Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:AFD)
If you think a page should be deleted, read the deletion policy to make sure.
Then follow these instructions on how to request a page for deletion. To find more information on what discussed deletions and quick deletions are:
PLEASE READ THIS

Before nominating: checks and alternatives Edit

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:

A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines
  1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion.
  2. The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
  3. Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines
B. Carry out these checks
  1. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for quick deletion.
  2. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)
  3. Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
  4. Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
  5. Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  6. Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede.
C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
  1. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for RfD.
  2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
  3. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to fix it.
  4. If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.
D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
  1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
  2. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an RfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an RfD nomination may still be appropriate.
  3. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}.

Discussed deletionEdit

Put the deletion tag on the article.
  1. Click "Change source" at the top of the page to be deleted.
  2. In the edit box, add this tag: {{rfd|REASON}}. Put it at the top of the page, above the rest of the text. Then, replace the text "REASON" with a short reason why the page should be deleted. Do not be too specific here. You can add more details on the discussion page (see below).
  • It is a good idea to write a change summary to let others know what you are doing. You can say "nominating for deletion", "requesting deletion", or something like that.
  1. Click "Save changes" at the bottom to save the page with the deletion tag at the top.
  • You can also check the "Watch this page" check box to add the page to your watchlist. This lets you know if the page for deletion has been changed. If the deletion tag is removed any time before the discussion is closed, it should be put back.
Create a discussion page.
  1. If the deletion tag has been added to the page, a box should appear at the top of the article with a link saying "Click here to create a discussion page!" Click that link.
  2. You should be taken to a page starting with "Creating Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/..." along with the current year and the name of the article to be deleted. In the edit box, the following tag should have already been added: {{RfD/Preload/Template}} . Replace the text PLACE REASON HERE with a more detailed reason why the page should be deleted.
  • It is helpful to include links to the various policy pages about Wikipedia (that begin with Wikipedia:). Here are some examples of this: "This article is [[Wikipedia:COMPLEX|not easy to understand]]" or "Not a [[Wikipedia:notable|notable]] topic''. This will make others more aware of why the page is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies.
  1. Click "Save changes" to save the new discussion page when you are done.
  • A change summary you can write for this page is "creating discussion page", "starting deletion discussion", or something like that.
  • As with the page for deletion, you can check the "Watch the page" box. This will let you know if someone else has replied to your discussion.
List it here
  1. Copy the title of the discussion page to the clipboard. You can do this by dragging the mouse over the text from "Wikipedia" to the end of the page title to highlight it, then right-clicking and selecting "Copy".
  2. Go to the list of deletion requests, and click "change source" beside the words "Current deletion request discussions".
  3. At the top of the list of discussions, paste the title from the clipboard (right-click and select "Paste"). Add a pair of curly brackets before and after the title to make a template that will copy the content of the discussion page onto the main deletion page, like this:
{{Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/(name of page to be deleted)}}
  1. Finally, click "Save changes" to add the discussion to the list. If the page saves successfully, you should see your deletion discussion at the top of the list. And that's it!

Quick deletionEdit

If you think a page has nonsense content, add {{non}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page does not say why the subject is important, add {{notable}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page should be deleted per other quick deletion rules, add {{QD|reason}} to the top of the page.

Notifying the userEdit

Generally, you should try to be civil and tell the user that created the page to join the discussion talking about the page. This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|page to be deleted}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage.

DiscussionsEdit

  • The discussion is not a vote. Please make suggestions on what action to take, and support your suggestion with reasons.
  • Please look at the article before you make a suggestion. Do not make an opinion using only the information given by the nominator. Looking at the history of the article may help to understand the situation.
  • Please read other comments and suggestions. They may have helpful information.
  • Start your comments or suggestions on a new line. Start with * and sign after your comment by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs and make sure your comment is indented (using more than one *).
  • New users can make suggestions, but their ideas may not be considered, especially if the suggestion seems to be made in bad faith. The opinion of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance.
  • Suggestions by users using "sock puppets" (more than one account belonging to the same person) and IP addresses will not be counted.
  • Please make only one suggestion. If you change your mind, change your first idea instead of adding a new one. The best way to do this is to put <s> before your old idea and </s> after it. For example, if you wanted to delete an article but now think it should be kept, you could put: "Delete Quick keep".
  • If you would like an article to be kept, you can improve the article and try to fix the problems given in the request for deletion. If the reasons given in the nomination are fixed by changing, the nomination can be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an administrator.
  • Try to avoid confusing suggestions, such as delete and merge.

Remember: You do not have to make a suggestion for every nomination. You should think about not making a suggestion if:

  1. A nomination involves a topic that you do not know much about.
  2. Everyone has made the same suggestion and you agree with that suggestion.
  • All times are in UTC.

Current deletion request discussionsEdit

SayanimEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Antisemitic conspiracy that does not belong here. See the precedent at en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sayanim also, where the page ended up being salted. The same user created a similar article on enwiki, which I have put to AfD. No reliable sources back this up; the sources in the article do not make mention of the idea. --IWI (talk) 10:06, 18 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 10:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The former Nara prisonEdit

The former Nara prison (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unable to find sufficent in depth, reliable sources to deem this notable per en:WP:NBUILDING. --IWI (talk) 08:25, 18 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 08:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


XIL-APIEdit

XIL-API (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Darkfrog24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This article seems promotional to me. Because the content is not my area of expertise, I feel more eyes are needed. Please, someone with more technical knowledge comment on whether this subject merits inclusion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete non-notable promotion. --IWI (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment When doing software development, tests can be written based on the requirements these components will have to fulfill. Some of these tests are automated, and they can be run to make sure the developed components still meet the requirements. What this seems to be is a very similar thing, except that we are talking about developing physical components (which are part of a larger systtem, or that larger system as a whole), for example with automobile or aircraft industry. As such, the system is probably notable; note in DEWP, this article is in draft space. I can imagine, there's a need for such tools, but I don't know any others. In Dewp this article has been moved to draft space. --Eptalon (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


László SimionEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable - cross-wiki spam. Unrelated to a Hungarian politician with a similar name. --IWI (talk) 15:03, 17 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete. Not notable, lacks assessment by qualified independent experts. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 15:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Khandaker Abdullah JahangirEdit

