Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 13	March 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gulzar Group of Institutes

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

Zero refs. No RS available online. No notability. Written as an advertisement. Vikram Vincent 15:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:No sources were found on doing WP:Before and fails GNG. The article also seems like written for promotional purpose.Poppified ^talk 02:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a private institution hence there is no inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 13:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peer WP:NORG, along with similar AfDs that resulted in the articles being deleted, an article about a private college has to pass the notability guidelines the same way any other organization does. By having enough adequate sources to make it notable. This college doesn't have the required sourcing for it to be notable though. So, there's no guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Osmania University. Sandstein 10:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maturi Venkata Subba Rao Engineering College

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

Page was created by a SPA. Ref section is missing sources. No RS online. Org not notable. Vikram Vincent 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG.Poppified ^talk 03:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and written like an advert. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth (there are database style listings and mentions, but nothing that meets SIGCOV). The info in the article is taken from the school website or is original research. // Timothy :: talk 07:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources fails in WP:GNG. Citterz (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Osmania University: because the college belongs to this University. Alcremie (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Osmania University. Either way the sourcing doesn't live up to what is needed for the notability guidelines. Let alone WP:NORG. I'm neutral on if it should be deleted or redirected though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Osmania University: Affiliation to the university is verifiable and a plausible search term. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. We do not redirect to the university to which it is affiliated; it is not a part of that university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its a private college. They don't get a special pass from the notability guidelines. There's zero consensus that private schools do. Adamant1 (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSCHOOL 'All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." --Adamant1 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Considering that Necrothesp is using a WP:IDHT approach is not productive. Talking about a past consensus without any basis in the present is not helpful either because it goes against {{Outcomes}} and the guideline of WP:NSCHOOL, which was the basis of my AFD nomination. I think it is best we just ignore this !vote across all AFDs since they have zero data to share to the discussion. Vikram Vincent 11:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, what you're saying is that opinion of an experienced editor who has participated in hundreds of these AfDs and is pointing out that consensus is on his side should be discounted just because you disagree with that consensus and would like to see it discounted? Well done! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool! I'll stick with the guidelines and base my nominations on that :-) Let's agree to disagree and end the back and forth? Vikram Vincent 14:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KCT College of Engineering

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

No RS found online. Page relies on primary sources. Notability missing. Page is written like an advertisement. Vikram Vincent 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a private institution hence there is no inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 13:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peer WP:NORG, along with similar AfDs that resulted in the articles being deleted, an article about a private college has to pass the notability guidelines the same way any other organization does. By having enough adequate sources to make it notable. This college doesn't have the required sourcing for it to be notable though. So, there's no guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS online whatsoever. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to John F. Kennedy University#School of Medicine. Sandstein 20:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy University School of Medicine

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

Fails WP:ORG. No reliable sources apart from directory links found. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-04 ✍️ create

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

Redirect to John F. Kennedy University#School of Medicine, where all the pertinent info already exists. Nothing to indicate independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Medical College

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

Doesn't qualify WP:ORG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline. Vikram Vincent 05:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peer WP:NORG, along with similar AfDs that resulted in the articles being deleted, private colleges have to pass the notability guidelines the same as any other type of organizations in order for an article about it to be included in Wikipedia and this college clearly doesn't have the required sourcing for it to be notable. Therefore, the article about it should be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No independent sourcing available to establish notability via WP:NSCHOOLS. Vikram Vincent 05:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

College of Science & Engineering, Jhansi

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

Written like an ad. Refs have paid ads. No RS available. Not inherently notable. Creator is a SPA. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I think we are up to like 8 or 9 of these being deleted and like 1 (or 0) being kept despite your claim that consensus is to keep them. At some point for the sake of accuracy Etc. Etc. you should strike your keep vote comments about it out. Since they are clearly wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Private institutions don't have any inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 14:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peer WP:NORG, along with similar AfDs that resulted in the articles being deleted, an article about a private college has to pass the notability guidelines the same way any other organization does. By having enough adequate sources to make it notable. This college doesn't have the required sourcing for it to be notable though. So, there's no guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 06:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found even less than I usually do on these kinds of colleges. No link back to shit flow diagrams, wasn't used to lock up migrants during the pandemic and no one was hit by a car in front of it leading to protests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing even close to the depth of coverage required to pass WP:NORG, therefore, there is simply no alternative but to delete Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Laundeys

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

Zero reliable sources to indicate how this web series is notable, references are all the same recycled press release; see also the related AFD for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lucky_commando_films, which was written by a different editor but does the same press release recycling. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✗ G5

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

Delete: Barely found anything about the webseries. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Failed to establish that WP:ORG is met by the sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky commando films

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

No third-party reliable sources to indicate notability; references are all the same recycled press releases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The news articles mentioned in this page are independent sources of information and are not press releases Jiasally (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone glancing at the reference section can see that is clearly not the case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough to pass GNG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH imo. Kolma8 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep produced 7 big budget movies, passes GNG. Tictictoc (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may want to take a closer look at those 7 "big budget" movies. None of those are anywhere near a big-budget movie; they're either shorts, web series, or music videos. The last one in the list (which I've removed) was dated as "2022" and didn't seem to exist, as the links are either broken or go to different articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The production company is a notable company has produced many web series, films and short movies music Albms. It has enough citations on trusted reliable, independent resources such as: passes WP:NCORP

