Wikipedia:XfD today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Articles[edit]

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Ranveer Singh (Author)[edit]

Ranveer Singh (Author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

non notable British writer/Author fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. NarangD (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Shrawan Ghimire[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Jiya K.C.[edit]

Jiya K.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails to show WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Sérgio Lopes[edit]

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

BLP without working references Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: The pt.wiki text is more complete and does contain some review/interview links (albeit dead and archived links) as well as claims to Gold records, which could be sufficient for WP:MUSICBIO #3. Pró-Música Brasil confirms the subject's O Sétimo was a Gold record. AllyD (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Bouzié[edit]

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

The film doesn't meet with WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. I've done WP:BEFORE but didn't find any reliable, secondary, independent source.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  💬 09:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  💬 09:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  💬 09:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (TCGE) 09:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Marcello Gil[edit]

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

BLP without any proper references. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Jal Shah[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Fade258 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

1994 United States Soccer Federation presidential election[edit]

1994 United States Soccer Federation presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

There is simply no reason to have a standalone article about this. Nothing that can't or shouldn't be covered elsewhere. Geschichte (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Luiz de Carvalho[edit]

Luiz de Carvalho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Only reference, which doesnt work, seems to be to his church website. Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Third World Network[edit]

Third World Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Unclear notability. The organization clearly exists and publishes its own material. However, the material on this page is unsourced, does not really explain the organization or what it does or establish clear notability. Even if the consensus is keep, it would seem wise to reduce this article to a stub based on the few available facts and let it be built back up from the ground up, if and when significant new sources arises. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hugo Duarte[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria, as he only has 2 fights in top tier promotions out of the required three, nor has he been ranked inside the top 10 of his division. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 08:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Amsprop[edit]

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

This is just a holding company for the personal assets of a notable wealthy individual - the company itself is not notable, as evidenced by the fact that the only supporting sources are a press release and vanished pdf. If any of these details are indeed important, they can always be re-included on the article about Alan Sugar. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Marion Baumann-Parkhurst[edit]

Marion Baumann-Parkhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Without any desire to diminish the trials that the subject of this article went through in their life, their experience is not unique and the only case for the notability of this article appears to be a standalone self-published work. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@DGG @Whpq Just nominated this article for deletion before realising that it has apparently come back from the grave. I would re-nominate it for speedy deletion based on it being restored deleted content, but that was in 2009, I can't see the old content, and I'm not sure if there is a statute of limitations for things like this. Please advise. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd[edit]

Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

It doesn't seem like a firm ruling has been made on what constitutes notability RE: law and legal cases, but if the contents of this article represent all that is said in the source about this case then it doesn't seem particularly notable or worthwhile to include. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Askari, Lahore[edit]

Askari, Lahore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This is a non-notable housing development, the article for which is only supported by a press release prepared by a real estate sales website that presumably listed it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Heropanti 2[edit]

Heropanti 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Heropanti 2 This is an unreleased film that does not satisfy film notability for films that have been produced and are awaiting release. Such movies are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability. This draft or article is about an unreleased film. The film notability guideline identifies three stages in the production cycle for films:

  • 1. Planned films that have not begun production (principal photography or animation). These planned films do not satisfy film notability.
  • 2. Films that are confirmed by reliable sources to have begun production, but have not been released. These films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability in terms of significant coverage. Mere mention of the start of production does not satisfy notability.
  • 3. Films that have been released, whose notability is determined primarily by reception and reviews.

This film page must be evaluated based on general notability of production. An article should speak for itself and explain why it is notable. This article only says that production took place. An analysis of the sources shows that most of them are press releases, mostly announcing people associated with the film.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing selection of writer No Yes No
2 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing selection of director No Yes No
3 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing one of the stars No Yes No
4 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing the leading lady No Yes No
5 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing the release date No Yes No
6 Times of India Photos of stars Yes No No Yes
7 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing completion of principal photography No No Yes No
8 Times of India Report of stars returning to Mumbia after shoot. No No Not usually No
9 Bollywood Hungama Press release announcing musical appointments No No Yes No
10 Bollywood Humana Press release concerning various personnel. No No Yes No
11 FirstPost Press release concerning music No No Yes No