Khandaker Abdullah Jahangir (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Appears to fail en:WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Also see the precedent at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khandaker Abdullah Jahangir. --IWI (talk) 08:56, 17 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete. Follow En. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete per nominator's reason.KP (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Muhammad Iqbal HossainEdit

Muhammad Iqbal Hossain (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Appears to be insufficient reliable, independent coverage. He also doesn't appear to meet en:WP:NACADEMICS. --IWI (talk) 08:54, 17 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 08:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Oscar's AsisEdit

Oscar's Asis (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Belwine has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't appear to be notable. Also made by an IP who has made lots of bad pages. Belwine💬📜 12:06, 16 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete as not-notable/potential hoax. --IWI (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Boutique FilmesEdit

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

Camouflaged Mirage has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't seems notable, Oscar's Oasis isn't produced by them, Ice Age (TV series) claimed to be produced by them, but per another RFD, seems a hoax, lastly only SOS Fairy Manu is produced by them, a short 10 min movie. I will say this isn't notable per en:WP:NCORP, neither by WP:GNG Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:23, 15 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete Likely a hoax. --IWI (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Ice Age (TV series)Edit

Ice Age (TV series) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Camouflaged Mirage has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Hoax/ Nonsense, cannot find a source for the Brazil one claimed by IP, I tried to redirect to Ice Age (franchise) as plausible redirect, but was reverted twice, community to decide, suggest we keep the redirect Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:16, 15 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Redirect per above. --IWI (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Agree to below to delete as hoax. --IWI (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I had speedied this as a hoax once already. Could find no proof anywhere that it exists. -Djsasso (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only pages with meaningful incoming links are articles that are also up for deletion. If it's a hoax, we shouldn't redirect it. The enwiki article for the franchise lists some TV specials, but doesn't seem to mention a series. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    True, then let's just delete. The redirect is just a suggestion, I also don't mind deletion as I bring this to RFD. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Reza BayEdit

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Contested quick deletion; according to talk page: links in the article prove he is a famous actor. When I search for "Reza Bay" on Google, I essentially find Facebook and LinkedIn. So from my view still a delete. Comments? Eptalon (talk) 13:38, 15 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Deleteas per nominator says. Not notable at all and sources are not of independent. Fails WP:GNG.KP (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete only seeing social media on Google. --IWI (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 13:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mohsen avidEdit

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doubtful notability, Google essentially finds social media. I don't know how indepenent or reliable the given references are. I'd delete it, as I see little to no academic relevance. Comments? Eptalon (talk) 12:31, 15 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete non-notable promotion. --IWI (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Barron TrumpEdit

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

Chenzw has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Previously deleted under QD A4, this was contested (restored), re-deleted, and re-contested at DRV. It was found that the original A4 deletion was likely to be invalid; sending to RfD for consideration. Chenzw  Talk  11:55, 14 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete or redirect. Just explaining: The person is a schoolboy who has not earned notability except as being a member of a family. He should not have a stand-alone article because notability is not inherited. An article on the Trump family would be sensible, though at present we do not have one. But, lacking that, I maintain we should stick to our precedents. We just can't have unsourced articles which implicitly say "He/She is notable because of their relatives". Also, we might consider that children may be damaged by over-publicity. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Donald Trump#Marriages. If somebody wants to know who Barron Trump is, then they will get the information they need. Naddruf (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Additional reason: I'm a firm believer in leave the kids outta this. Legitimate arguments can be made both for and against Barron Trump being notable on his own. So long as the issue remains on the fence, let's err on the side of redirecting attention away from him. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Neal BarberaEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Insufficient independent coverage. Not notable. --IWI (talk) 06:08, 14 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete - Does not appear to be notable. Belwine💬📜 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 06:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


2070Edit

2070 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
2071 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
2072 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Belwine has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: There was no need to go beyond 2069 because there are basically no events in years beyond the year 2069. Multiple page nomination with 2071 & 2072. Belwine💬📜 14:00, 13 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • At least more than a dicdef of what 2070 is, but seems a little en:WP:CRYSTAL. Per enwp, redirect temporarily all to 3rd_millennium. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep 2070 as I have found some information to add. Redirect the other two. --IWI (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to 3rd millennium. -Djsasso (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 3rd millennium. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Djsasso: Wouldn't 21st century be more appropriate? --IWI (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The enwp article seems to only consist of 2000 - 2020 for 21st century, but 3rd millennium seems to cover 2070s. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Ah ok, fair enough. --IWI (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I am good with either. Our 21st century isn't so huge as theirs so it would probably be fine to go there as well. -Djsasso (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Poshlaja MollyEdit

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

Belwine has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: does not appear to be notable - Also appears to probably be a copy of previously deleted content. Belwine💬📜 09:00, 13 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete first Google result is its Wikidata item. I have been unable to find any independent coverage, with zero Google News results. --IWI (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete Per WP:NOTABLE, it's just not notable. As @ImprovedWikiImprovment: as noted, the first result is a WikiData item, and no news results. If there is proof that this article is not able in some way, then I would recommend that the original author post it below, but at this point in time, (the time being: 16:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)), I don't see proof to restrain deletion. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep I would say that the transliteration of the band's original name Пошлая Молли as "Poshlaja Molly" is the main barrier to finding independent coverage. Using "Poshlaya Molly" does give some independent sources in Google News, while searching the original name in Cyrillic yields a wealth of independent, mostly Russian-language coverage. Furthermore, it seems that the band has had at least two albums (1, 2) and one single reach the top 10 on the Russian charts, satisfying the 2nd criterion of WP:Notability (music) for musicians and groups. Overall, Poshlaya Molly is a fairly high-profile band (at least in the Russian-speaking world) and certainly passes the notability criteria in my opinion. 1857a (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    @1857a: Thanks for noticing this. So the Paycheck page, which I gather to be an EP, states it was in the Apple Music chart, which isn't the official chart required to meet en:WP:NBAND. The same can be said for the "Очень страшная Молли 3 (Часть 1)" article, which lists the itunes, Apple Music, and YouTube charts; and the single speaks of YouTube hits also. In addition, the independent sources that can be found on the band seem to cover it in relation to a festival it is in (or similar, i.e. passing mentions) and is not in depth. However, I did notice that they have beem published on Warner Music Group, which is a major label. Unfortunately, at this point I am only seeing EPs, singles and one album, and not the "two or more albums" required to meet point 5 of NBAND. This is certainly now a borderline case, but I still think the band fails the notability requirments at this time. --IWI (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 09:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Manasu paddanu kaaniEdit