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Powerfultample (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page recycles sources repeatedly and makes films that don't have Wikipedia articles. —ÐW^(T·C) 20:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The production company is a notable company has produced . It has enough citations on trusted reliable, independent resources such as: Nabutiger123 (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC) — Nabutiger123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment "Such as" what? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Those news articles are engaged in this , they have big all the articles and are independent, these articles can be trusted . — Ppp00007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Another SPA with an argument that doesn't make any sense. Before you go creating further throwaway accounts, bear in mind I've opened a sockpuppet investigation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the vocal single edit accounts, there does not seem to be any reason to keep this. My search did not find anything. There is are no other language articles, given that they produce in languages other then English, it would seem self evident that don't meet Hindi notability. Jeepday (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NCOMP/GNG. I did my own BEFORE and the company has next to zero visibility. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. V. Ramana Reddy

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

No highly cited publications hence does not satisfy NACADEMIC. No RS to support GNG. Professional position bears no notability either. Vikram Vincent 15:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be enough for notability, but I'm not sure where the nominator gets "no publications" from. Apart from a couple of papers about diabetes the results of the Google Scholar search linked above are clearly by the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Phil Bridger. My bad. Changed. Vikram Vincent 12:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete his google scholar profile clearly contains publications from someone else as well, I dont think an architect has publications in gynecology. Removing those by other people, not many publications and citations are left. More accurately probably because not conflated, Microsoft Academic has him at 12 publications and 29 citations which fails WP:NPROF. --hroest 13:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Too few news sources. Peter303x (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Devoke water 10:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C. V. Krishna Reddy

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

Does not satisfy NPROF. The publications in the list are not highly cited. Page has a single source and no RS found otherwise. The professional position of head of educational institution is not sufficient for a page. Vikram Vincent 14:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NPROF#1, papers are few and barely cited. No other reason for notability is evident from the article. --hroest 13:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient citation record, and I don't think 'Director of Nalla Narasimha Reddy Group of Institutions' is sufficient to pass WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NPROF. Too few news sources. Peter303x (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Devoke water 10:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santhiram Engineering College

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

No RS online. Based on a single ref. Been an orphan since 2016. Not inherently notable. Written like an ad. Speedy delete Vikram Vincent 14:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a private institution without any inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 14:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peer WP:NORG, along with similar AfDs that resulted in the articles being deleted, an article about a private college has to pass the notability guidelines the same way any other organization does. By having enough adequate sources to make it notable. This college doesn't have the required sourcing for it to be notable though. So, there's no guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom: There are no reliable sources to establish notability. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zadara Storage

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

Article on a business which appears to be marginally notable at best. I'm not finding any useful sources in a Google search (string: zadara) with most of the sources pulled up being press releases, normally-unreliable sources, or routine business coverage, particularly M&A and partnership coverage. As the prior AfD's close encouraged filing a new AfD if the issues persisted - and based on a look, they have for the past four and a half years - here we are again. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 22:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just cleaned up and updated the article with some recent news. There's other coverage about a 2018 funding round [[16]] but I don't think the article needs it - what's there now meets WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising news is not significant coverage and doesn't help for notability. Most of what is there is more of the same as that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 06:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable company with trivial coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCORP, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There are multiple sources, every source is independent, and everything is sourced. Meets WP:NCORP. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_trivial_coverage. Which sources are independent, secondary (this gets rid of articles that are 100% interviews with 0% commentary), and not trivial? We need two sources like that. I want to keep this article, but we need sources that prove notability. "A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant." PrinceTortoise (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise[reply]

Keep The article has citations from 9 sources (maybe more, maybe less, but about 9) and it is reasonably well-written. Of the 9 sources cited, I think 5 meet WP:GNG standards. 5 sources feels like enough to establish notability. PrinceTortoise (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise[reply]

Most of the sources cited are routine business news that would be reported on as a matter of course and are thus not sufficient enough to help notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 22:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source" I found that on WP:HELPAFD. I did not create this article, but I do think it should continue existing. At least two people have written something substantive about Zadara. [17][18] There's also 12 other citations in the article (10 if you get rid of the other times venturebeat.com was cited), some of which go past trivial mentions. You said that most of the sources cited are routine business news. Which articles does that apply to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceTortoise (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In re [19]: Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement:[...Coverage] of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance[...] (emphasis added). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As to the rest: [20] is an interview with a company principal and thus cannot be third-party. [21] is routine coverage (Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement:[...Coverage] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business[...]), [22] is another interview with a company principal on a blog, [23] is more routine coverage ([...coverage] of a capital transaction, such as raised capital), [24] barely talks about Zadara in the first place, [25] is more M&A news, [26] is insanely short as an article and half of it is a quote from a Zadara employee, [27] is dead, [28] is a patent search engine, [29] is insanely short on details, [30] talks more about the underlying tech than Zadara. I cannot assess the whitepaper being cited, and [31] is the only source I can see that seems usable other than that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources meet the requirements of WP:GNG --Devoke water 09:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Timtempleton, PrinceTortoise, Devokewater I see your !votes all say that the topic meets GNG. The appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP which has stricter interpretations on requirements especially with regard to references/sources used to establish notability. Can you confirm you believe the sources meet NCORP and if so, can you point to which references you believe meet NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:NCORP. All I've done with the information on that page is confirm that many sources do not establish notability. The Register might meet the qualifications, but I'm not 100% sure. I think Devokewater and/or HighKing should review that one. I can't read [32] or [33], so I can't assess whether or not those have substantial coverage on Zadara. PrinceTortoise (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise[reply]
They are a well-known + prominent key player, with a high profile in the cloud storage industry, there have been numerous articles about them (including in The Register) that satisfies WP:NCORP, see^[1]^[2] here they are described has being a top key player, being compared with Google, Microsoft, Amazon, IBM, Oracle etc. --Devoke water 07:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at those sources? Both of them appear to be published to the site by market research analysts directly, which implies that website has no actual editorial oversight as required by WP:RS. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 07:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really relevant since no one is questioning the reliability of The Register, but The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles according to WP:RSP. More relevant, it does not seem that mccourier has editorial oversight. PrinceTortoise (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise[reply]