Two of them refer to the completion of production, but one of them is another press release, and the other says, in the Times of India, which is not a reliable sources, that the stars went home after the shoot. The fact that the film is in the can does not mean that putting it in the can was notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Peter Freeman (musician)[edit]

Peter Freeman (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable musician. Only got attention for his work on the album The Vertical Collection with Jon Hassell. There are no RS in the article: only the two interviews give any biographical informations, and they almost all come from his own month. One of the interviews is done alongside Hassell. The other interview is in a non-notable publication and notes that his work with Hassell as his main contribution to the musical world. The interviewer also says she spoke to Freeman before, for an article on Hassel's work. That article doesn't mention Freeman at all.

Freeman died six month ago, but I didn't find this being reported in any RS. You can only see his death being reported on content farm websites. Mottezen (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Luis David Serrano[edit]

Luis David Serrano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable boxer who never won a title as a pro, failing WP:NBOX. JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Driving Instructors (Registration) Act 2016[edit]

Driving Instructors (Registration) Act 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Article on a non-notable statute, sourced entirely to Hansard and text of the statute itself. (And therefore WP:OR.) AFAIK, statutes are subject to the same notability standards as any other topic, and this one fails WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep We are all expected to know the law of the land and so calling this OR is absurd. It's sensible to use the actual statute as a source and it's not difficult to find more sources such as this and that. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

WTCL (TV)[edit]

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

Speedy delete: WLFM-LD is set to become WTCL on January 1, and that station already has an article. Just change the title when the time comes. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A10 tag applied Station cannot become a full-power station and will retain -LD suffix. So tagged. Nate (chatter) 00:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • WTCL is currently a redirect to WJXO, which I bet got paid off to give up the WTCL call sign (the station has had some VERY hard luck of late). The FCC call sign desk indicates the request was for WTCL-LP for some reason, not WTCL-LD. The base title of WTCL should be a dabpage eventually. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 03:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Comment The article creator, CPLANAS1985 (talk · contribs) commented on their talk page and noted that the TVNewsCheck release didn't mention the WLFM-LD license at all, thus they created it thinking it was a new station/license, which I did have a feeling about why this article was created. Nate (chatter) 20:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      @Mrschimpf: If I had known WLFM was to be converted into WTCL, I would have NOT created a separate article... Again, the link I provided makes NO mention of converting another station... Rather, "launch a new television station"... CPLANAS1985 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Comment Agreed, not placing any kind of blame on anyone here; it was a good-faith article created using a source that could have been much better written and made clear the station already exists (I assume Gray wanted to completely leave behind WLFM's franken-FM legacy as an analog station, and that Jewelry TV is merely keeping the transmitter warm and not a serious affiliation). Nate (chatter) 02:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        @Mrschimpf: I had NO idea analog LPTVs still existed in large markets... Why do I sense this was a "troll" move on Gray's part??? CPLANAS1985 (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        Most of the large-market ones that existed did so on 6 for the FM audio capability (see: the conversion of a bunch of these to ATSC 3.0, which allows the television portion to be transmitted in just 5.5 MHz of the 6 MHz channel). In this case, Jewelry TV is definitely a signal-warmer (it's also used on the ATSC 3.0 stations such as the 6 in Chicago). Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 07:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        @Mrschimpf and Sammi Brie: With all things considered and given the circumstances... What do I next??? Do I move one article to the other??? Do we merge the two articles??? How do we work around this knowing what we know now??? CPLANAS1985 (He/Him/His • TCTWIG) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        @Mrschimpf, Sammi Brie, and Mvcg66b3r: Should we just merge the two articles into one??? What will happen to the new article for WTCL (TV)??? I need to know... Because the article was created in good-faith despite a vaguely worded release by Gray Television and TVNewsCheck... There had to be other reasons other than WLFM being a "transmitter-warmer" as one indicates... It is clear this was NOT made up... Just limited details at this time, nothing more... Only preparing for a future event, and that is NO speculation with all due respect... Puerto Rico United States CPLANAS1985 (Male • TCTWIG) 18:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete This page is incorrectly titled, it has no incoming article space links, and the topic is covered at the correct page, WLFM-LD. That will move to (likely) WTCL-LD when a call sign change is formalized. No need to keep. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Turns out that the unusual claim for WTCL-LP is correct (not LD). The article was moved today, and the station has reported to the FCC that it is back up and transmitting. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 04:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more crack at this...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 04:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Trust Technology[edit]