Manasu paddanu kaani (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't appear to be notable. Fails WP:GNG with zero Google news results whatsoever --IWI (talk) 20:13, 12 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 20:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Kenneth BombaceEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Likely not notable. No coverage at all aside from interviews and trivial mentions. --IWI (talk) 19:09, 12 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete per nom. The subject does not appear to fulfill anything laid out in WP:NSOLDIER, either. Chenzw  Talk  07:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mercie MarcosEdit

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

Darkfrog24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability. A quick source search showed this actor's IMDB entry. She has exactly one credit, from the 1960s. I found plenty of blog entries but no other reliable sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete fails en:WP:NACTOR. Only appeared in one non-notable film. In addition, I can't find any independent or reliable coverage. --IWI (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete per above. Chenzw  Talk  17:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Ivonne CerdasEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per WP:1E. Also fails WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 19:24, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete. Single win of national title, per previous discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Kimberly JiménezEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per WP:1E. Also fails WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 19:22, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete. Single win of national title, per previous discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 19:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Maria ThattilEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per WP:1E. Also fails WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 19:21, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete. Single win of national title, per previous discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 19:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Helen Hernandez (Miss Aruba)Edit

Helen Hernandez (Miss Aruba) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per WP:1E. Also fails WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 19:21, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete. Single win of national title, per previous discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 19:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Miqueal-Symone WilliamsEdit

Miqueal-Symone Williams (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per WP:1E. Also fails WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 19:20, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete Our recent discussions have clarified that single-shot winners were generally not notable enough for stand-alone articles. En wiki has her in general articles like "Jamaica at major beauty contests". We should follow. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete - as per Macdonald-ross -KP (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Bianca TirsinEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per WP:1E. Also fails WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 19:19, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete. Single win of national title, per previous discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 19:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Andrea MartínezEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per WP:1E. Only notable for a single event she took part in. Enwiki equivalent was PROD deleted for notability. --IWI (talk) 19:17, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete. Single win of national title, per previous discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 19:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Ivanna RohashkoEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per en:WP:1E. Also fails WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 19:16, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Judgement required here: won two titles, though both were rather insignificant. I reckon not notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Macdonald-ross: As stated elsewhere, 1E does not mean "only took part in one notable event", it means that "they are only notable for one event". To me, I don't think they are even notable for one of these events per WP:GNG, much less two. --IWI (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
That's a perfectly reasonable point of view. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Viivi AltonenEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per en:WP:1E. Only notable for a single event that they took part in. --IWI (talk) 19:15, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete. Single win of national title, per previous discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 19:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Vandana JeetahEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per en:WP:1E. Only notable for a single event that they took part in. --IWI (talk) 19:15, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete. Single win of national title, per previous discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 19:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mariah TibbettsEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per en:WP:1E. Only notable for a single event that they took part in. Enwiki equivalent was redirected due to notability. --IWI (talk) 19:14, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete. Single win of national title, per previous discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 19:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Alina AkselradEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per en:WP:1E and fails WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 19:14, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Won two events, but pages lack proper sources, and various claims and assessments are obviously promotional. On that ground I would delete. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    She may have won two events, but I don't think she is notable for either. --IWI (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Lenka NemerEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per en:WP:1E. Only notable for a single event that they took part in. --IWI (talk) 19:12, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete. Single win of national title, per previous discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 19:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Aisha Harumi TochigiEdit

