Wikipedia

User:Fixing26/RfDs/Delete

< User:Fixing26 | RfDs

Ongoing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Ferien (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Ruby Hembrom

Ruby Hembrom (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't appear notable. Sources are not about her but only have her name in passing. Djsasso (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Delete as non notable. SHB2000 (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete not notable, probably an ad. Ely - Talk 06:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete I've seen several articles similar to this made by someone with the same interest in the person despite clearly being not notable. Fixing26 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 01:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  Currently protected from creation. --Ferien (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Mohammed Shanooj

Mohammed Shanooj (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Hockeycatcat has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't seem very notable for Wikipedia. Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 11:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Past

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  -Djsasso (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Dc Themmie

Dc Themmie (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not appear to be notable for Wikipedia. --IWI (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  • Delete - IAmSwiz (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable for Wikipedia. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This article is about a Nigerian singer you can also help by improving itBobline adams (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC))(Corrected comment position, MathXplore (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC))
do not delete this page,i suggested it has enough sources for notability.Bobline adams (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The nomination is not saying he isn't a Nigerian singer. It's saying that they don't think the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. For a subject to be notable, it needs to be covered by reliable sources. Fixing26 (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete There is no evidence of notability. Also, see my above reply to Bobline adams. Fixing26 (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
but this Musician has enough references u can check the page, that why i said earlier that you should help by expanding it.
The references don't appear to be reliable. Reliable coverage is needed to prove notability. Fixing26 (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You can help by creating the page, pls do not delete the page, we are all here for helping and creating articles. Pls do not {{wait}} dont let us discuss this more, the musician is useful and helpful on wikipedia, if you think is not useful kindly help in adding reliable sources by searching for Dc Themmie on google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobline adams (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There doesn't appear to be reliable coverage of it online, meaning it doesn't appear to be notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. If you can find reliable sources, you can show them here or on the article. Fixing26 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • On top of Fixing26's comment, they need to be secondary sources, not primary which what your article mostly comprises of. SHB2000 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • To top it off, there just simply isn’t enough reliable sources for this page to stay. An article must have significant coverage in lots of reliable sources to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there are a lot of sources, they aren’t independent of the subject. Since nobody has added more sources to this page since it was tagged for deletion, it probably needs to be deleted. SkeletalDome$ (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just did a cleanup on the article, including removing references that used Wikimedia sites. For those who may not have known, it is not allowed to use Wikimedia sites as references. That includes Wikidata and any Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, The page should be left on wikipedia. Do not delete this page,i suggested it has enough sources for notability.Bobline adams (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bobline adams: You have already said all that. Please stop saying the same things multiple times. Also, stop putting the wait template on this page. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Admin note: User:Bobline adams, the creator of the article being discussed here, deleted the comments of two other users who support deleting. Because of that, I have blocked Bobline adams from editing this page. I told them that if they have further comments, they can leave them on the talk page of this discussion for review, and that they would be added here if appropriate. I will monitor the talk page for such, but other users are welcome and invited to also monitor. Just please do not conduct discussion there, only review whatever the user may add. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • i will make a research on google to know more about this artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.108.63 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • this article just need a litte adjusment. i suggest it should be keep not Delete thanks Adamu001 (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Admin note: The only edits this user has made here have been to their user page and to this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Notable i made research about the Dc Themmie on Google, I made some edit on the Article admins Admin@Auntof6you can check it out thanksAdamu001 (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The citations you added don't appear to be reliable. One appears to be self-published and the other is a description page of a song. The sources you added don't establish notability. Fixing26 (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Ferien (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

La xerca per Pahoa

La xerca per Pahoa (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: First book published in Lingua Franca Nova, an auxiliary/constructed langage, much like Esperanto, Ido, Interlingue, Interlingua or Novial. There also seems to be a Wikipedia in Lingua Franca Nova. So, is the first book notable? - Is there anything comparable we could use as a guide, for the other constructed languages? - Oh, before I forget, contested QD. Eptalon (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