I was meaning the mccourier sources, not The Register. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I agree the mccourier sources don't appear to have the editorial oversight required by WP:GNG. However, according to WP:NCORP, "the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source". PrinceTortoise (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise[reply]

Question Can anyone read [34] or [35]? The first of those looks like it might have something substantial on Zadara, but I would need to create a Gartner Research account and purchase the document to read it. PrinceTortoise (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This has been considerably expanded since the previous AfD which closed without consensus — whether it has been improved is another matter: most of the contents are pretty un-encyclopaedic drivel about funding rounds etc., and the sources (which clearly try to make up in quantity what they lack in quality) are primary and/or non-RS; CRN is probably the best of the lot, but typically much of its contents come from press releases and the like. I've nothing inherently against this article, it isn't overly promotional or spammy in nature etc., but try as I might I can't find any decent sources that would establish notability beyond reasonable doubt, hence my vote. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient sources including analyst report to meet the NCORP requirements for establishing notability. Topic meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audisankara College of Engineering & Technology

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

Zero RS with a BEFORE. Zero refs on the page. Written like an ad with zero notability. Why is there no Speedy delete option? Author was an employee of the orgVikram Vincent 14:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sourcing is websites controlled by the institution which is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some trivial run of the mill news stories out there about the school, but nothing that is up to the standards of notability. Especially WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a private institution hence there is no inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 13:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Big Brother Season 5. The keep votes have not overcome the IE argument Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dorathy Bachor

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

Article was deleted in October 2020. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER at this time and only known for being a housemate in Big Brother Season 5 where she was the first runner-up. If possible, the article should also be salted because it has been repeatedly created. —Nnadigoodluck███ 15:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck███ 15:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck███ 15:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck███ 15:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG, plenty of coverage, in addition to the cited sources, has been talked about in multiple BBC News Pidgin articles. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SailingInABathTub, the subject of the article is only known for being the runner-up in Big Brother Season 5. The coverage you talked about is only relating to the show and nothing further. Normally, the winner of the show only gets an article created about them in the case of Laycon who actually won the show. The subject of the article at this time fails WP:ANYBIO. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 16:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, the subject meets WP:BASIC and is therefore presumed notable. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SailingInABathTub, no, they fail WP:BASIC as they're only known for a single event which they fail to win. WP:BASIC says People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 17:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the single event, she was nominated for the award of the most promising female entrepreneur of the year in 2020. Trendrives (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable reality show contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, what do you know about her? Trendrives (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment passes WP:GNG, just like what SailingInABathTub said, it meets WP:ENT too. Trendrives (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing administrator, it should be worthy of note that User:Trendrives is the creator of the article. —Nnadigoodluck███ 17:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's clearly demonstrated coverage for Big Brother (don't think anyone's debating that) but there's also (albeit very recent) coverage of her launching a lingerie brand (ie. [36], [37], or [38]) making it not 1 event. These sources mention that she was on BBNaija, but it would be bad journalism not to because it's important to give your reader context. Given that (IMHO) this is not a WP:BLP1E situation, she meets GNG/BASIC. Samsmachado (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs assessment of the late sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main Big Brother article. Some importance, not enough though. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Onel5969. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dorathy Bachor is notable and she has reliable sources and coverage to pass WP:GNG and as long as Dorathy Bachor stays, editors will continuing updating it. Theholyground (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhjinder Group of Institutes

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

Zero RS online. Page has been an orphan for a long time relying on a single primary source. Written like an Ad with no inherent notability. The creator account was blocked for being a sock. Vikram Vincent 14:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing notable were found on doing a quick WP:Before. Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a private institution hence there is no inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 13:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peer WP:NORG, along with similar AfDs that resulted in the articles being deleted, an article about a private college has to pass the notability guidelines the same way any other organization does. By having enough adequate sources to make it notable. This college doesn't have the required sourcing for it to be notable though. So, there's no guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. Renaming the article can be discussed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Council of Arameans (Syriacs)