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

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The references are about generically "trusting technology", not something called TrustTech. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Saints-Vikings Rivalry[edit]

Saints-Vikings Rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Clear fail of WP:GNG. No rivalry exists between these two teams. This is evidenced by a simple google search of Saints Vikings rivalry which has few hits, most of which being either WP:ROUTINE coverage of a game between the two teams or opinion pieces from either New Orleans or Minnesota writers, this is a clear fail of WP:LOCAL. The Wikipedia article only has one reference that mentions the term “rivalry,” an opinion by a Saints beat writer in a blog that calls itself “a New Orleans Saints community.” The balance of the sources are individual game summaries which do not establish the existence of a rivalry. Further, the article notes the teams met five times in the playoffs. While impressive, that is WP:OR in establishing a rivalry. Frank AnchorTalk 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Frank AnchorTalk 03:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC) []
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Frank AnchorTalk 03:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC) []
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Frank AnchorTalk 03:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC) []
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Frank AnchorTalk 03:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC) []

Jackmar1Talk

I added two additional sources, one of which describes the Saints as a top five rival of the Vikings and other a Minneapolis Star Tribune article discussing the rivalry. These two teams have played many meaningful games in the last 20 years and there has been lots of chirpiness as the article stated. The Packers & Giants currently have a rivalry page and there is certainly no rivalry there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackmar1 (talkcontribs) 05:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

2000 Nottingham Open – Singles[edit]

2000 Nottingham Open – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

0 sources. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (TCGE) 03:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Sierra Amerrisique Natural Reserve[edit]

Sierra Amerrisique Natural Reserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

0 sources. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (TCGE) 03:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, source added. And it wasn't hard to find. Geschichte (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

2008 Martyr's Memorial B-Division League[edit]

2008 Martyr's Memorial B-Division League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

0 references Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (TCGE) 03:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (TCGE) 03:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • JJK2000, as it is, this nomination is arguably eligible for speedy keep per WP:CSK#1 and even #3. You seem to know of WP:AFDHOWTO, but what about the preceding section,WP:BEFORE? Please read it, and update your nomination with a valid WP:DELREASON. You have made one assertion about the state of the article; it's neither true nor enough reason for deletion if true. You've made more nominations that look identical. I'd advise you to stop and see how these ones go, first. In the meantime, an admin should seriously consider if the current nominations should be speedy kept and the nom advised to make better nominations moving forward. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. I agree with Usedtobecool about the quality of the nomination but this article fails WP:V having been unsourced since 2014. In football terms, the league is minor and well outside WP:FPL. Fails GNG too. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Interactive Science[edit]

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

This appears to be a series of science textbooks. Written as an advert. No secondary sources and none found. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Terotechnology[edit]

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

The sole reference does not work. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Speedy Keep Notable term defined everywhere with RS WP:NEXIST Books: Maintenance management and terotechnology and Terotechnology XI and Quality Control and Total Quality Management and Maintenance Management and Terotechnology Lightburst (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak Keep The article does need significant cleanup—however, the sources Lightburst provided seem to indicate that this isn't a non-notable term, and that it is widely used in technological fields. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 04:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

A Christmas Miracle For Daisy (TV Movie)[edit]

A Christmas Miracle For Daisy (TV Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable television film, lacks significant independent coverage per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 02:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

John McPheters[edit]

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

I'm not sure why this was not noticed at the earlier afD. There is no apparent notability besides his company

The only article about him is the interview in complex,.com and it's a tradition promotional interview, where h e says how good he is DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Forest Lawn Cemetery (Gresham, Oregon)[edit]

Forest Lawn Cemetery (Gresham, Oregon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

I am unable to find evidence that this is a notable cemetery, and their own website doesn't even make a particular claim to notability. A BEFORE indicates only burials from local obituaries and one mention (p95} of its existence, nothing that would approach significant, independent coverage to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment by stub creator: When I search "Forest Lawn"+"Gresham" at the Oregonian archives via Multnomah County Library, there are 8,443 returns just through 1987. Searching the same at the 1987 to present database yields 1,466 returns. I'm not going to comb through all those just to save this stub (shrug...), even if the site is indeed notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Concur with nom. This cemetery is not particularly old (1960) and has around 5k burials. Little but routine coverage here (notices of burials). MB 04:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