Aisha Harumi Tochigi (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per en:WP:1E. Only notable for a single event that they took part in. --IWI (talk) 19:12, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete. Single win of national title, per previous discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 19:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Estefanía Soto (2nd nomination)Edit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per en:WP:1E. Only notable for a single event that they took part in Enwiki equivalent was redirected due to notability. --IWI (talk) 19:11, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete for heavens' sake! This and the rest of the list fail as being not notable: single local event winners. Would have been better to delete the original list: we can surely rely on the PR industry resubmitting any who get more notable. It's not as if we're ever going to be short of these pages! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: Two users objected, so I have nominated them separately. --IWI (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I totally accept your good faith. I obliquely suggested that we will never have to write a page in this subject (because obviously it will get written for us). All we have to do is chuck out the ones which do not meet requirements. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 19:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Rob StevenhagenEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails all four points of en:WP:CREATIVE, as well as WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 13:17, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 13:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Blerta VeseliEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This has been discussed before, but my opinion has changed on the matter. They are only notable for one event and thus fail notability requirements. --IWI (talk) 07:44, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Keep per my rationale at Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2020/Blerta_Veseli. Why isn't this written as 2nd nomination? And it's way too soon to renominate IMO. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    It was nominated last year, and so would not show as a second nomination. I nominated as part of many other similar articles created by a sock/possible paid editor, not that that should affect the outcome of an RfD. I don't see how it meets the requirments at WP:1E; coverage is trivial. --IWI (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    IMO this is still okay. My point still stands but if deemed 1E (I think it doesn't) then it's alright too...Best is to give a link to the 1st nomination next round I guess? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    Well I don't see what else she is notable for other than the single event. In addition, there appears to not be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    IWI, you keep mentioning paid editing. What evidence do you have of paid editing? Just being a sock is not evidence. Just obsessively posting articles in a particular area is not evidence (see Simpsons, Spongebob, Star Wars, etc.). I think the decision to keep or delete should be based on the merits of the articles and our guidelines. --Gotanda (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    Paid editing wouldn’t be a reason to delete in any case. The main issue I have is the failure of WP:1E and WP:GNG. Paid editing is only a suspicion given the promotional tone of the articles, and is mostly irrelevant anyway. --IWI (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per my vote in Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Blerta Veseli, as well as precedent on EN. Chenzw  Talk  02:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Chenzw: You say precedent on en, but I am seeing these being deleted by PROD and AfD over there, so I don't quite understand what you mean. You can see the background at en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roxanne_Allison_Baeyens and the deletion rationale at en:Andrea Martínez for more evidence of this. Many have also been redirected to their respective event's pages. This is what happens more recently, while the examples you cited in the last RfD were from 2012. --IWI (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for locating the more recent RFD on EN, this didn't appear in the first discussion for the article here, and I suspect the discussion might have gone differently had the EN RFD surfaced. I am withdrawing my vote in lieu of this. Chenzw  Talk  16:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment The last RfD was closed on 28 November 2020 (as a keep). Since then the article hasn't changed, and I don't see in what way the outcome of this will be different.--Eptalon (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Eptalon: I renominated as nobody had discussed WP:1E there, in addition to what seems to me as an outdated evaluation of the precedent on enwiki. It is also part of numerous other similar articles that I have nominated, where at first I wasn't even aware of the previous Rfd. --IWI (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    By that token, Shirin Ebadi would probably not be notable? --Eptalon (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I think she is notable, yes. --IWI (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @ImprovedWikiImprovment I think Eptalon is trying to say...Shirin won a nobel prize, only this prize, and this subject won a beauty pagent, both are one event winning something, so if this isn't notable, the other isn't notable too if this is the logic for 1E? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Eptalon, Camouflaged Mirage: Ah ok. There are a couple of reasons why, in my view, Ebadi is notable and Veseli is not. Firstly, en:WP:1E specifically makes mention of playing a major role in a minor event, which is what I see winning a beauty pageant for a given country is. The Nobel Prize, on the the other hand, is a very major event that is well respected worldwide in their given fields. In addition, Ebadi is notable for much more than just winning the Nobel Prize. I don't think these two can be compared from this standpoint, and is very much just an association fallacy. --IWI (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @ImprovedWikiImprovment But isn't Miss Universe a great event in term of pageants, and is the pinnacle of pageants? And she is the national representative for the event. Just as Nobel Prize is a major event for scientists, people, Miss Universe is also for beauty pageants people, so I think it's also major? The beauty pageants isn't just a national event, is to select people who represent nation in the global events. This is something like Premier League choosing who goes to Europa League, Champions League. Not wanting association fallacy but just an illustration. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Camouflaged Mirage: If she had/does won Miss Universe, that would be a different story. But she was simply one of almost a hundred in the competition. Simply being in this does not make someone notable, nor does winning a minor national competition. This is backed up by the lack of coverage in reliable sources, per WP:GNG. All we can really write is a pseudo-biography due to the lack of coverage, which is why these guidelines exist. --IWI (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @ImprovedWikiImprovment I disagree that it is a minor competition, the nation is Kosovo isn't a large nation, and a very new nation, so this might be a craze in kosovo. I will say that we try to be fair to these countries, they may not have the coverage an english speaking country have in English press, or a large country. To be honest, in zhwp, I did wrote about a Miss Aruba from scratch, it's very difficult to find proper sources, but I tried to comb extensively, and in the end it meets GNG and well I also get it to DYK standard there. So I know the difficulties of writing such articles, and sources to meet GNG can inherently exist. This is just a sidenote. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Camouflaged Mirage: You have to ask yourself whether significant coverage in reliable and independent sources exists. The languages spoken in Kosovo all use the Latin script, so if no sources can be found by searching her name, she probably fails GNG. This isn't a situation where local sources would be hard to find due to a different script. The competition is notable, but most of its participants are not going to receive the coverage needed to establish notability. Any information about her could be covered in the Miss Universe COUNTRY article with it being redirected, as is common on enwiki and per en:WP:PSEUDO. I feel you disagree with me, and that's of course perfectly okay :) --IWI (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @ImprovedWikiImprovment Kosovo have Albanian and Serbian, which some are written in Cryic. There are also regional languages like turkish (which don't use latin) and Romanian (which doesn't too), so your points isn't entirely true. If we say the national competition is notable, winning a notable competition which end up being the ticket to a notable international level competition isn't it something quite notable? And you are okay with redirection, why not directly redirect? Just some thoughts, feel free to disagree :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Camouflaged Mirage: Just to correct you, Romanian and Turkish do in fact use the latin script, as does Albanian. Only Serbian doesn't always use the Latin script. In terms of your other question, I do not feel it is appropriate to redirect an article recently discussed at RfD. And it is about coverage. If there is so few coverage, we are basically writing a pseudobiography, we might as well just cover it in the event's article. Just because an event is notable, doesn't inherently mean the winner is also notable. --IWI (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Note Another similar article, Anshika Sharma is under discussion. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Well there are actually a bunch of similar articles to this under discussion. --IWI (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Replying here, hope it's okay, Romanian_language (our version didn't include but if you see enwp - Cyrillic (Transnistria only) was mentioned) as well as Turkish_language (our version doesn't but enwp have it per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Braille} and Albanian language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Braille was used), they are latin but there are some variations in the typing, hence, there might be some sources not flagged up. @ImprovedWikiImprovment Hope this explains my point. for the redirect, I am not saying that we redirect when RFD is keep results, but rather that this now can way be considered redirect. I still think the winner of this Miss Kosvo is still notable as it'self and is a great award, so fulfill ANYBIO #1. This is of course my own standards, the community standard might be different. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    With that been said, let me reconsider this for possible redirect. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment While I agree with Camouflaged Mirage's point about fulfilling ANYBIO #1, BIO1E is an exclusionary criteria - it takes precedence over ANYBIO (or even BASIC). With that said, I would like to call attention to this part of 1E/BIO1E (EN's version, not to be confused with BLP1E): It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person., so we should also consider the coverage of this person beyond the event which they are most famously known for (if the coverage exists). I will take another look tomorrow to see if there is coverage about this person outside of the pageant. Chenzw  Talk  17:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Ah, I now realize what the issue is already, I keep on thinking @ImprovedWikiImprovment means BLP1E. Coming from zhwp, we only have BLP1E not BIO1E. Hence, I keep on thinking IWI is saying about BLP1E, let me study in depth what the EN version of BIO1E entails. Thanks @Chenzw for pointing out the obvious thing I missed. Having being said, if this is really notable for that event only, I will suggest rewriting the articles to meet the event standard rather than deletion or a redirect to the event etc. If possible my point is that we can still savage some of the text in some other places. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Camouflaged Mirage: Braille is a way for the blind to read text on a page with their hands. It is not a writing script, which I think you may have suggested above. --IWI (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Oh I stand corrected. Having read through BIO1E, it can be said this person is notable for only the Miss Kosovo for now, we don't know whether they will win at Miss Universe. So I agree the better approach will be to redirect to the Miss Kosovo competition 2020 article if it is created, as of now it isn't. We can include a small sentence about the winner in the article if needed (without being UNDUE). Thanks @ImprovedWikiImprovment for pointing it out and renominating this. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Just a clarification, I recalled seeing some sources that will allow this to meet GNG in 2020 the 1st RFD, they had however been taken down, so I can't find any to meet GNG. I think this mean the coverage is momentary for this subject.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I think this should be more about the contest, and less about the contestants. Yes, very likely they are young, unmarried, pretty girls and young women. Through a series of contests, they get selected, so that each participating country sends one contestant to the Miss Universe contest. There, one girl will win the title, Miss Universe <Year>. Is Zozibini Tunzi notable, she won in 2019. (She was also Miss South Africa, that year)? (a) - All contestants who make it to the final election are notable (they won a national competition) (b) - This would apply to Miss Veseli (Note: In 2020, there was no final Miss Universe contest); All conestants at a national competition are notable (c); All contestants are notable (d). So if we say that Miss Universe gives some notability, let's pick one of the options. Oh, btw: Official languages in Kosovo are Albanian and Serbian; Serbian can be written either with the Latin or the Cyrillic script. --Eptalon (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not what the guidelines state. We cannot simply assume a person is notable because they took part in one competition and did nothing else of note, per en:WP:1E. --IWI (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Miss Universe - I couldn't find any other significant coverage of this person (also refer my earlier comments above). Chenzw  Talk  07:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 07:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Laura OlascuagaEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This has been discussed before, but my opinion has changed on the matter. They are only notable for one event and thus fail notability requirements. --IWI (talk) 07:43, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Keep per my rationale at Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2020/Laura_Olascuaga. Why isn't this written as 2nd nomination? And it's way too soon to renominate IMO. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    It was nominated last year, and so would not show as a second nomination. I nominated as part of many other similar articles created by a sock/possible paid editor, not that that should affect the outcome of an RfD. It's also worth noting this was deleted from enwiki for failing notability requirements at en:WP:1E. --IWI (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    IMO this is still okay. My point still stands but if deemed 1E (I think it doesn't) then it's alright too...Best is to give a link to the 1st nomination next round I guess? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    Well I don't see what else she is notable for other than the single event. In addition, there appears to not be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    For GNG, I will say there is enough on this, a google news search about her renders many sources from different newspapers, coverage spans hours to years ago. I will say this coverage isn't trivial. As of BIO1E, as corrected at the Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Blerta Veseli, I am wrong to interpret it as BLP1E. Per https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Olascuaga (the spanish version) - it seems they are in multiple competitions that are notable, and crowned in them all, it doesn't seems to be only notable for one notable event, I will say still Keep in this. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Camouflaged Mirage: I disagree. While she has taken part in many competitions, she only appears to actually be notable for the Miss Universe Colombia event, per the results I am seeing on Google News. As far as I can see, she is only actually notable for this single event, regardless of how many she may have taken part in. BIO1E does not mean "has only taken part in one notable event" it means "they are only notable for taking part in a particular event", if that makes sense. --IWI (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    The results can be more focused if you use "" for the name, I did see a variety of good sources for all competitions she took place, the spanish wiki version is also very well sourced. I will say that spanish wikipedia is a large wiki with tighter editoral control and notablity guideline than many other wiki, if they can have an article I think speaks something to the notablity of the subject. Although we can only follow en precedence, this seems something to take it in mind. I will also say that there are various pagents she took part in, and clearly some others seems notable too. They are notable for taking part in many notable events. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    Addenum: I will note that enwp version so called delete via a process called PROD, calling for BLP1E not BIO1E. There are no discussion on that, so we cannot take preceedence from en delete, but of course it can guide us. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 07:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mizanur Rahman AzhariEdit