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

I could not find any in-depth, intellectually independent coverage of this organization as required by WP:NORG. (t · c) buidhe 13:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 13:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In order to be preserved, this article should be improved significantly, since there is enough information on the subject, published in various peer-reviewed publications:

I could add some of those sources, but the present state of this article would require additional improvements. The organization in subject is of some interest to researchers who are working in the field of ethnic and religious studies related to the modern Near East, particularly since it became one of the main proponents of radical "pan-Aramean" policies. Sorabino (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through these results I see mostly passing mentions which don't count for notability. Would you mind posting the top 3 sources which give in-depth coverage of the organization? I'm happy to withdraw the deletion request if there turns out to be something I missed. (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, how did you manage to assess all of those sources just in three minutes? Sorabino (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked through them already before nominating the article for deletion. The one source that looks like it might count for notability is this one [39] but WP:NORG specifically requires multiple sources that give significant coverage. (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is your attempt to delete this article on the main international organization of Arameans (Syriacs) connected with your recent removals of referenced terms "Aramean Genocide" and "Syriac Genocide" from the lead of the Seyfo article? Sorabino (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Aramaeans or Syriacs are an Eastern Christian denomination. They will have been one of a number of millets (quasi-ethnicities) within the Ottoman Empire. Along with the better known case of Armenians, they were subject to persecution during WWI, often claimed to be genocide, because the Turks considered that (as non-Muslims) they would be disloyal. A result of this is that like other Christian millets, they have a diaspora. This is clearly an attempt to create a multi-national umbrella organisation for this diaspora. As such, I cannot believe it is NN. Questions of sourcing and citations are matters for editing, not deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, actually, organizations aren't considered notable unless they've received sufficient independent coverage. This organization's notability is separate to the notability of Arameans/Syriacs as an ethnic group or diaspora. (t · c) buidhe 19:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources, it seems to me that organization is question is quite notable, both within the Aramean community and also internationally. Its activities are also covered in peer-reviewed works, but the main problem with the article remains: currently, it is poorly sourced, and needs much improvement. It should be kept, and improved. Sorabino (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Since nobody else did, I rewrote the article and added some referenced content. Now it is much clearer that the organization in question is notable enough to have an article, and it seems to me that its content is now brought to a basic level. It can be improved further, if someone is interested to do that. Sorabino (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be kept. The organization in question has cooperated with the United Nations and the Council of Europe, and I added some referenced content on those subjects. Sorabino (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if only as a target article for all the redirects of members's pages who are not independently notable. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is an useful proposal. Instead of creating several minor articles on member-associations within WCA, basic information can be provided within "Membership" section of the WCA article. Sorabino (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Activities of this organization, including its public presence on the internet, have been the subject of a special case study in this work: Vanessa V. Dos Santos (2017): "The effect of frame and format on online engagement: Shares, followers & donations for an NGO by social media", Master's thesis, University of Twente: Faculty of Behavioural, Management & Social Sciences. The very fact that that there is a master's thesis on the internet presence of this organization should be taken as an indication of the notability of this article and its subject. Sorabino (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Masters' theses are usually not reliable sources for Wikipedia. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. (t · c) buidhe 02:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If those scholars from the University of Twente assessed that this organization and its public presence on the internet are notable enough to be the subject of a special case study, it would be unusual for us here to delete this article, that exists since 2008, and had been significantly improved since this deletion process was initiated. So far, I do not see any support for the deletion of this article among users who took part in this discussion. Sorabino (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to World Council of Arameans. Explaining the keep: article meets the WP:GNG. Explaining the rename: Clarifying words in organizational titles (words in brackets) should not be copied into our titles. gidonb (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion regarding that additional word in the title (Syriacs), it seems that the word in question is part of the English title of that organization, but the title of article itself could be simplified, if necessary. In official documents of that organization, and other sources (documents of UN, EU, Council of Europe) the title is given in its full scope as "World Council of Arameans (Syriacs)". Sorabino (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to World Council of Arameans. Djflem (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin close).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Thomas Wolf

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

Non-notable author and comedian, fails WP:GNG. Previously declined at AfC under slightly different names (at least Draft:A. Thomas Wolf and Draft:Alex T Wolf), so if this AfD results in deletion, these all may need salting. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete g5 and g3. It's a hoax by a globally locked xwiki vanity spammer. CUPIDICAE💕 14:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt - Zero reliable sources to support any kind of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and salted, tracking on urls used. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While institutions of higher education are often held to be notable, consensus here is that this one is not. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narayana Engineering College

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

Not a single source on the page. Zero notability. No RS found online. Blatant advertising. Creator account was blocked in May 2010. Vikram Vincent 14:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need independent sources which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some trivial name drops in articles about students and the usual brief mentions in school directories, but that's really it. There's clearly nothing out there that would pass WP:NORG or otherwise make this notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a private institution hence there is no inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 13:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 06:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG , no independence RS. Alex-h (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir C. V. Raman Institute of Technology and Sciences