The book is the first original one published in Lingua Franca Nova, one of the most important conlangs, which it even has a Wikipedia. However, if it deem unnecessary to have such an article here, it could be added to the page about Lingua Franca Nova, under the Literature section. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Please also take into account: Almost everyone I know has at least heard of Esperanto, Some have heard of Interlingue or Interlingua (two different languages). All the rest of the "constructed languages" are almost unknown. --Eptalon (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The fact that it is unknown for some people, doesn't mean it is not important or it doesn't exist. If this language has a Wikipedia, it might be of importance as not every single proposal for a Wikipedia project ends up with a Wikipedia of its own. Of course, if I am not familiar with architecture or medicine, there will be a lot of terms or topics related to those fields that are unknown to me and to everyone that hasn't study them. I bet loads of people have never heard of the Kalevala, a major work of Finnish literature, shall we then not have an article about it? This is one of the most important works in this language so I believe it is notable. The fact that some people have never heard of it doesn't mean it is not important. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
      Wikipedia is about verifiability, not the truth. To show something is important it needs coverage by independent and reliable sources. If you can show that reliable sources back up your claim that is notable, it is more likely the article will stay. Fixing26 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete per nom. SHB2000 (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment: There are about 1500 sources for the Numidian language, which was spoken from about the 2nd or 3rd century BC to about the second or third century AD, in northern Africa. There are two or three varieties (or languages). The alphabet of one of the three varieties is known except for two characters, or symbols. So, yes, the texts can be read. They are just not understood, a pity. I was referring to Ido, with currently thousands of speakers worldwide, it seems, and Volapük. Yes, both have Wikipedias. No, I don't think that unlike Esperanto, they are still used outside a community of linguists...--Eptalon (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ido community is small but they hold Skype meetings at least once a month. Volapük is almost dead, besides just a few speakers. Lingua Franca Nova is currently one of the most important conlangs. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Look, if you want to delete it, go ahead, I am not going to keep debating any longer as this discussion can end up being endless. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment: Enwp list about 30 constructed languages at en:List of constructed languages. It also says that the language Lingua Franca Nova has about 600 speakers (no idea how accurate that is); for non-linguists like me, it looks like a simplified Latin, which is likely understood where the Roman empire has been (Mediterranean + Central Europe). There's also Latino sine Flexione, from 1903; it looks like this later developed to be called Interlingua (note the -a ending, Interlingue (-e ending) is different, it developed from Occidental, in 1922. So, no this is not about wanting to delete the article; RfD, as it says, is about discussion. I am not a linguist, I don't know about constructed languages. Lingua Franca Nova seems to date from 1998, so it is recent. So, what to do?--Eptalon (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Ferien (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Ashfak

Ashfak (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

MathXplore has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Short bio with few activities, reliability of given references need to be checked and notability are questioned. MathXplore (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Delete The sources don't appear to be very reliable. I've not been able to find much coverage anyways, and it's made much harder by only the inclusion of their first name/nickname. Fixing26 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete due to lack of reliable sources. SHB2000 (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Menafn has about 20 years of experience but you say not reliable. You can check menafn domain authority score. Some editor made Wikipedia as their own role they follow. Everyone should remember that no news agency report your news without financial relation like NYTimes, Washington post also do this. So please stop reliability. In this article I provide, Every news come from google news approved website. So stop it, SIR.Thanks. Mekiakaro (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    Google News is not Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources. Many companies have existed for a long time but aren't reliable, like Fox News. Fixing26 (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    So please Delete Udit Dixit It’s also look like promotional and like paid pr. Sir Fixing26 can you please provide a list of reliable source.Mekiakaro (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    An example list of reliable sources can be found here, with labels indicating the reliability.
    If you think a page should be deleted, you can request deletion of it using QD or RfD templates, such as Template:QD or Template:RfD. Fixing26 (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete per User:Fixing26. Yahya (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • All the provided reference from reputed and old source. Also almost everyone except politician and some Intellectual & Government Ofiicer, don’t get full attention of media. A news site work for 20 years are not reliable. How? But at the same time we can found tons of paid journalism in reputed media like New York Times,Forbes. They also do paid news. So how can you think a news publish in any news media is reliable? It’s very disappointing. Some day before I found a entity publish news in Hindustan Times, Forbes, The Gurdian also claim himself a Millionaire businessman but it was hoax and he get approved for Wikipedia. It means you spend money and get approved for Wikipedia. So how can we belive. It mean a general person spend $100 can get approval in Wikipedia with fake news. So careful about that. Thanks.
    Wikipedia is about verifiability, not the truth. If something doesn't get enough attention from the media, it's not notable for Wikipedia. If you have proof an article is a hoax, you can nominate it for deletion using Template:QD or Template:RfD. Fixing26 (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    I should note that there are exceptions, but the article does not appear to be such. Fixing26 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 04:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. Not notable Peterdownunder (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Poni Chakma

