that played there are utterly irrelevant to the question of notability, a fact of which you've been made aware a number of times over. As far as your links, go, let's run down the list:
(1) An interview with the president of the football club; the stadium's mentioned, but no significant coverage of the stadium here.
(2) Interesting piece, but it's about a new stadium that might have been built if an important backer hadn't died.
(3) UEFA press release; cannot contribute towards notability even if it did have more than two sentences about the stadium.
(4) A brief tabloid piece alleging that 500 Germans are buried beneath the ground, but saying nothing beyond that. Close, but not quite.
(5) A database entry, not significant coverage. Ravenswing 04:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep - former top tier stadium that hosted European and youth international football. Giant Snowman 12:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Kindly take a look at NARENA, which is linked at the top of this page, and explicitly states that the level of competition that may or may not have taken place at a stadium has no bearing on notability. Ravenswing 13:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments It's probably a keep, however I am not keen on the sources coming from Kurir, a tabloid government run newspaper where the website runs some strong tracking analytics. The UEFA.com source is good source, I don't know why nominator calls the fact sheet a press release and saying it doesn't contribute to notability when it clearly does. There is a lot of information that can be added to the article that is missing. However, the article is under the wrong title. The FK needs removing and the redirect of Obilić Stadium switched around as it's a multipurpose stadium. Govvy (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]
It may be moved to Stadion Miloš Obilić (as StadiumDB suggests). I can't right now focus on the topic and expand the article, but I'll try to find some time in the coming days, so I would also rethink the correct title for it. Olos88 (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]
@Olos88: It's no longer called Stadion Milos Obilic as far as I am aware, that appears to be an older name. Maybe that's a possible redirect as a plausible search term. Govvy (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Because it is a press release, and therefore does not qualify as a source under the GNG, even if it did give WP:SIGCOV to the stadium, which it does not. Ravenswing 03:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ravenswing: Do you even know what a press release is? There is no original statement, there is no, who, what, when, where and why. The UEFA.com source is simply one of thousands of fact sheets they release. They actually have a massive database of fact sheets which are provided to media, which is also has a public release. These fact sheets, general provide background on a football team, (club). There are fact sheets on stadiums like this one here. So I don't mean to be rude at you, but it clearly is not a press release! Maybe you should look up the definition of a press release! Govvy (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]
"A press release is an official statement delivered to members of the news media for the purpose of providing information, creating an official statement, or making an announcement directed for public release. Press releases are also considered a primary source, meaning they are original informants for information." What the merry hell do you figure that such a statement from UEFA about upcoming matches is? Honestly. Ravenswing 09:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep One of the biggest and best known stadiums in the country, long standing stadium for Yugoslav League and Serbian Superliga, enough sources. The article was taken to AfD just to illustrate a point. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep The sources provided in the article and this AfD are sufficient to meet GNG. Notability is not inherited from the team, so the stadium must stand alone in meeting GNG, and it does. Smartyllama (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment: WP:NARENA has nothing to say on the subject of arenas and stadiums. The section link is broken and no other section covers the topic. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep, as there are enough sources to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:16, 17 December 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. Daniel (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Zemun Stadium[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer stadium that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NARENA, which holds that athletic stadia are neither presumptively notable nor inherit the notability of any teams that play there. Significant coverage has not been demonstrated to exist, the article has been inadequately sourced for over fifteen years now (and notability tagged for 12 years), is unsourced now, and I'm seeking a redirect to FK Zemun, the second-division team that plays there. Ravenswing 12:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment I'll refrain from voting for now, but this is a 10,000-people stadium built in 1962, so most coverage will be in offline sources. Since FK Zemun fell low in recent years (their own website http://www.fkzemun.rs/ seems defunct), and the stadium is rather decrepit, there is not much recent coverage. Here's what I quickly found, which admittedly does not satisfy GNG:
- Short coverage in Novosti [27]
- Short coverage on City official website [28]
- Stadium DB [29] (not exactly a RS)
- Zemun--dani davni, dani sadašnji - Volume 2 - Page 95 seems to describe early history, but only snippet view is available.
- News about an accident (wall collapse) in April 2021 [30]