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

No RS with a BEFORE. Not to be confused with a similar named research institute. No inherent notability. Advertisement. Vikram Vincent 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: The keep !votes have not provided any RS or policy to support their assertion. VV 17:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell all the sources in the article are either primary or otherwise connected to the organization in a way that would make them non-usable for notability. There's was nothing in a BEFORE that isn't extremely trivial or would pass WP:NORG either. So, I'm going with delete. Unless someone can come up with three good sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a private institution hence there is no inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 13:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the other AfD where you responded the same exact way WP:NORG pretty clearly says "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." --Adamant1 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 06:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited private institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- MRRaja001 ^(talk) 13:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 14:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MRRaja001 It would be good to read up WP:NSCHOOL. If you can identify WP:THREE sources that support notability I'll withdraw the AFD nomination. Best! Vikram Vincent 14:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - weak presumptions of notability are simply not enough. WP:NORG is extremely clear about what is required and this does not meet any aspect of it. We need sourcing that establishes notability not just bare-minimum database coverage that merely proves that the institution exists. I'll admit that I'm not from India so I wouldn't necessarily have access to all of the necessary sources but there is no significant coverage in any of the searches that I did attempt and I'm not convinced that we ought to assume that such coverage exists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amritsar College of Engineering and Technology

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

Did not find any RS with a BEFORE. Page is an advertisement relying on primary sources, paid sources. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS/NORG. This is not a degree awarding tertiary institute and has no inherent notability. The creator made exactly one edit and it was the creation of this page. Vikram Vincent 14:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution (despite bizarre claims above that it isn't), which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a private institution hence there is no inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 13:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The guidelines and precedent of past AfDs for private schools that led to delete outcomes are both clear that private schools are not treated any differently then any other type of private organization. Therefore, they don't get a special pass from the notability guidelines. Particularly WP:NORG which is the relevant guideline in this case. Given that, the sourcing clearly isn't there to justify this being a notability organizations. Therefore, the article about it should be delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Gyllenhaal

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

My search found little indicative of notability, save for one review of his book in the Journal of Military History. I asked Ipigott and won't presume to !vote for him, but it seems he found nothing else in Swedish. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the inclusion criteria for either academics or writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shoorvarzi

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Nothing on reliable sources about him. On Persian sources, all I can find is just few mentions of his name as a short film director. Diderotd (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Happy to userfy if anyone has found some extra sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regal Busways

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (that are not local or of limited interest) - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a defunct company that no longer operates.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not relevant to whether we should have an article. Many organizations that no longer exist are very notable, and many organizations that exist currently are not notable. The issue is whether there is adequate sources, not whther the organization is extant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know that, but the page does not state it. I am local and their last route ran behind my house. That's why I am not voting.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mentions in multiple local and industry sources. Lilporchy (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilporchy: Any sources that aren’t mentions? Because mentions do not constitute notability. SK2242 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To determine whether sources exist to support notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I observe the Bungle comment but UK is in lockdown.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which isn’t a keep rationale. If you can’t find sources in libraries you can !vote to userfy. SK2242 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But its a rational to relist. I'll be frank ... I'm likely to leave the project on this lot being allowed be admins by people you are here to destroy an encyclopedia. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tone it down. I am not "destroying" anything. SK2242 (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. The decent thing before embarking on a wholesale slaughter is to, as suggested by WP:BEFORE to consider alternatives to deletion. That for a start means in my book engaging or attempting to engage with the appropriate WikiProject. The other thing is to initially tag items that have problems. To do these things in a middle of lockdown when access to library resources and private bookshops are limited is very frustrating. And it is a badly disruptive experience. If you disagree then take me to WP:ANI. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I go through the entirety of BEFORE all the time. Alright, maybe there are cases where we can merge. But this article is not one of those cases. If you’re saying I’m not doing any source checking, that is wholeheartedly false. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that going to a library will uncover a great wealth of significant non trivial coverage that passes the NCORP requirements. If I’m wrong, request userfication or undeletion if you find such sigcov. I also don’t believe I have to go to the WikiProject talk page every time I find a non notable article. If you disagree start a thread and we discuss. As to tagging, no amount of editing can fix notability issues. SK2242 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from all the sources already in the article, it is easy to find more such as the English Bus Handbook - Notable Independents. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 22:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: does said book contain significant non trivial coverage of Regal Busways? SK2242 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book doesn't cover Regal Busways: [40]. SilkTork (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork's link points to the 7th edition. Regal appears in the 5th edition. Presumably it has been dropped from later editions because the business and their fleet has declined. But, for our purposes, such notability does not expire as we're here to provide historic coverage, not a directory or timetable. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be correct to say that these books provide factual information relating to the vehicles/buses but no "Independent Content" on the actual companies themselves? For example, the book self-describes as follows: "For each operator, vehicles are listed in fleet number order with details of the chassis, bodywork, seating capacity and year of build provided for each type of vehicle. Fleet number, registration number and home garage (where allocated) are provided for every individual vehicle.". HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book naturally provides the information that its readers are interested in and are prepared to pay for in multiple editions. If this is details of its fleet of buses then that's what notable. Other sources provide other facts and so it goes. If HighKing is interested in particular aspects of the company then that's their personal preference but we are not required to conform to their expectations and work to their specification. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you nailed your colours to the mast by declaring that deletion was disruptive so I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that you'd rather pursue ad hominen commentary rather than address my question in relation to our requirement for "Independent Content" as per our ... you know ... guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found a book which covers the topic in detail in multiple editions and my thanks is to get false accusations and ad hominem attacks. As for deletion, it is clearly dangerous and disruptive to good faith activity and that's why the function is so tightly controlled and restricted. This is the reason that we have these discussions and that due diligence should be done so that good faith content is not casually destroyed contrary to our guidelines and policies such as WP:BITE and WP:PRESERVE. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is contrary to every single one of our notability guidelines as well as verifiability policy. Good faith content is often deleted for lack of notability and/or verification. The idea that deletion is "dangerous" is laughable at best. If so, then why are you posting on a noticeboard called "articles for deletion"? Should you not be attempting a proposal to scrap it? I find your comment very unhelpful to the ongoing efforts by me and other edits to clean up the encylopedia. SK2242 (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Draftify if Djm-leighpark wants to pick this up post lockdown) The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. There are a lot of bus-company-related articles up for deletion recently and I think it might be better to create a "List of..." type article instead. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion does not encourage editors to do development of that kind. Instead, it drives them away per WP:BITE. Deletion is obviously disruptive because it obfuscates the edit history, breaks links and denies attribution contrary to our policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, honestly, deletion is disruptive? We have standards. Using your logic we'd keep everything and forget about quality. I'm glad we've standards. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If deletion was so disruptive, everyone but the most ardent inclusionists ought to have been blocked for disruptive editing. SK2242 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NCOPR/GNG. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From my memories of Essex any motor vehicle that was left in Basildon without being stolen or having parts stolen was notable, CORPSPAM ... presumably designed to imply "Coporate Spam" simply isnt really relevant here ... for practical purposes the company isn't trading. In the UK there's a vast swathe of the population that doesn't do buses; there's a further swathe, not so well off that do. This article helps with historical content. And intrinsically it just scrapes WP:GNG as it is. And post lockdown when, hopefully, I have access to bookshops in Cosham, Chichester and Arundel let alone next time tha Alton Bus Rally runs, and I go to it rather than talking about it, I'll probably get access to a few more resources.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elitte College of Engineering