Poni Chakma (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Yahya has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: ‘top five finalist in Channel-i reality show’ is not a notable position. Sources are trivial mentions or press release. Yahya (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Delete Being a top five finalist in one competition is not grounds for notability. Looking into sources, they're either very minor mentions (as said by nominator) or don't appear reliable. Fixing26 (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete. We've already agreed that being a finalist in any but the most important competitions is not grounds for notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. Not notable Peterdownunder (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Parvej Husen Talukder

Parvej Husen Talukder (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Yahya has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Yahya (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Delete Clearly not notable. Fixing26 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete even the person mentioned tried to remove the rfd notice. SHB2000 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete not notable at all. Why do these people try? Elytrian - Talk 13:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete. Clear delete for not being notable. SkeletalDome$ (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. Not notable Peterdownunder (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Haruna Sentongo

Haruna Sentongo (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: CV-type article, of a businesswoman from Uganda, born 1987. Contested quick deletion, article seems to have been deleted on EnWp before. With the article, we get 23 references.I haven't read through all the refs, but currently I see a CV-type article, likely with little external assessment of notability. Comments? Eptalon (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  • Keep. Without any kind of bias, This Article is honestly written in a non promotional Wikipedia manner, perhaps Subject is very Notable with renown achievements in the business Community of Uganda for the couple of years he has operated,

and also WP:BEFORE should not be abandoned given the fact that This Gentlemen apparently has significant press coverage, and Deletion is hence not cleanup, therefore,in case one finds it written in a promotional manner, then its is clean up that is required, otherwise, the article should stay. Thank you Americanoa (talk

  • Delete as doesn't appear notable, promotional. Note that the page creator has been indefinitely blocked on enwiki as a likely paid sock; this could be more paid editing. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my User talk 16:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  Delete. promotional material. SkeletalDome$ (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC) This request is due to close on 12:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. Notability not established Peterdownunder (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Devlaism

Devlaism (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Contested QD, so page restored. Looks like it is based on en:Devla. Should this be kept or deleted? Eptalon (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Keep I think it is an article that should be kept, but citations are missing, and the page should probably be moved to Devla. Elytrian - Talk 14:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete The page doesn't appear to be notable. At most, there should be a minor area discussing it on a dedicated Devla page. Fixing26 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
well if you say that @Fixing26, it will probably be true...you don't want this page to exist. I dont know why, what exactly the Problem is. Devla means God in the Romani language, not Devil as sounds similar in English. Is this your problem ? about the name? Did you think Devla means Devil? No, in Romani language Devil means Beng. --Nalanidil (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Nalanidill: Hi there, no one vote is definite - it is the opinion of one editor. If you think an article should stay, you can discuss such on this page. Fixing26 (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Fixing26, but you are the only editor. Nobody else. So you must have something against it. --Nalanidil (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to continue this discussion at your talk page. Fixing26 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Fixing26: Could you say more about why you don't think the topic is notable? The article has a reference, which is more than the enwiki article has. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see, and can't, much reliable coverage of it online. The enwiki section about it was written by the same editor behind this article, and they both don't seem to be notable. It does seem to exist though, and there seems to be some minor coverage of it, so in my view a small section about it on a dedicated Devla would work better. Fixing26 (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fixing26, To say that is not notable is not an argument. You don't make any real arguments about why this article bothers you so much. Right from the start you are obsessed with deleting this page. And that makes it very special. That must be something personal that you don't like this article. It feels like that to me. Also what i didnt understand is, why you @Fixing26, didnt have a problem with other New religious movement pages, only with Devlaism. This is strange. Is it because of male circumcision that is being practiced? Or what exactly do you want? what's in your eyes, the reason ??? I hope you are happy now @ Fixing26 when the Page is deleted. Unfortunately, a lobby has formed who have nothing else to do, to propose pages that do not suit them (for whatever reason) for deletion without correct arguments or revise articles, etc. By the way the name of the word Devla for God in Romani language, derives from Deva.