No such user (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Reply: I hadn't found anything myself on my pass a few weeks ago; I did see the wall collapse article, but pretty much all that says is that, well, a wall collapsed. I agree that none of those sources you list constitute significant coverage that meets the GNG, but the purpose of a redirect is to preserve the article's existence against someone finding such sources. Ravenswing 12:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep, in club's monography from 1995 there is whole chapter about this stadium [31] (pages 284-290). I think, that's enough for "significant coverage in reliable sources". Olos88 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]
- This is published by the club, yes? Primary source, and thus does not bolster notability. We need multiple reliable and independent sources. Ravenswing 21:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]
This book was reviewed by three reviewers (see last page) and was written by well-recognized local historian, author of more than 50 books related to Zemun. Olos88 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]
That wasn't the question. A club publication is a primary source, and therefore while it can be held reliable for statements of fact, cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. Ravenswing 13:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]
First, we have to do here with peer-revieved source, written by subject's specialist, so there should not be any dispute over neutrality, point of interest, advertising, etc. Clearly a whole chapter in such book indicates the notability of the stadium. Second, the club was only a co-publisher, along with "TRAG" publishing (see last page). Third, this is a municipality stadium, which was build on the initiative of local Socialist Alliance of Working People, the club is only the tenant. Olos88 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]
Doesn't matter. The BBC -- which is pretty much the gold standard of reliable sources -- has been rejected as a source contributing to notability of their own journalists. Primary sources are disqualified, period. Ravenswing 19:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]
It was just partly published by the club, and, if (as it was numerously pointed in last stadiums AfD's) notability of the club is not inherited for a stadium, then you should also admit, that a source related to the club is not a primary source for the stadium. Olos88 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't get to "admit" anything that's contrary to the provisions of the GNG. "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." (emphasis mine) We would be having fewer of these conversations if you took the time to go over the GNG, with you already conceding you weren't very familiar either with its elements or how notability differs on the en-wiki from the pl-wiki. Ravenswing 22:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]
When local historian is writing a monography about the club, then it is very likely that the club would participate/help in that work. It doesn't have to necessarily affect the neutrality or independence of the work. Anyway, if you still refuse to accept that source, in 1989 the same author wrote "Hronika Zemunskog sporta" ("Chronicle of Zemun's sport"). Unfortunately I can't find the whole book online, but according to the table of content, there is a whole chapter about football venues in the municipality, where we are very likely to find significant coverage about this stadium as it is by far the largest sporting facility in Zemun. Olos88 (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep - former top tier stadium. Giant Snowman 12:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Kindly take a look at NARENA, which is linked at the top of this page, and explicitly states that the level of competition that may or may not have taken place at a stadium has no bearing on notability. Ravenswing 13:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]
It's important to note you created the redirect WP:NARENA 6 hours prior to this AfD. The redirect right now acts as WP:NSPORT because your edit got reverted. – The Grid (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep One of the biggest and best known stadiums in the country, long standing stadium for Yugoslav League and Serbian Superliga, enough sources. The article was taken to AfD just to illustrate a point. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Coverage noted in this AfD is sufficient to pass GNG. This is what I was concerned about when I reluctantly supported NARENA - the vast majority of these venues are still going to pass GNG, and I supported NARENA conditional on mass AfD's like this not happening, similar to the warning that was issued when the schools RfC came out a few years ago. Clearly that was too optimistic of me. Smartyllama (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment: WP:NARENA has nothing to say on the subject of arenas and stadiums. The section link is broken and no other section covers the topic. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep and easily so - former top flight stadium which has also hosted notable concerts. It is hard to search for because of its relatively common name (city stadium in/of Zemun), and if the BEFORE search was limited to "Zemun Stadium" I can clearly see how this got to AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 18 December 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. No consensus for the nomination has been established. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 08:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