Mizanur Rahman Azhari (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails WP:GNG. The article itself is full of unreliable or dead sources. Not notable. --IWI (talk) 07:29, 9 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete- G11. Not notable and advertisement.KP (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

*  Delete - not notable, no English Wikipedia article. Also external links/other websites inside the article, which is not really ideal... Belwine💬📜 11:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)   Neutral - I don't usually change my delete vote, but I am now neutral on this. There are some reliable sources that show his notability that are below (like the BBC, and other Bangladeshi sources that appear to be reliable), but the article has some issues (e.g. NPOV). Belwine💬📜 09:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep He is very popular in Bangladesh! He is very popular on social media, Just 18 days, he get 1 million subscribe, it is world record. Prodipto Deloar (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry to break it to you, but a simple search showed this wasn't the case. Please can you provide reliable sources to show his notability? Also, popularity does not equal notability as there are YouTubers out there with 10,000,000 subscribers that don't have Wikipedia pages. --Belwine💬📜 17:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    Number of followers does not show whether the person is notable. Wikipedia needs independent coverage in reliable sources. --IWI (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Now i want to mentioned some leading Bangladeshi national newspaper and television reference, BBC, Daily Sun, Somoy TV, N TV, Dilly Jugantor, Dailly Kalerkantho, Manab Zamin, Daily Inqilab.  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 07:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep No doubt about that he is notable person with Wikipedia guideline. all the sources are reliable. Someone removed data badly. See all the sources again.  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 06:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
(Comment)There are some Bangladeshi users who are requesting to keep. I don't know why this users are doing like this in the favour of the subject. They didn't study any guidelines before creating articles. and User:Masum Ibn Musa is removing ad tag as per revision of [1] now they are arguing on me.KP (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
KP Do you know Mizanur Rahman Azhari personally? He is one of the notable scholar in Bangladesh. He also contributing as a host of Bangladeshi private television since 2010. Bangladeshi all newspaper published news about him as a public speaking, host, social work and also scholar. you can find google as well. Thanks.  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 08:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Masum Ibn Musa: Do you know this person, or have any connection to them? --IWI (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete, it is not notable enough for an article. --MartinLutheran (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppets_of_MartinLutheran Sockpuppets vote should have been removed.  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 06:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The sockpuppet did not vote twice as far as I can see. Removed strike. --IWI (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Do not remove strike. See here Cleaning_up_after_a_sock_puppet_is_blocked  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 07:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
See your talk page. --IWI (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Guys, RFD are never a vote, arguments are always more important than individual votes. Something like non notable is almost always not useful in the sight of closing sysops (just per nom kind). So even if left unstriken, there is no harm, but I will note that non-sysops shouldn't strike votes nor if you are so heavily involved. However, I also see where Masum is coming from, but there is no double voting here, so I cannot see why the delete vote cannot be sustained. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: But Bengali Wikipedia has left this article, Then What will be reference ?? Bangladeshi media is reporting his name every day. If you follow BD newspaper, you may watch it. He most renowned islamic scholar in Bangladesh. Prodipto Deloar (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, we had WP:FOLLOW as a guideline here. So we can follow enwp but not bnwp. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete. Follow En. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems BBC coverage is barely acceptable, per Belwine, I don't want to use neutral at AFD but rather I think it's no consensus for now. I will say the enwp discussion isn't that in depth as per here and participants just discussed the notablity based on sourcing in the page which notablity isn't inherient on the sourcing of the articles. Here we have more sources given, so we should evaluate them and I am opposed to follow enwp in this situation. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Camouflaged Mirage, Belwine: This BBC article appears to be the only reliable, independent coverage presented here. All others provided strike me a highly unreliable and promotional (at least in their translated form) or are dead links (in the article). Unfortunately, I still support deletion given that WP:GNG requires significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, not just one. There is no doubt he is popular, but we can't write a Wikipedia article with one (known) existing reliable source, per notability guidelines. I should also note that the enwiki AfD does discuss the lack of sources available in a search. --IWI (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    True. En/Simple GNG will need 2 sources at least. I can say the Daily Sun seems independent enough, en:Daily_Sun_(Bangladesh). I will call it marginal case. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Independent? Perhaps. Reliable? I don't think so. --IWI (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    It's at least a broadsheet, reliability needs to be discussed in something like reliable source noticeboard which I note we don't have it here. I searched en archives, nothing found discussing the paper as a source, that being said, the source is cited on many pages as a source. If it's unreliable I wouldn't think no one will discuss it at some point given this widespread use, I will defaults to it being reliable. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Actually with this, I am leaning keep as GNG should be fulfilled, I just don't like the promotional tone of the article which can be remedied by editing of course. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Camouflaged Mirage: While "multiple" is subjective, generally the predecent on en has been to have three, good sources. What we currently have is two mid-low quality sources, and in my view, GNG has not been met. Back in the early days of me editing on enwiki, I had an article rejected because I could only find two reliable sources. --IWI (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    I will say 2 is good enough, the link is just an essay, I will prefer 3 but since this is an East Asian topic, the fact that CNN BBC an Western media is willing to cover speaks for it. en:Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Significant_coverage also have, "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs.", and I can see both the daily sun / CNN doesn't fall under trivial under this guideline (I know is for co-operations not people). Our WP:GNG states "multiple", based on wikt:multiple, "A constant product of a number" --> number can be 1, 1 times 2 = 2. I think this is objective in terms of saying 2 is enough. I know zh guideliens aren't to be followed there, but on zh they allow 1 source in depth coverage to meet GNG. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Where is the coverage from CNN? If you are referring to BBC, it is the Bengali edition and, while owned by a UK company, it is very much an "Eastern" site. Also, looking at the Daily Sun article, it is very short and from over a year ago with no other articles on the site, appears to be poor WP:ROTM coverage. If this is the only reliable coverage that exists, I do not see a reason to keep, though that's just my opinion. --IWI (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Oops, typo, should be BBC, corrected. I will say that it's still BBC. It's marginally in depth I will say, at least the entire page is on the subject like a biography. It's not like he going somewhere or what, at least per the title the coverage is on the subject not on some routine news etc. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm new here. I found some Bangladesh related discussion from recent changes and came here. I think it passes WP:GNG. If you searched for ‘মিজানুর রহমান আজহারি’, lots of result from Bangaladeshi leading newspaper will come. en:Jagonews24.com, en:Somoy TV, en:NTV (Bangladeshi TV channel), en:Jugantor, en:Samakal, Daily Sun and BBC bangla are considered reliable in bnwiki. This article needs some cleaning and unreliable sources should be removed.Yahya (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll back into this discussion to say this page is nowhere near showing the notability of the subject. To be notable independent reliable experts would have to say so. What we actually have is a storm of PR hype which passes muster only with the innocent. Remember, PR guys are out to earn money, and they orchestrate the hype. I'm surprised to see such a long discussion about a clear-cut case. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 07:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Gaming Industry In IndiaEdit