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

No citations and no reliable secondary sources found either. Fails WP:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Pavlenko

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

No appearances that would allow him to meet WP:NFOOTBALL (the Uzbek league is not listed as a professional league at WP:FPL, semi-professional clubs are permitted in the top tier) according to Soccerway, GSA and Playmaker Stats. I also can't find anything that would allow him to pass WP:GNG, the best that I could find were passing mentions, like this Metro article and this Indosport article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Arif Abdullah

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

None of his alleged appearances would allow him to pass WP:NFOOTBALL as they were all for teams that were playing below the top tier of Malaysia and Thailand while he was playing for them. In my WP:BEFORE search, I found no coverage that would allow him to pass WP:GNG, just incidental match report coverage. The only football database that has an entry for him is the unreliable Transfermarkt, which has no appearances recorded for him anyway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Makinian

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Nothing on persian websites about thoses claims of winning awards. Even her Persian page on fa.wiki used an interview of her for this claim. Diderotd (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also noted that the main source for the "awards" section is this CV published by the actress herself.Diderotd (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added quotes from two international fringe reviewsKaybeesquared (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons already listed. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kot Hasan Khan

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

This article only had one reference when I started to copyedit it, and the reference referred to Hafizabad city instead of Kot Hasan Khan. In fact, most of the article talks about Hafizabad city (which has its own article), and it's only at the beginning of §Industry that the two are conflated. There's also a distinct tone issue throughout the article, but that's something I can correct. Other than that, it seems like the article should be deleted (or reduced to a stub). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub — I found it in this 1951 census village list, on page 42, so its existence can be verified at least, along with some (presumably very outdated) information. It certainly meets notability guidelines as a populated place, and any issues with the current article can be fixed easily enough, even if it ends up very stubby. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and added the census info to the article. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@3 kids in a trenchcoat: The source seems inaccessible using a browser. Is a specialized program needed to access it? ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aseleste: The .pdf file? I can view it in Chrome. You might need the Adobe Acrobat extension for that, and it may take a while to load as the file is 352 pages long. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand why this keeps getting relisted. We have a cast-iron reliable source showing that this was a village with a population of 1,710 in 1951, obviously passing WP:GEOLAND. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like the place is populated and legally recognized from the above source (finally got access to it), meeting GEOLAND. I agree with reducing it to a stub though. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 8,065 people in 1,059 households according to the 2017 Census (see p.2). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben River