King Peter I Stadium[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer stadium that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NARENA, which holds that athletic stadia are neither presumptively notable nor inherit the notability of any teams that play there. Significant coverage has not been demonstrated to exist, the article has been inadequately sourced for over sixteen years now, and I'm seeking a redirect to FK Rad, the second-division team that plays there. Ravenswing 11:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep There is some subject-specific, in-depth coverage to be found, for example: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Intil you judge this as "weak" and "insufficient to claim 100% GNG compatibility", please take into consideration, that this stadium for many years served as a top-level football venue in the league of Yugoslavia (5 seasons), Serbia and Montenegro (12 of 14 seasons) and Serbia (13 of 15 seasons so far). It also hosted European competition games [37] This stadium is also a home venue for multiple Yugoslavian and Serbian rugby champions, Rugby Club Rad [38] and hosted international games of Serbia national team [39]. Olos88 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]
Reply: None of those sources are "in-depth" -- they all constitute trivial coverage, primary sources and/or namedrops. We need significant coverage, in detail, for any single source to qualify under the GNG. As far as your other points, NARENA (as well as WP:NRVE, of course) explicitly debars inherited or transitive notability: what matches the stadium has hosted are irrelevant, what teams it has hosted are irrelevant. The GNG, and only the GNG, is the only notability guideline which bears upon the subject. Ravenswing 21:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep - former top tier stadium that has hosted European football. Giant Snowman 12:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Kindly take a look at NARENA, which is linked at the top of this page, and explicitly states that the level of competition that may or may not have taken place at a stadium has no bearing on notability. Ravenswing 13:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep One of the biggest and best known stadiums in the country, long standing stadium for Yugoslav League and Serbian Superliga, enough sources. The article was taken to AfD just to illustrate a point. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment to nom: I am interested to learn more about WP:NARENA, however the redirect link takes me back to the generic sports notability WP:ATHLETE page and I see no mentions of "stadium", "stadia", nor "arena" (save for one instance when talking about Arena Football) on the whole page. GauchoDude (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Passes GNG, NARENA is a proposal but does not actually exist as a guideline at the moment as nom's WP:BOLD addition was reverted. Smartyllama (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment: WP:NARENA has nothing to say on the subject of arenas and stadiums. The section link is broken and no other section covers the topic. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep Passes GNG - as above, notable stadium. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:46, 17 December 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Youth Unstoppable[edit]

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

Article about a documentary film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The notability claim here is awards from minor film festivals that aren't prominent enough to clinch "notable because award" -- that's looking for festivals on the Cannes-Berlin-Sundance-Toronto tip, not just any and every small-fry film festival that exists -- and which are referenced entirely to the film festivals' own self-published websites about themselves rather than any evidence of media coverage in third party sources. (The difference between an award that is notable enough to confer notability on its winners and an award that is not notable enough to confer notability on its winners, as always, hinges on whether it's an award that media consider significant enough to cover or not.)
And even on a search for other sources, I'm not finding anything that would make a difference: the most substantive coverage I can find is a small one-day blip of "famous person signs on as executive producer of documentary film" when one of the film's executive producers was announced in 2018, which isn't enough to turn the tide all by itself, and I'm otherwise only finding primary sources, student media and glancing namechecks of the film's existence in tangential coverage of other things or people, not sources that actually establish the notability of this film by being independent and reliable and substantive. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep - recent significant international coverage, including the first (malformed) CNN reference in the article here, and one earlier this month in Australia. Nfitz (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[]

The CNN hit is a short blurb within a liveblog about a broader event, which means it's not substantive coverage about the film for the purposes of establishing notability — and the Australian hit is a Q& A interview in which the filmmaker is talking about her own work in the first person, which means that one isn't independent of the film for the purposes of establishing notability. So no, that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[]

I disagree. Nfitz (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[]

You can disagree all you like, that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia has an established consensus that liveblogs and Q&A interviews aren't GNG-making sources in and of themselves for a topic that doesn't have anything better. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[]

The CNN link is not a "short blurb", but a 10-paragraph standalone story, presented with other stories. It's no more a live-blog than the Globe & Mail is a live-blog. The Australian article does include a Q&A interview, but there's an 8-paragraph article BEFORE the interview, which in itself is good enough for GNG. Adding an interview onto it, doesn't undo it! There's also no shortage of what I'd actually call blurbs from renowned sources around the world, such as Variety, Al Jazeera, Toronto Star, Avanti and Marie Claire; while they don't meet GNG, does dismiss the argument that this is just some small-fry local film. Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[]