Gaming Industry In India (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Camouflaged Mirage has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Might be notable, but need a fundamental rewrite to meet inclusion, now a proxy spam page for Digicodes etc Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC), now is just a en:WP:SYNTH of sources which isn't that good quality to portray this, as well as possible copyright issues as pointed below, in addition to WP:OR and WP:NOT an essay. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:46, 9 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Tagged for G12. Some text was copied from elsewhere. --IWI (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    Interestingly, the graph have copyright logo but that text didn't, and nowhere in the website have copyright? So I am unsure of G12. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    Unless it explicitly states the text is free, it can be assumed it is not. --IWI (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    For me my take on G12 is that unless it is explicitly stated as copyrights (or any rights statement), I will tend to not tag per copyright but bring over to RFD for discussions. G12 seems to state it must be an unambiguous copyright issue? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    Most text on the internet is not free, and I don't feel it to be ambiguous unless there is a specific reason that would suggest it is free. This does not seem like one of those, at least to me. --IWI (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    For me I tend to err on the caution side for speedy deletion, if there is nothing on that website saying it is copyrighted, it isn't an unambiguous violation of copyright but it might be a copyright issue. The large wikipedias have a section which allow pages to be discussed whether they are copyvios or not, only those unambiguous ones will be speedied, I am not sure of the case here (i.e. the page doesn't exert copyright anywhere on their site as far as I can see), there are fair use cases too. I will have no opposition to a sysop deeming this as a G12 (I will take it as a good lesson learned), but since wasn't sure about the copyright status, I will recommend we continue this RFDed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    Note : The above pertains to the copyvio source IWI pointed, now I find another source which is copied, hence, I agree G12 should be the case. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    Being cautious with QD is wise, but copyright is a legal issue, as opposed to any notability or other issues. --IWI (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    I agree largely, but if it's just a borderline source, there are some other ways of handling? In our WP:DP#G12, we have "If the Administrator who deleted the page is told that they may have made a mistake, they should add the content back; if a confirmation e-mail has not been received from the original author of the information, the Administrator should blank the article and add the {{copyvio}} template.", for copyright issues that are not clear cut, we can use blank + copyvio template? Note I know we cannot allow this wiki to be sued due to copyright and it is absolutely crucial to protect copyright in all cases. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment The article was tagged as G12-Copyright infringement; the links given are Financial Express and possibly Statista. I will remove the G12-template; the relevant links are in this comment.--Eptalon (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure why the G12 was declined considering this is a clear copyright infringement, but Quickly Delete asap. --IWI (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    Both sources are provided in the article; they are not exact copypastes, and the text is trivial. So no reason to delete this as a copyright violation.--Eptalon (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    The article seems to be copy and pasted from sections of the following sources: Statista (1st paragraph), Hindustan Times (2nd paragraph) and Financial Express (3rd and 4th paragraphs). They are not copy and pastes of the whole article, but they are copy and pasted from these three places. I think that goes under G12 Section 1. Belwine💬📜 15:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    The article at present does not mention Digicodes. If a situation is true, then that fact is no-one's copyright, and an unadorned statement cannot be objected to unless its length and details can be shown to be extensively copied. If exact wording is the complaint, attributing the wording is usually sufficient to establish good faith. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with mac on this, there is something called threshold of originality, i.e. if the sentence can be come out from anyone mouth, is simple enough, it cannot be deemed as a copyright violation. These sentences seems simple enough. (refer to commons:COM:TOO for more), in addition, we have fair use principles, if the source is given, the quote isn't that long, we can always treat it as fair use in most situations (especially since source 1 didn't have even a copyright logo). In larger wikipedias, there are fair use images that are copyrighted but can be used in wikis (e.g. en:WP:NFCC) etc and wikiquotes allow quotes of individuals to be used, as long as a source is added. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Belwine had removed the digicode part, so that part of rationale is no longer valid, I will update my rationale. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Kamilla SerikbayEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per WP:1E. Only notable for a single event. --IWI (talk) 06:01, 8 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 06:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Shabree FrettEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable per WP:1E. Coverage only relates to a single event, and is sparse anyway. --IWI (talk) 06:01, 8 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 06:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Sunniva FrigstadEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Only notable for a single event, therefore is not notable for Wikipedia per WP:1E. --IWI (talk) 06:00, 8 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 06:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Vanessa VelásquezEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't appear to be notable. Any coverage found pertains to a single event she took part in, and therefore is not notable per WP:1E. --IWI (talk) 05:59, 8 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 05:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Cristiana SilvaEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not seeing enough reliable, independent coverage. Likely not notable for Wikipedia. --IWI (talk) 23:01, 7 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment even if they are notable for being in Miss Universe in a given year, that would probably be a WP:1E situation. Any coverage that does exist only speaks about that single event. --IWI (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Miss Universe per Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Blerta Veseli and the fact that I couldn't find any other significant coverage about the person. Chenzw  Talk  12:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep She was Miss Universo Portugal 2020. The page has at least 2 secondary sources with significant coverage about her. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    @A.WagnerC: Both sources pertain to a single event she took part in. There would have to other coverage about her to meet en:WP:BIO1E. --IWI (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but the article can be maintained, even if it is notorious for a single event
"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not agree that Miss Universe Portugal is a "highly significant" event, which can be backed up by the overall lack of reliable, independent coverage, but I respect your opinion on that. We can only write a pseudobiography due to the lack of coverage, which should be avoided. Anything about the person can be covered in the Miss Universe Portugal article. --IWI (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Recently closed deletion discussionsEdit

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   DeleteChenzw  Talk  05:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

Sexologists Available OnlineEdit

Sexologists Available Online (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Darkfrog24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unencyclopedic. If we had an article on Sexology I'd support a redirect, but we don't have one now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete per nom. --IWI (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete. Unencyclopedic own synthesis. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete Not encyclopedic. Capitalization of title indicates that it's supposed to be about an organization. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As I understand, sexology is done in the course of another therapy session (or it is looking at data, and grouping it, without the patient at all). The people who agreed to undergo treatment, will likely want to see their therapist. So haing a therapy/tratment session 'online' will be the exception. Since we do have the Sexology article now, anything worthwile can be added there. Then, we can delete this article (as outlined: I don't see the need for a redirect).--Eptalon (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:49, 16 January 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   DeleteChenzw  Talk  05:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

Sons of OdinEdit

Sons of Odin (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Darkfrog24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unnecessary, inaccurate and incomplete. In its current form, this article offers nothing except a one-sentence reference to the Marvel movies. (In actual Norse Mythology, Loki is not Odin's son, but Baldur is.) There is an en.wiki article Sons of Odin but it has no sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:56, 9 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete per nom. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:56, 16 January 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   DeleteChenzw  Talk  05:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

Template:Hot Shots Golf video gamesEdit

Template:Hot Shots Golf video games (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

TTP1233 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable it seems KP (talk) 08:23, 9 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete, full of red links. Belwine💬📜 16:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete certainly these games are notable, but currently this navbox serves no purpose with no blue links. No prejudice for recreation of some articles on it are created. --IWI (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:23, 16 January 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) 00:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Mark R SmithEdit