2021 SAFF Championship Final[edit]

2021 SAFF Championship Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

No need for this separate article, a majority, if not all of the information is located at the main article 2021 SAFF Championship. All other information can be merged. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete, not needed for one of the most insignificant regional championships in football. Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete, the info about this page can directly be added to its main article instead of a seperate page. @Sportsfan 1234: Can we also do the same for the previous editions of the tournament? It seems that people just keep on creating stubs due to some of these initial pages. I think if the page does have some pre or post match news or any related info (depicting the possible importance of that edition) then only that page should be kept.--Anbans 585 (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Magic: The Gathering rules[edit]

Magic: The Gathering rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This fails WP:GNG and is a straightforward violation of WP:NOT (a guide). It's not Wikipedia's place to provide rules for games. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - This is literally nothing but a how to guide, and thus is a blatant failure of WP:NOT. An actual overview of the general rules of the game is already included in extensive, but much more succinct and better written, detail at the main Magic: The Gathering article under gameplay. There is nothing really salvageable here that should be merged over, nor am I seeing any reason why there needs to be a WP:SPLIT from the main article. Its probably worth it to also take a look at List of Magic: The Gathering keywords, which is much like this article, only actually worse somehow. Rorshacma (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep We have numerous similar articles about the rules for other major games and sports and so such articles are clearly acceptable. The nomination is absurdly false claiming this one fails WP:GNG because there are numerous books dedicated to this game and they explicitly cover the rules too. The game is played professionally and so the detailed intricacies and changes naturally attract coverage too. Moreover, as this topic has been nominated repeatedly before but is still here, this is an obvious case of WP:NOTAGAIN contrary to WP:DELAFD: " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." See also policies WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep for the same reasons I specified last nomination. AFD is not cleanup. The article as it stands may not currently have all the features that Rules of Chess has, but there is no reason it couldn't have all those features. The rules are notable in and of themselves because they have a history of changes, and have had commentary been written about them extensively. Just because the article doesn't currently reflect this is no reason to delete it. (summoned by someone thanking me for my previous keep vote) Fieari (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I would have a lot more faith in that argument if it weren't for the fact that the same argument was made to keep five years ago, and the suggested article improvement never happened. WP:NOT is a policy, and this article failed that policy five years ago, and fails that policy today. Is the consensus really that Wikipedia policies don't matter, and that content that blatantly goes against it should just be kept indefinitely because someday it might be rewritten? And, as I mentioned above, a version of an overview of the rules of the game that doesn't violate policy already exists at Magic: The Gathering#Gameplay, so its not like its being argued that the rules of Magic shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia. It should just be covered in a way that falls in line with our policies, which this article, as a literal how to does not. Rorshacma (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Time spent without being cleaned up is not an argument. Again, AfD is not Cleanup. The solution to a bad article that meets notability criteria is not to nuke it from orbit. A subject is either notable or not. This is notable, regardless of its current quality. Is it YOUR suggestion that every single stub quality article on wikipedia be deleted if no one improves it in 5 years? That's not how this works. The policies you cite are not deletion criteria, they are improvement criteria. Fieari (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A stub article can remain a stub and still conform to Wikipedia policy. However, that has no bearing on this AFD as WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for this particular article. You say the policy I cite is not deletion criteria, but criteria #13 of WP:DELREASON states that one criteria for deletion is if an article that falls contrary to the established policy, then there is grounds for deletion. In this case, the entirety of this article falls contrary to WP:NOT. Additionally, notability of a topic alone is not automatically grounds for an independent article, per WP:NOPAGE. In this case, we have a very extensive section on the notable elements of the rules of this game at Magic: The Gathering#Gameplay already. What actual policy based reason is there that would justify a WP:SPLIT into a how to guide? Rorshacma (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This is notable - why? You haven't provided an argument to back up your assertion of WP:ITSNOTABLE. And yes, articles beyond hope can be nuked from orbit (Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over). Given this article is a pure rules summary with nothing showing the topic of MtG rules has received any wider attention, there is nothing to salvage here. And the rules are already much better covered on up to date fan wikis like https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page so there is no information loss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. As someone who is quite familiar with MtG, both as a fan and as a scholar who writes about games, I'll also point out that despite MtG being very popular, there is next to no academic research about it, and the little that is is about the community, not the rules. The game is notable enough, but we don't need a 'how-to' summary of its rules that has zero about their reception or significance outside the game itself (and no sources to address this have bene presented here). This is different from chess or go, whose rules have been subject to a zillion of more academic treatments. MtG is still not there. A brief summary of the rules can be included in the main MtG article, but any comparison to chess and such is pretty much WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS. I am also seeing a worse attitude of WP:ITSNOTABLE. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, being a fan of MtG and so on, but folks, if you want this kept, please try to do better with your arguments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. When an encyclopedia covers a game, the rules are a central aspect of it and an essential part of understanding the nature of the game. A valid discussion can be had about whether the rules should be in a separate article or not, but the rules page is long, so summary style is probably appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Most other WP pages that cover game rules use third-party sourcing (with some first-party) to show the relative notability/importance of the rules. This page does not. Whether that is possible with MTG's rules to this level of detail throughout, I don't know. --Masem (t) 20:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep, as the rules are a key part of the game and can be covered in an encyclopedic manner.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The sourcing is bad. Like really bad. The writing isn't great. But the argument that coverage of rules happens all the time here is valid. So the question remains: are their solid, reliable and independent sources that can be used here? If not, this needs to go. A quick search via Google Books turns up stuff from WotC and self-published stuff. Is there anything else out there? If there is, then the only argument for deletion is WP:TNT, and I think the article isn't *that* bad. But if there isn't, we have a problem. I'm not a huge fan of WP:THREE but I think it is useful here... Anyone? Hobit (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thinking about this, I note that the main Magic: the Gathering article is a Good Article and does not even have a section called rules, but has one called gameplay. While that GA review was in 2009, the editor who I think was the main driver of GAing this was User:OdinFK, who perhaps could offer some advice on thoughts on whether they think this topic is rescuable, or mergeable (to the main MtG article). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete or redirect. Fails WP:NOT (game guide) and is mostly unsourced (WP:V). Sandstein 10:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been listed on the WikiProject Magic: The Gathering talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC) (UTC)[]
  • keep: Per the arguments made above. Rules of a vastly popular games become notable in themselves, and there is literature that demonstrates that. If it makes sense to have an article on the Rules of chess (and that one being rated as a Good Article no less!) then there is space for rules of other games to also be considered for notability. On the other hand, I do agree that the article needs improvement. Taking a page from the chess article, the rules of MTG article would benefit from also having a history section. This becomes even more needed in the MTG article because the rules are ever evolving. Further, covering how the rules get decided and changed also mertis coverage. Other section of the chess article include conduct, equipment, and variations. Yes, the article has plenty of room for improvement, but the topic is in itself notable. The wiki community should constructively build upon what already exists, instead of tearing it down. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep: Using the aforementioned Rules of Chess as a model, I started to reorganize and trim the article. I was able to find a lot of sources explaining basic gameplay mechanics so while I think this article needs a lot of work and additional sources, it is also a salvageable article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Comment: While AfD shouldn't be cleanup, the point was raised that cleanup wasn't done after the last AfD. I've started to edit the article, however, the two big areas that still need trimming & sources are the Gameplay and Timing sections. I'm fairly confident that I'll be able to find more sources for the Terminology section but since I don't play this game, some help editing the other sections would be great. Additionally, there's this really useful image (File:Carta Magic Italiano.JPG) explaining components of a Magic card - however, it is in Italian. Does anyone have photoshop ability to translate this into English? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Comment: Speaking of other useful images from the Wiki Commons that need translating, here's one (File:Magicarea.png) that shows the various gameplay zones. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thank you, your improvements are very helpful. Before I withdraw my nom, can you point out at least two reliable, independent sources that cover MtG rules in a way that meets SIGCOV? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per the arguments above, and per WP:HEY[1]. BOZ (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep Article's sourcing has been massively improved. Props to Sariel Xilo on the cleanup. Mlb96 (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep please, don't delete it 🥺 Esaïe Prickett (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep: I'd just like to point out that this is the fourth nomination of this article, for this very reason. The article has only improved since then, and survived all three AfD discussion with two "Keep" results and a "No consensus to delete" result in 2008. I'll copy this from the closure of the most recent AfD, in 2016: policy prohibits "how-to style manuals", but it does not cover a mere reproduction of game rules that do not focus on advice how one should play. It seems there's pretty broad consensus that merely being a rule guide (to which MtG is not nearly unique) is not grounds for deletion. MtG is highly notable, and has a complex ruleset—I don't see how it harms the encyclopedia to keep this article. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 04:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    That is covered by WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Also, MtG rules are probably subject to copyright so " a mere reproduction of game rules" is not just something that violates GNG and NOTAGUIDE, it also likely violates COPYVIO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Virginity fraud[edit]