One post in a multipost thread that's formatted exactly the same way CNN routinely formats its event liveblogs is not a "standalone story" — standalone stories stand alone as the core topic of the page, and do not have other unrelated stories about other unrelated things threaded before and after them under a single common article title. Every interview with anybody in a media outlet always includes a bit of prefatory content to contextualize who the person is and why they're being interviewed, so the existence of prefatory content does not eliminate the problems with using interviews as sourcing — no interview would ever actually be subject to our rules about interviews at all if that were how it worked, because no interview ever fails to have an explanatory paragraph or two at the top. And since blurbs don't help to build notability at all (just like interviews, they're fine for verification of stray facts after GNG has already been passed, but count for nothing toward the initial matter of whether GNG has been passed in the first place), none of those other links are helping at all.

And I didn't say the film was "small-fry and local", either — I said that the film festivals whose awards are being proffered here as the film's notability claim are small-fry and local festivals. NFILM #3 does not just indiscriminately extend an automatic notability freebie to every film that wins just any award at just any film festival that exists — it only considers awards from internationally prominent major film festivals, such as Cannes, Berlin, TIFF or Sundance, which can be referenced to media coverage that reports that film festival's awards as news. So "small-fry" and "local" were and are descriptions of the festivals, not of the film, because the international prominence and media profile of the festivals is germane to whether their awards count as notability claims or not. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[]

I disagree. Nfitz (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Good for you, want a cookie? That doesn't make me any less correct about how notability works for films, or how interviews and blurbs work vis-à-vis GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Just because someone disagrees with you about GNG works regarding interview and what a "blurb" is (this isn't) doesn't mean you are allowed to belittle them. Though generally such uncivil behaviour typically means that the person resorting to it, has little factual to go to. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 10 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Shree Vasupujya Swami Jain Shwetamber temple[edit]

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

No indication of notability of this temple. Fails WP:GNG. Such temples are in every street in India. Venkat TL (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[]

*Delete I tried to do a search but i couldn't find any sources apart from its Facebook page. Fails ~~WP:GNG. Keriwands (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-11 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 December 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Slime punk[edit]

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

Non notable music genre, none of the references listed describe this as a coherent music genre. RoseCherry64 (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: per nom. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 11:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: some of these genre's seem to be based on one or two people dressing up and taking a pic. There's no solid RS here, mainly refers to one article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: Another one of those annoying pseudo genres that are called out by some random person somewhere on the internet every two weeks. WilhelmSchneider (talk) 15:57, 14 December 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) 23:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Rolling Hills Preparatory School[edit]

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

No independent soyurce that cover the subject in sufficient detail to establish notability. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment The fact it uses the old Navel Ship Yard housing might make it a good idea to merge it into that facilities article? Super (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete. Outside of various listing websites such as this one, a page with the school’s statistics, and non-notable coverage, there’s nothing notable about this school. Jobie James (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep. Easily enough references to satisfy WP:GNG as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]
- Schools are not notable just because they exist. That is already the case since 2017. The Banner talk 14:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep - I found many sources through Google search. I've added a few of those to the article.Mommmyy (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[]

comment In order to establkish notablity we need independent sourcess which discuss school in detail, not routine local newspaper announcements about school events. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete in the WP:BEFORE I can find mainly listings and the own website. Nothing thatlook like WP:SIGCOV. The Banner talk 00:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete All I could find is a couple of articles about a student from there who died and some other trivial name drops. From what I can tell there's nothing that would qualify as direct, in-depth coverage though. None of the references in the article cut it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 21:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Afedena school[edit]

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

Seven non-notable elementary schools and one project article about these elementary schools. A year ago, an AfD on 7 other elementary school articles, part of the same field project and created by the same editor, was closed as 'Delete'.