Mark R Smith (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Belwine has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't appear to be notable. There seems to be an unneeded explanation about astrophysics through the article as well (not a reason to delete, just something to note) Belwine💬📜 17:11, 11 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete unable to find anything of note online. Fails WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete Not notable; not on the extensive Enwp list page for Mark Smith, except as a red-link name. All biogs must have supporting data, else anyone could be listed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete- Not notable at all, per above reasons.KP (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete - I found a Facebook page and LinkedIn profile purporting to be about a certain "Dr Mark R Smith FRAS" who is supposedly a professor at Oxford. There was nothing on the Oxford website to confirm that said person was ever a member of the faculty. Chenzw  Talk  16:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment - the article has been edited by Professor MRS. The initials of the person of this article are also MRS. Could be a COI? Belwine💬📜 17:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:11, 18 January 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. Series doesn't look notable yet.--Eptalon (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

AlphablobsEdit

Alphablobs (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Alphablobs Meets Felicity and Miguel (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Absolutley no Google results. Likely not notable, but could be a hoax also. --IWI (talk) 07:52, 10 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete Not notable. We can always write a new one if that changes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete I would have QD'd it as not notable, because there's no claim of notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    Being a television series seemed like a claim to me, though that can be debated. --IWI (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It might be a claim if all TV series were notable, but they're not. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It says more than this, though. Being a TV series on Nickelodeon is a claim to me. --IWI (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 07:52, 17 January 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) 00:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

World development foundationEdit

World development foundation (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Belwine has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Promotional (nominated for RfD by Darkfrog24) Belwine💬📜 15:59, 9 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete for reasons given. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed promotional, so delete. Claims of worthiness need support from qualified and independent experts. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete not notable. --IWI (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:59, 16 January 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) 00:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Time Tables Rock StarsEdit

Time Tables Rock Stars (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Darkfrog24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Promotional and not encyclopedic Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:59, 9 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete as nominator. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Darkfrog24 Just a note, you don't have to vote, your nomination is considered as a !vote to delete, and anyway RFD aren't a vote? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This couldn't have been a vote, then, so no worries. I have moved my rationale on the deletion of Sons of Odin to the appropriate place per your comment. Thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I just mean there isn't a need to put Delete as nom, just to be clear when you nominate it's considered you are for deletion. Yes, that rationale is in the correct position. :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:59, 16 January 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) 00:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject WikipediaEdit

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I don't think wikiprojects pass WP:GNG in my view. --IWI (talk) 03:22, 9 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete Firstly, this page has not created in proper format as this page is english Wikipedia page, not an article. I saw that in the page's reference.KP (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete I doubt any WikiProject meets notability requirements for having an article about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete Not notable. BlueMoon65625 (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 03:22, 16 January 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) 00:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Olivier StaubEdit

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

Belwine has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable, sources don't seem very reliable, but it's not QD G11 (obvious advertising) Belwine💬📜 20:11, 8 January 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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete none of the sources are reliable or independent, and none others could be found. --IWI (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

*"Keep" This article seems written in good faith, all facts, sources and references seem reliable and come from independent news source.; for that matter I do not think it should be deleted. This article is a documented overview of a recognized Canadian artist, like many others. Please let me know which sources seem unreliable and what could be improved. Ssojic (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Administrator note: CU strike Operator873talkconnect 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Here's some feedback on what could be improved/what the issues are. Some of the issues just can't be solved because they're out of our control.
  1. Firstly, the subject of the article does not appear to be notable. This is an issue that cannot be solved, and will probably be the main reason the article will be deleted. There is nothing either you or I can do about it.
  2. Secondly, the amount of awards is a bit too much, it makes it seem like a bit of an ad. If you have more time to change this article, please put these into a table if possible.
  3. Thirdly, Wikipedia needs an NPOV (NPOV means neutral point of view). Some of the paragraphs aren't awfully unneutral, but they are a bit off, for example, "high profile brands" "unique sense of storytelling", these do not necessarily represent a full NPOV and whilst there is never going to be a full NPOV on Wikipedia, you need to try to make one as much as possible.
  4. Finally, make sure the sources are reliable as possible. If you want to know what a reliable source is, see here. There seem to be a lot of sources in this article - and that's great - but quality is just as important as quantity, and so you need to make sure your sources are reliable. I believe (but I'm not absolutely certain) that IMDB is not a reliable source as you can edit the information on there - IMDB is one of the sources here.
Those are the main issues of the article, please ask me if you have any more questions. :) Belwine💬📜 22:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


Thx for your feedback . I appreciate and understand your comments. Please give me some more time (1 week maybe) to adjust and improve my article. As for the subject to be notable; it all depends on the background field of the users. My subject is one of the landmarks of Canadian film directing and photography in the advertising domain, this is why the international award list is so vast. Nevertheless, I will reduce the amount of awards and put them in a table. I believe users with an interest in advertising film direction and photography would find this content pertinent and notable. Ssojic (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, the request for deletion will close on 15 January, so you should have plenty of time. :) Belwine💬📜 14:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


Hello, I did my homework, verifications and amends

1-Notability

After thorough verifications, my subject is covered multiple times within reliable and independent sources. Amongst many other, here are some examples

  • Over 10 Articles in “Infopresse”, the advertising reference publication in Quebec.
  • Regular mentions in “SHOTS” , probably the most respected international advertising publication from the UK .
  • Last week subject was ranked in the top 100 best advertising film for 2020 by “Source Creative” the international creative reference source.
  • Subject has been published in “Applied Arts” receptively for the last decade.

All these mentioned News Media are absolutely independent from the subject and are considered as landmarks in the industry. Subject is also referenced in various Wikipedia articles: Humanity and Inclusion, Cossette, Oliver Staub (French Wiki). I therefore strongly believe that my subject meets the definition of Notable as mentioned in Wikipedia : significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

2-Awards

I have placed them in a collapsible table. Nevertheless, in order to keep a NPOV It is very difficult to choose to remove one award instead of another… The information is factual and verifiable.

3-NPOV

Text was amended to leave no doubts.

4-Reliable Sources

Sources where verified and they are reliable; all sources are independent.

I sincerely hope that these clarifications and amends will be sufficient to wave the deletion demand as I do not see anything in contradiction with the wiki guidelines. Let me know if you see anything else.--Ssojic (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"Keep" Sources are independent, subject is discussed on other wiki pages. --Moivictorvauclair (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Administrator note: CU strike Operator873talkconnect 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 20:11, 15 January 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.

Related pagesEdit