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

Article is basically original research with elements of WP:ATTACK. PepperBeast (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. If there's anything to be said about the subject of cheating on a "virginity" test, we can say it at virginity test, where we also explain how they are invasive, based on bad biology, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Merge The article should be merged with virginity test instead of deleting it, it should be a section there. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Merge to Virginity test—it's not that there's no place for some of this material, but certainly not in a standalone article, not like this. Perhaps the singular incident described is actually notable enough for its own article, but that'd be for later. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 03:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Mustafa Kartoğlu[edit]

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

Sources are repeating what this person says and/or are unreliable "Kimdir?" sources. A beforehand search results in his articles published on Akşam, the newspaper he works for (a.k.a. not independent). No claims of meeting GNG. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep: Looking at the [2] results at least, I don't think it's fair to say that this is a "small result." They seem to be fairly significant Reasonable mind can differ about the sufficiency of the coverage but, at least to me, I think the relevant notability guidelines are met. --عائشة المقدسي (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
You just copy-pasted what you said here. My response is the same. And didn't I already tell with this sentence that those are not independent: "A beforehand search results in his articles published on Akşam, the newspaper he works for"? ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 14:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
He is the editor-in-chief of a well-known Turkish newspaper Akşam and we have a source from CNN Turkey CNN Türk talking about him and he is a reliable source + Medya Scope https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medyascope --عائشة المقدسي (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
They are already in the article, and the nomination message applies. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 14:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep: He seems to be a well-known journalist and editor-in-chief of a Turkish newspaper

--Gazeteci Mesut (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Gazeteci Mesut (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []

Being 'well-known' is a matter of opinion and has nothing to do with notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There is a big difference between Well-known, Famous and notable.Misasory (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I was already suspecting it, but the name of the second account pretty much confirms that this is a sock of User:علي أبو عمر. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 10:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I would strongly recommend filing a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/علي أبو عمر if there's enough evidence. I'm not too familiar with this sock farm. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of both keep voters being blocked as socks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Rex Martin[edit]

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

Promotional WP:BLP of an ostensible "virtuoso" tuba player that fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. And, in any event, a plausible WP:TNT candidate, given that it mostly consists of an unsourced resume. (Came across this Rex Martin looking for this Rex Martin, who I take it is not the same.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Medebra[edit]

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

Sources are mostly sites where you can buy their products, nothing significant (plus a few deadlinks). Doesn't pass WP:COMPANY and likely promotional. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I attempted to fix the article and removed a deadlink source and added categories but I agree if the company isn't notable it should be deleted and one secondary source (Cancer Be Glammed) that was cited has absolutely no mention of Medebra on their website. I found this article in the uncategorized articles list but so much of it is hard to understand advertising lingo that I don't understand enough about surgeries to know if is legitimately how the product is used/discussed that I think it should be deleted. This is my first time ever contributing to a deletion discussion though so let me know if I'm wrong in any way. Feralcateater000 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on FeralCatEater000's recent cleanup?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Karitas Karisimbi[edit]

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

Promotional BLP article, coverage is WP:ROUTINE for a television presenter. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Axia Investments[edit]