--Nalanidil (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been involved in several RfDs, and don't hold anything against such. There are many new pages made, and notability is an argument for deletion (see en:Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions). I can find little coverage of the subject, and thus it is likely not notable. I do not have an issue with Devlaism, but it is simply not notable enough for Wikipedia in my eyes. Again, I suggest you assume good faith (in other words, think people are doing things to try help improve Wikipedia) and make comments about the content, not the editors unless needed. Fixing26 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh well then the page should be deleted. You won and done. I will no longer comment on this, because this discussion just goes in circles and brings nothing.

--Nalanidil (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. --Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

National fort

National fort (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I don’t think this concept exists, perhaps is the same as fort? --IWI (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Delete Appears to be the same as fort. I can't find anything that shows this actually exists. Fixing26 (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete Article consists of just a definition of a fort, a picture, and nothing else. There are no sources. SkeletalDome$ (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 10:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Auntof6 (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sanjay Chakravarti

Sanjay Chakravarti (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

172.58.21.180 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The sources are not good enough for WP:GNG or WP:Notability (people). 172.58.21.180 (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Delete - Clearly promotional material. Note that the author is the same as the author of Mohammad Amanullah, which I've currently nominated for deletion. The user and a few likely related IPs have been constantly removing the RfD notices from both pages. Fixing26 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    So why didn't you QD it? One of the options is not notable. Elytrian - Talk 15:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    The article subject did appear to claim notability, so I put it to RfD. Fixing26 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as doesn't appear notable at all. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my User talk 18:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 04:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. The only "keep" vote was from a user whose only edit here is on this RFD. Because of that and because that user gave no rationale, I did not consider that vote --Auntof6 (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Shohrat Mammadov

Shohrat Mammadov (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Gordonrox24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not seeing the references I would expect to see to show notability for this artist. Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Delete - Seems to be another attempt at promotion that does not appear to be notable. Fixing26 (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete Agreed. Went to school, did national service, started a career. It's another cv-type promotion which evades the issue (which is notability). Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep Xeyal (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 01:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Ferien (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

March 1, 2006

March 1, 2006 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rubbish computer has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not something we need a specific redirect on Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my User talk 18:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Delete There's no need for a redirect for one seemingly insignificant date. Fixing26 (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete. Date is not that important, and we don’t need a redirect for it. JellyBelly234 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 18:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Auntof6 (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Unnax

Unnax (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Etoza has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Very advertise-y, not notable Etoza (?) 21:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 21:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. --Eptalon (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

OnePath FM

OnePath FM (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

MathXplore has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I can find sources about OnePath Network but not this radio. Seems to be related with content deleted by older RfD. Maybe hoax. MathXplore (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Keep No issues with this IMHO. Thegameshowlad (talk)
    •   Comment: If you believe the article has no issues, you have to explain why. There is no smoke without fire, and there are almost no RfDs without article issues. If you cannot clearly explain the reason why you voted, you have to reconsider your future participance to RfD discussions. MathXplore (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete. Plenty of objections from me! First, the main link is not operational. Second, it is being used to evade deletions of Shariful Islam Naik. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete Clear lack of evidence of notability, likely made in an attempt to support Shariful Islam Naik. Fixing26 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete seems to have been made to promote Shariful Islam Naik more than anything. --Ferien2 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete per Ferien. EpicPupper (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 10:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. --Eptalon (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Ratnakar Upadhayay

Ratnakar Upadhayay (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not appear to be notable for Wikipedia. --IWI (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion


This request is due to close on 13:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. --Eptalon (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