All 8 articles were created in full by now-blocked spammer/sockpuppet editor Jnyssen, and illustrated with his own photographs. The articles are cited predominantly to Jan Nyssen-authored books/papers (authorship frequently disguised or not disclosed in Wikipedia), or cited to masters/doctoral students' theses and dissertations (none published per Google Scholar). From Jan Nyssen article (created by Rastakwere, editor Jnyssen's sock): "He promoted dozens of Master and PhD theses, particularly at UGent (Belgium), KU Leuven (Belgium), Mekelle University (Ethiopia) and Bahir Dar University (Ethiopia)." These 8 articles seem to be part of that 'promotion'. More fundamental than just being badly sourced, the subjects of the 7 school articles don't pass notability standards WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG, WP:ORG. See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I'm less certain about the project article, School WatSani. Platonk (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete I didn't really look into the notability of these articles, but I think they can be deleted without much controversy due the consensus in the prior AfD and the fact that the articles were created by a blocked spammer and sockpuppet. There's no point in encouraging spammers/sockpuppets by keeping them around. It's not like the articles can't be recreated by someone else if the schools are really notable anyway. No big lose in the meantime though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 21:48, 12 December 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 10:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Ericka Yancey[edit]

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

BLP of a musician who doesnt seem very notable, and lacks proper references. Rathfelder (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, although credit to the article—you don't usually find non-notable BLPs without a trace of promotionality. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment: it's a tricky one, this – the positions of the two singles on the R&B chart can be corroborated, and there is a reasonable article about her in Billboard in anticipation of her provisional debut album [40], and a brief follow-up a few weeks later when the release date had changed [41]. But I haven't got anything else at the moment, and everything else currently in the article – the album being shelved, making a second album a decade later – would remain unsourced, so the announcement of the debut album's forthcoming release in 1997 would be an odd place to finish an article if we just stick to the verifiable sources, unless someone can find something else. Edit: one further passing mention of her as a co-writer of a song [42]. Richard3120 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]
Hmm, not sure this pushes this over the line of GNG. the first one is reliable and reasonably in-depth, but the rest don't match that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

~~Delete ——-~~ ~~Frankiethesexaddict (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[]

your user profile and contributions are throwing me for several loops. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 05:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input into Richard3120's findings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete removing all the unreleased albums, she's been a back-up singer. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:29, 12 December 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 (G11) by Kuru. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 15:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Parhao.pk[edit]

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

Promotional article on a Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, needless to say a WP:BEFORE shows nothing but social media websites & self published materials which are all unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete as a G11 speedy - the draft was already speedied - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 10 December 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 09:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Sun Farm[edit]

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

This page is based on a fantasy photo which claims to be a view of Sun Farm. If it existed then it would be talked about widely - it isnt. It would be linked across Wikipedia and it isnt. The article has dead link external links and no refs. Victuallers (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Victuallers (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: a few references, most of which are to broken links, and the official web site. Not enough RS here to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:28, 12 December 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 09:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Zinstall WinWin[edit]

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

All created by what looks to be an SPA who has little activity other than these articles. Sources listed are all unreliable or paid coverage, could not find sources. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Nominating related pages:

- CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Mohammad Atikuzzaman[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps in fully-pro leagues, no appearances for national team. Pretty much all provided references (both English and Bengali) are mentions about him being finally called up to the national team for upcoming matches (in which he didn't debut). BlameRuiner (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete maybe speedy, as the two main contributors have been blocked as socks of each other. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete I had missed some of the indicators that the subject wasn't notable in my NPP review. My bad. Vexations (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete - fails GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:28, 12 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

World Extreme Fighting[edit]

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

Article lacks sufficient references to establish notability and it's unclear whether sufficient references could ever be found. Current references are mostly broken links about the founder or are promotional in nature. The claim that it is the second longest continuously running promotion is out of date (events were held 1998-2011). Founder Jamie Levine died in 2014 (https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-2014-01-21-os-feature-obit-jamie-levine-20140121-story.html). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep, as the promotion is a notable one, but the article could use expansion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Can you please show what sources provide the coverage that make this organization WP notable? Are you mixing up this group with World Extreme Cagefighting? Papaursa (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete My search found no significant coverage of this defunct organization in independent reliable sources. There is nothing that shows this meets any criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Papaursa (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete can find no evidence of notability with appropriate reliable sources, even older ones from it was still current.Frond Dishlock (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Telebrás plug[edit]