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

This en.wiki article was created as a new account's 11th edit, moved to draft, rejected and then accepted at AfC. A Wikidata item containing promotional content ("AXIA Investments is a registered brand of the most secure and trusted trading online broker in the MENA region. Start Trading with AXIA Investments." [3]) was created around the same time and there also appears to have been a subsequently deleted ar.wiki article. Regarding this en.wiki article, the references do not appear to rise above listings describing the company's product proposition (though strangely one, the ArabInvest posting, prefaces the product listing with strongly negative paragraphs about the firm). Setting out a company's wares is insufficient to demonstrate attained WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • delete Clearly a promo piece for the company, perhaps by their PR department. And does not pass WP:N given the mixed up nature of the sources they tried to pile up there. Let them do promo elsewhere. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • comment ok, it looks like an an advertisement, clealy not part of the rulz Esaïe Prickett (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Narendra Nath Yaddanapudi[edit]

Narendra Nath Yaddanapudi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

The subject has directed only one notable film to date. Lacks significant coverage needed for notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep but may be move to draftspace. Advait.kansal (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Could you explain why the article should be kept without establishing notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete and do not draftify. The subject of the article is not notable and there is no improvement in draft space that will make him so. He does not pass WP:CREATIVE. The subject is not regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors; is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; and has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work. Writing and directing one film for Netflix does not establish notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete. Puff page written by his own office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianne Farrar-Hockley (talkcontribs) 10:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Francis Charig[edit]

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

None of the sources on the page are independent of the subject or the subject's employers, except the NYT article about his father. I have done a search and could find no independent sources. This is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion, my apologies if I have done anything wrong. Red Fiona (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • delete Except the NYT the other sources are not independent. Pretty much a WP:PROMO issue and does not pass WP:N. And Red Fiona you did nothing wrong. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • delete Clearly WP:NPF - a vanity page for a minor business figure whose escape from an air accident is close to WP:BLP1E. Worth noting perhaps that almost all of the content was contributed in Jan-Feb 2007, by an editor (10comforts) who has contributed on no other topic at all. Nwhyte (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • delete The NYT article is his fathers’ obituary, and the Telegraph article on the air accident is behind a paywall - pretty much WP:BLP1E. His current company is a red link. I see on his talk page someone asked if his having a letter published in the local newspaper was noteworthy! - Arwel Parry (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • delete. While the plane crash is notable - being aboard is not (152 people were on the flight). Nor is the fact of having a father with a wikipedia page. There is really nothing else to see here. 81.187.234.228 (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Virgil John Tangborn[edit]

Virgil John Tangborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A recipient of the Silver Star is far below WP's notability standards. Lettlerhellocontribs 00:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhellocontribs 00:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhellocontribs 00:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhellocontribs 00:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC a person's unpublished journal doesn't establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Files[edit]

WINC logos[edit]

File:WINC-AM 2015.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Neutralhomer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:WINC-AM WZFC-FM 2018.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Neutralhomer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:WINC-AM 2020.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Neutralhomer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Multiple non-free logos all with a stated purpose of primary visual identificaiton but are not in the infobox as they are historical. The logos are not the subject significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

FURs have been changed, logos have significant history within the article itself. Article is a Featured Article. User has not attempted to communicate the issues via my talk page. - NeutralhomerTalk • 01:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This is the appropriate venue to discuss nonfree images which do not meet the non-free content criteria. That nobody noticed that the images are not compliant for some time does not make them exempt from meeting the criteria. As for being featured article, the article became FA in 2014 and these logos all were uploaded after that time starting in 2015. -- Whpq (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Whpq: None of which I said. What I said was, the logos have significant history within the article itself and the Article is a Featured Article. Two seperate sentences...with periods. Nowhere did I say anything about anyone not noticing them or some nonsense.
To other users: I attempted, in vain, to discuss this issue with Whpq via my talk page. They seemed very uninterested in discussing this and more interested in just a "drive-by" FfD'ing. Discussion is recommended (by most admins) before going to any noticeboard or any XfD. Whpq's disinterest seems more than a little disheartening. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the current ANI thread about myself. This seems like piling on. - NeutralhomerTalk • 02:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Lou Rymkus, American football tackle, on a 1950 football card.jpg[edit]

File:Lou Rymkus, American football tackle, on a 1950 football card.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Batard0 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Licensing says it's in the public domain because it was published before 1926, however the creation date was 1950. UnLeashedWolfie (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:ME! mural.jpg[edit]