List of national dances

List of national dances (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

MathXplore has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Some nations have many dances in their territory. How can we define a national dance ? Possible hoax. MathXplore (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  • Yes, how can we define a national dance indeed? For a few countries it would be easy, for many it would be impossible. Anyone who thinks that Morris Dance is the national dance of England is not in the same universe as I am. Had the time been 1950, ballroom dancing would have been very popular (and the modern form of ballroom dancing is English in origin). En wiki has a table which we could copy. It is downright silly in places, for example according to it North Macedonia has about fifty national dances. That's just silly, but it's what you get if you have this kind of dreampt-up concept. The list of U.S. state dances (a different page) is also silly in the sense of being out of date. It's all referenced, but that doesn't stop it being both wrong and silly. On a topic like this, YouTube is a better guide than En wiki. I vote for delete. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete - I'm in agreement with Macdonald-ross, there is no easy way to define a national dance. Fixing26 (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete. This is just a list of random dances in random countries. Again, since there are many dances in each nation, it isn’t necessary to list one dance from every country in an article. JellyBelly234 (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. Hiàn (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Cristo Noir

Cristo Noir (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Etoza has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't seem notable and it feels like an advertisement for this artist. The article's creator only edited this article. Etoza (?) 14:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Delete Not notable and appears to be promotional. Fixing26 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. Notability clearly not there, also possible COI...--Eptalon (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

C4009 (youtuber)

C4009 (youtuber) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

つがる has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not seem to be notable, using Google to lookup, I found no results. Sending to RFD for discussion.... Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Delete Clearly not notable. Fixing26 (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Quick Delete under section A4. –Morneo06 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Quick Delete A4 and A6. Unclear how this youtuber has high tier play buttons. Darubrub (Let me know) 16:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Quick Delete This is obvs created by someone who knows the YouTuber or even the YouTuber themselves as they are certainly not worthy of an article, it took me ages to find their YouTube channel! Thegameshowlad (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Quick Delete -- IAmSwiz (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 22:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. Clear case, also salted for 3 months, the last RfD of this was at most a month ago...--Eptalon (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Kamran Ahmed

Kamran Ahmed (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

C1K98V has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: notablity C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 05:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  • I'm guessing this is referring to Kamran Ahmed, in which case, definite   Delete. I was the nominator for the previous RfD of this article, and I still believe my rationale for nominating applies. Fixing26 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the rationale provided by Fixing26 in previous rfd. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 17:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 05:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. Quickly deleted as copyright violation, which we cannot permit to keep --IWI (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Freedom Haven

Freedom Haven (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Originally listed as a copyvio (of http://freedomhaven.org/Tony/FreedomHaven/index2.html?5800771.8848421555) this looks like the attempt to create a micro-nation (like there are others). As the QD is ocntested, I think we might as well discuss it: So: where's the encyclopedic notability, or what other criteria can we find to include it (Provided ithe article is cleared from the copyvio allegations)? Eptalon (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Delete - Lack of coverage in reliable sources. Fixing26 (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep - Seasteading is an established existing valid WikiPedia topic, and the Seasteading Institute lists Freedom Haven as an active seasteading project, and even wrote an article about Freedom Haven's humanitarian efforts to help refugees fleeing oppressive regimes and who are looking for a better life for themselves and their posterity. Despite the Freedom Haven project having been around for 3 years, those researching seasteading on WikiPedia would currently not find humanitarian projects, like Freedom Haven, listed there. The goal is to fill that gap and provide the important information currently missing from WikiPedia. Please help me know anything I can do to achieve this goal. {{helpme}} TonyOlsen (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    Hi there, the issue at hand is it's lack of coverage by reliable sources that show notability. Some people believe the article hasn't had enough coverage by reliable sources to show that it is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia.
    Whilst not a rule, I'd suggest trying to find enough sources covering the subject of the article to show that it can stay. Fixing26 (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Fixing26: Thank you. Does the list below help? Is there anything else that can be done to help keep the page?