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

No sources and no room for improvement, and since this plug cannot be notable simply because it exists, the article is non-notable. Philosophy2 (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 10 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

We Were Happy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. The "Background" section is made up of interviews and information about the album, which is WP:PRIMARY. The compact "Composition" section can be merged into the Fearless (Taylor's Version) album article. "Critical reception" is in the context of album reviews, and although this can be acceptable if the song is thoroughly analyzed or discussed, this is not the case. "Charts" alone is not enough for notability per NSONGS. Ippantekina (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ippantekina (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ippantekina (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-04 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 December 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 Fearless Tour. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Journey to Fearless[edit]

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

A documentary by a notable artist (Taylor Swift), but not notable itself. The article barely contains any information other than release date, personnel, and its track list, which reads like a piece of WP:PROMO. The whole article can be merged into the article Fearless Tour in a subsection. Ippantekina (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ippantekina (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Fearless Tour. While there might not be sufficient content to justify its own article, this is plausible search term. It would at least guide users to the relevant subject. ✗plicit 03:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

I agree. Ippantekina (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Merge to a new section on Fearless Tour (simply named Journey to Fearless?) TheCartoonEditor (talk) (contribs) 13:03, 17 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Surya Cinema[edit]

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

Article has no sources, and I cannot find any with a WP:BEFORE. In the history for the article, it looks like some had attempted to add sources previously, but no RS could be found. Nominating at AfD, as PROD was declined (with no edit summary or subsequent expansion) in October. At that time, the PROD said "Likely fork of a tv channel called Surya Movies, which is already a redirect to parent article Sun TV Network. Channel probably ceased to exist since no mention here". jp×g 01:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. jp×g 01:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. jp×g 01:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete: as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:29, 12 December 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 03:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

IHateJulian[edit]

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

Non-notable singer; previous AfD ended in a Keep due mainly to the arguments of users later blocked as sockpuppets. I'm filing this AfD after doing an editing pass on the article after it was brought to my attention via IRC; none of the sources in the article were/are usable at all and even after cleaning it up, we'd have nothing left to show for it. WP:BEFORE returns absolutely nothing usable (string: ihatejulian). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete. Also worked through some of the sources (was witness of the IRC conversation) and everything was very strongly based in press releases, churnalism, or PR outlets. I'm seeing extremely limited coverage in the way of actual recognized outlets, and no indication that they could meet GNG. Perryprog (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete Can't find any reliable sources to establish GNG. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete No RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete, not enough reliable sources for notability. Pikavoom (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete No evidence of notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Vinappris[edit]

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

While WP:BCAST is an essay, it seems to be a rather useful guideline and this seems to fall into the category of Most individual channels on a cable or satellite radio service are generally not notable unless they meet the general notability guideline. Doing WP:BEFORE I could find nothing that really establishes notability for this short-lived tv channel. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 01:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 01:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 10 December 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 01:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Bruno Cianci[edit]

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

Blatant spam created by an obvious COI account. None of the biographical details are properly sourced, and the other sections are sourced only to the subject's own writings. – bradv^🍁 00:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete Primary sources, appears to be a vanity page, name dropping, conflict of interest(s). May be notable for Cianci's Italian knighthood, though the source is surprisingly brief. Some, if not all, editing by anons appear to be by the article's subject: diff. Most of the photos which were uploaded for the article by KafaKonforu (talk · contribs) as "own work" appear not authored by KafaKonforu. Most of the photos I have nominated for deletion. KafaKonforu was asked to disclose COI, but has not replied. Adakiko (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

A major reference is http://www.stmoderna.it/cianci-bruno_a3191 appears to be self-published, per http://www.stmoderna.it/elenco-anagrafe-studiosi (Italian) Adakiko (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete While he has received a number of knighthoods, and appears to be an expert in boating/ sailing, there doesn't seem to be much independent RS here establishing his notability.possibly WP:toosoon Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:39, 12 December 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.