File:ME! mural.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ronherry (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Lack of contextual significance: "For commentary on the album's background and the release of its lead single Me!" is hardly enough to warrant WP:NFCC criteria 8 ("its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") and 1 ("used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.") Currently used in two articles: Reputation (Taylor Swift album) and Me!. In the former, another free image currently used (File:Taylor Swift Reputation Tour3.jpg) is enough to provide understanding on the album's background and conception. In the latter, I am dubious about the significance of this file, because the article already has three non-free files to support. Ippantekina (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I disagree. The mural image has contextual significance because it is the first promotional event Swift did for the song or the album. It's not just about the background, but the marketing aspect too. It's not abnormal in album/song articles to include images of how the artist promoted their work, such as via billboards; in Swift's case, it is a mural. The image does the job by actually illustrating the mural, which was widely covered by publications as well. The Reputation tour image is about the conception, while the mural is about the marketing/rollout. Ronherry (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:FlightTime's custom templates & sub-categories[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need to categorise userpages. WOSlinker (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Category:Ethnic enclaves in Australia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not sure which policy is most relevant but these aren't ethnic enclaves in Australia. Australia doesn't really have ethnic enclaves, it has areas with higher proportions of migrants of various ethnicities, precincts of cultural establishments, majority-Malay external territories, and Aboriginal Australian communities which aren't described as ethnic enclaves. This category is not fit-for-purpose. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. This argument could apply to several other countries which have similar sub-categories. I think it depends on how literally the term "ethnic enclave" is taken. Does it mean an official designation of some kind or is it just a loosely used expression for an area that has a large number of residents with common ethnic origin? No Great Shaker (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Category:Multi-level marketing companies based in Utah[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is really a subject for speedy deletion but is there anyone out there who wants to explain how this is not how categories are created? It is a list. OK, best just to look at it. Doprendek (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment: Last I saw that category page, it was not a list. It was a category with article entries, and was a child category of two other relevant parent categories. I do know that Utah is known for having an unusually high concentration of local MLM companies. I can't comment on whether or not this category should be deleted on its merits as a category, but the list is not the category but appears to be a later addition. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep but remove the list which was added this year by a new(-ish) editor. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Belated keep. - Gilgamesh (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Redirects[edit]

Richard Groff[edit]

Delete. Richard Groff and Regis Groff are not the same persons, and "Richard" is not mentioned in Regis' article. Geschichte (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

San Diego Wave FC[edit]

This is not in the article, and I can't find reliable sourcing that would indicate that this is the name. I see some social media rumblings, but I don't think that's enough to make a redirect. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

2030 in association football[edit]

This was targeted here by an IP before the article on the 2030 FIFA World Cup was created. This redirect doesn't make sense because the 2030 FIFA World Cup is not the only major association football event that will take place in 2030. It is also worth noting that articles on prior years of association football do not exist (for instance there is no article on 2025 in association football). So I'd propose deleting this page or possibly retargeting this page somewhere else. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 19:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of Tavix's proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Templates and Modules[edit]

All templates in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates[edit]

Nominating 350 templates in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates, which is a temporary holding area for taxonomy templates whose deletion will be uncontroversial, because the template is both unused and unnecessary, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used. Periodically, all templates in this category will be nominated for deletion. For more details, see this talk page thread at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system, the actual category text and previous TfDs (2019 February 27, 2019 December 19, 2020 October 8, 2021 April 24, 2021 May 1).

Extended content

Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:CGNDB link[edit]

This is a lightly used template. It can be replaced by {{Cite cgndb}} by doing this. I admit that isn't the greatest but I have asked for a fix at Template talk:Cite cgndb#Suppress ouput CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Go ahead and remove it. I was not aware that {{Cite cgndb}} existed, but as it does the same thing that I intended this template to do, I will be satisfied with Cite cgndb prevailing. -- Denelson83 07:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Inconsistent citations[edit]

Unused and There is no consensus on use of this template today. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Miscellany[edit]

User:Stoinform/sandbox[edit]

User:Stoinform/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Self-written biography in user space. No other contribution. OK or not? Yann (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Deletion review[edit]