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

Previously deleted in 2013 as he was deemed non-notable back then. In my view, he still fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG even in 2021. There are a plethora of references and external links but none of them are enough to show a passing of GNG, for multiple reasons. I will summarise my views in a source assessment below. In my WP:BEFORE search using "River Styx", "Ben River" and "Hicham Bensassi" as well as using these names in conjunction with other artists that he collaborated with and projects that he worked on, I only found one source not already cited. I will add this to the assessment table as #16. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment - no WP:SIGCOV found. Article is the main part of a walled garden created by the same user, who also submitted Angel Headed Hip Hop, The Moonlight Orchestra and Gold Fish Bowl, which I have also nominated for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.laurelcanyonuk.com/ben-river/		he isn't mentioned	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20160605135104/http://www.folkwords.com/folkwordsreviews_94176.html	I can't find any indication that 'Folkwords' is reliable.	I am concerned that the website is unreliable (not professional journalism) and the review itself doesn't have any in-depth coverage of River	✘ No
http://www.newantiquerecords.com/ben-river-frontier-ep/		Routine announcement on his own record label's site	✘ No
http://indieobsessive.blogspot.com/2016/01/monday-love-by-ben-river-song-review.html	Blogspot sources are never reliable and should be ignored		✘ No
http://blues.gr/profiles/blogs/q-a-with-lee-harris-ben-river-daevid-allen-the-moonlight	Blog	Q&A on a blog, notability is based on what others say about River not what he says about himself	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20150908011104/http://www.hailmaryjane.com/the-moonlight-orchestra-traipsing-bloom-album-review-2/		A user-submitted 'review' on a website about cannabis	✘ No
https://www.thegenepool.co.uk/items/angel-headed-hip-hop/307.htm		No coverage to speak of	✘ No
https://www.mail-archive.com/sixties-l@googlegroups.com/msg01583.html		Passing mention	✘ No
http://www.flyahmagazine.com/2015/05/ben-river-when-sun-ate-moon-ep.html	User-submitted content	As per http://www.flyahmagazine.com/p/sub.html this is user-submitted so shouldn't count.	✘ No
http://www.newantiquerecords.com/ben-river-when-the-sun-ate-the-moon-ep/		This is River's own label	✘ No
http://www.newantiquerecords.com/ben-river-frontier-ep/		As above	✘ No
https://themusicsite.com/music-news/reviews/stunning-ep-from-ben-river-out-now	Possibly reliable, not sure	Routine EP announcements don't confer notability	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03cg418		Without being able to listen to this, we can't be certain but appearing on one BBC London show does not automatically make you notable enough for a stand-alone article in any case	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110108022950/http://artifactrecords.com/release.php?releaseID=11		Definitely not	✘ No
http://web-old.archive.org/web/20160313113234/http://sangitasounds.com/the-moonlight-orchestra-traipsing-bloom/	Blog	Blog post, doesn't support GNG	✘ No
http://blues.gr/profiles/blogs/interview-lee-harris-echoes-of-the-underground-a-foot-soldiers?overrideMobileRedirect=1	Blog	Mentioned only trivially and it's a blog Q&A, so hardly the best type of source	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spiderone's source assessment is very helpful. The musician has some media mentions about new releases and live appearances, but most are from unreliable sources and none are significant. Beyond those sources already analyzed by Spiderone, I can find nothing else but the musician's own social media and some basic streaming/retail entries. This article might be an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Devoke water 10:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clayton (footballer)

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

Hasn't played a senior game yet according to Soccerway and World Football so does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Coverage not enough for WP:GNG; I can find a little bit of coverage on This is Anfield and Empire of the Kop but nothing more. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played professionally, fails NFOOTY & GNG - another TOOSOON article JW 1961 Talk 14:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above, he has not played professionally. Hence fails NFOOTY. Citterz (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL --Kemalcan (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, per avoid. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with all above. At the moment clearly fails notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Possibly eligible for G5 speedy deletion as the creator is blocked as a sock. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Dr_Salvus (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. --Devoke water 10:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kwari

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

This reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. It uses unencyclopedic language like "This is not surprising as Kwari was never intended for hardcore FPS players." There's various violations of WP:GAMEGUIDE in it and most of the sources are from Kwari's website. I'm leaning towards using some WP:TNT but if it is kept, it should be massively overhauled. Dominicmgm (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dominicmgm (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some sources:
- Reviews: [41][42]
- News: [43][44][45][46][47][48]
- Analysis: [49]

However, the current article needs to be entirely rewritten (as Dominicmgm notes) and everything in the current state is unusable. IceWelder [✉] 12:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from "draftify" following SoWhy's TNT. IceWelder [✉] 17:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NEXIST. Don't nominate articles on notable subjects for deletion, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM (including possible WP:STUBIFY) instead. Wikipedia was built from imperfect stuff being in article space. Draftification will most likely lead to deletion per WP:G13 later. Or, as WP:ATD clearly says: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Regards SoWhy 13:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have STUBIFYed the article now. Regards So Why 13:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 ELF Cup squads

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

Squad listings for a minor one-off tournament; no sources cited and I can't see any reliable sources listing these squads anywhere. I've tried searching but am only really getting Wikipedia mirrors. Only one player (Vladimir Ivanchikhin) is notable so the list has no navigational purpose either. The only two FIFA nations that took part in this tournament sent their futsal squad instead of their football team and even Zanzibar only sent their U20s...