"...enough sources covering the subject of the article to show that it can stay." Here are some links from different websites on various details in the large Freedom Haven project:

  1. Open-Design CAD model of "New Liberty", the main floating structure in Freedom Haven.
  2. The legal framework of the laws in Freedom Haven (here's the free audio book of this legal framework)
  3. Colonize The Ocean Podcast discussion on Freedom Haven
  4. Seasteading Insititute's "Seasteading Today" podcast discussion on Freedom Haven
  5. An article that Freedom Fest published on Freedom Haven (and how it can help Hong Kong)
  6. Catherine Tan, a researcher at Cambridge University's Geography Department, will be publishing a research project on Freedom Haven - expected sometime late in 2021.
  7. T.J. Raphael, from Sony Music Podcast, is planning a new podcast series that will feature the Freedom Haven project.
  8. While Social Media is not seen as a trust-worthy reference, we have hundreds of members of the project that are actively working on this Open source (Open-Design) project.
  9. Additional information can also be found on Freedom Haven's website

We can show that Freedom Haven is verifiable and authentic, but because it is not yet popular it has not showed up on any major news outlets. Is WikiPedia a mirror for what is/was trending on the major news networks, or does it also reflect the under-reported verified underdogs? TonyOlsen (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Social media and similar aren't usually acceptable as reliable sources. Self-published sources aren't accepted as reliable, and it is preferred that there are secondary sources. The argument for deletion below by Etoza explains a bit more about reliable sources.
It is up to the closing admin of this RfD will decide if it is notable enough to stay. Fixing26 (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the challenge isn’t just Wikipedia. Because we’re based on secondary source material, Wikipedia is often simply a mirror held up to the world’s biases. We know that throughout history, the majority of humanity has not been deemed worthy of encyclopedic notability, including women, people of color and almost anyone from outside of Europe and North America. They also have been systematically underrepresented in media, academic literature, awards and professional recognition. We all have a lot of work to do.

Seeing that the author of this article is also the creator of Freedom Haven (Tony Olsen), I would argue that this is a advertisment, and it should not be here. Etoza (?) 11:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Etoza:

"author of this article is also the creator of Freedom Haven"

Sounds like a newbie error on my part - sorry. How can I fix this? If the page is instead created by someone else, would that address this issue? Is there a way to transfer that over, or does the page need to first be deleted and then recreated to update the initial creator?

Of course, the challenge isn’t just Wikipedia. Because we’re based on secondary source material, Wikipedia is often simply a mirror held up to the world’s biases. We know that throughout history, the majority of humanity has not been deemed worthy of encyclopedic notability, including women, people of color and almost anyone from outside of Europe and North America. They also have been systematically underrepresented in media, academic literature, awards and professional recognition. We all have a lot of work to do.

This is not talking about individuals, but instead groups of individuals, of which Refugees are one of. Plus the topic of underrepresention is applicable on the subject of "encyclopedic notability" which is the main subject of why we are gathered here. "Freedom Haven", and its plans for helping refugees, is "underrepresented in media". What can be done to address and correct this?

Inclusion Request

In a 2017 Poynter article, Katherine Maher (the chief executive officer and executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation) was quoted as saying "Wikipedia is often simply a mirror held up to the world’s biases. We know that throughout history, the majority of humanity has not been deemed worthy of encyclopedic notability ... [we] all have a lot of work to do. The good news is that Wikipedians love nothing more than solving problems." {{helpme}} TonyOlsen (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. Closed early as obvious hoax --IWI (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Pak Sindhiana Island

Pak Sindhiana Island (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

50.30.176.27 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I cannot find evidence that Pakistan claims a part of Antarctica as a dependent area. If I do a Google search for "Pak Sindhiana Island", I see few results. Pakistan has research stations, so the section "Pakistan in Antarctica" might be correct. If the article is not deleted for made up claims, then maybe it should be renamed. The subject can be about Pakistani research in Antarctica, and the comments about "Pak Sindhiana Island" can be removed. Note: the account that wrote the article was blocked from English Wikipedia, Urdu Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons. 50.30.176.27 (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 05:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Auntof6 (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Vladimir Novosselov

Vladimir Novosselov (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Gordonrox24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Don't believe this subject, nor his charity, have yet reached the level of notability we would expect on Wikipedia. Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

  •   Delete Besides minor mentions in news articles, I can't find anything about Novosselov alone. It seems he's only known alongside his company. Fixing26 (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 20:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Ferien (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Rodney Damon Collins

Rodney Damon Collins (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

50.30.176.22 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I do not think he is yet a significant actor, in the present day. 50.30.176.22 (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion


This request is due to close on 07:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fixing26/RfDs/Delete&oldid=7742959"