I can't think of a good reason for actually keeping this article as it's just pure WP:OR and doesn't improve our encyclopaedia in any way. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can see no purpose at all in a laundry list of non-notable people who took part in a tournament which is probably bordering on NN status itself..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Chris, simply non-notable list. Giant Snowman 11:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above, Fails GNG Citterz (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. --Kemalcan (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 14:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darwen East Lancs

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

Fails WP:NCORP, pretty sure this was just a separate page for unsourced information. I doubt there are any sources on this particular organisation and even if there was they should've been added to either Darwen Group or East Lancashire Coachbuilders NHPluto (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NHPluto (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH Devoke water 11:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to East Lancashire Coachbuilders. Sandstein 09:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British City Bus

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

Fails WP:NCORP, all details are already on its main article page East Lancashire Coachbuilders NHPluto (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NHPluto (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to East Lancashire Coachbuilders. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. Konnanatt

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

Article fails GNG. This person do not have any significant coverage to establish notability, when considering him in other aspects. Wikiaddictcommo (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikiaddictcommo (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions.Wikiaddictcommo (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep:[50]. This source gives him in depth coverage. He has given art direction for more than 500 films as per the source. The source from The Hindu also says Veteran art director S. Konnanatt, who did pioneering work in Malayalam cinema which also makes him pass WP:ARTIST I think the nominator Wikiaddictcommo has no idea of what significant coverage is. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The nominator is a confirmed sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjith Ambady

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

Not a notable person.Wikiaddictcommo (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikiaddictcommo (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions.Wikiaddictcommo (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment “insufficient context” isn’t a deletion rationale. Is the subject notable or not? Are the awards they have won notable, and are they sufficient to make the winner notable? Mccapra (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The nomination itself is very poor. The nominator is just saying he is not notable and is not giving a proper reason. The subject is a five times winner of Kerala state film awards which makes him notable by WP:ANYBIO. Just because an article is stub doesnt mean that we nominate it for AFD. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily meets WP:ARTIST.Keep in mind AfD is not cleanup. Padavalam🌂 ► 16:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the nominator should present the analysis of existing sources plus provide a summary of their BEFORE, I don't see what makes the subject notable either (the sources are see are low quality mentions in passing or rewritten press releases / interviews in low reliability niche outlets), the keep arguments above are just WP:ITSNOTABLE.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The person being the winner of Kerala state film award ( The highest film award given in the state) for multiple number of times makes him notable by virtue as per WP:ANYBIO. Poppified ^talk 08:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poppi,it's an award given to Best Makeup Artist. The subject didn't got Kerala State Film Awards. Go check it out. Wikiaddictcommo (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a total misinterpretation of the facts. Kerala State Film Awards is the highest award given to the persons from Malayalam film industry by the Kerala government. There are different categories and Kerala State Film Award for Best Makeup Artist is only one among them. The subject here has won this award 5 times which itself make him notable. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikiaddictcommo I think you don't have any idea about Kerala State Film Awards and the different categories of award given in this event. Please check these news before blindly saying the person didn't get any award.[51] ,[52] ThanksPoppified ^talk 11:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per winining Kerala state film award, passes WP:ANYBIO. Pilean (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pilean,it's film award for Best Makeup Artist. Not that Kerala State Film Awards.Wikiaddictcommo (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiaddictcommo, it seems you have totally no idea about the Kerala state film awards. The award is given not only to actors alone. It is given to film artists from all categories. Have a look at Kerala State Film Award for Best Makeup Artist. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleTap Games

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE shows reliable sources only for the company's founding in 2009 (appears in ~4 outlets) and I found two passing mentions of the company in connection to two separate games. Of the studios' games, only one (TNA Impact!: Cross The Line) is somewhat notable, which makes a "List of games" article unviable. IceWelder [✉] 10:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The company has been inactive since 2012, with the former head of the company succeeding it with Trulight Games later that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriforceTropical (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Sockpuppet vote struck. -- ferret (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - No significant coverage of the company since its formation (already mentioned in the article). --MuZemike 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any references that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator; NCORP is clearly failed here and there isn't even a possibility of turning this into a navigational list. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Rana (actor)

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

Non-notable actor and/or filmmaker credited with only two recent films. The sources cited only include passing mentions, in the context of a film release (and are worded similarly, suggesting they may be based on the same press release). Fails WP:GNG / WP:FILMMAKER. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The film choran is and indirect story telling of a controversial crime happened in Kerala named Abhaya Case. So I searched about the movie and the actor name. But there is an another athlete named praveen rana and on social media it is confused, some reports the hero with the picture of athlete. So I tried and i think there are some more references about the actor. HE is not only the actor but also director, producer and a business man. Insted of deleting the article, could anyone please help me to improve the article. Ambili123 (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed deletion on notability grounds. If you can find multiple, reliable, independent sources with significant enough coverage of the person, not their works or other associated subjects, to establish notability, then please cite them; that isn't the only improvement the article needs, but it is by far the most urgent one. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak DeleteI found another one [53] but still not very strong. There is no reception of his work by any reputed media. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's like the other sources, though — it's about the movie, not the person; and the phraseology is again similar so probably based on the same press release. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He is not only an actor. He produced directed and Acted in the film Anan. In the second movie, he acted and the produced under his production company. Some more references are here. But citing so many links there on aticle might look spam thats why i added less. https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2020/sep/04/silver-lining-in-the-world-of-cinema-2192076.html , https://www.mathrubhumi.com/movies-music/news/praveen-rana-anan-movie-helps-film-workers-during-lock-down-1.5019129 Ambili123 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Already there are some more links and also one more user supported article. Keep the article Ambili123 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom: The primary coverage of the sources are about the movie and not about the subject. They are just trivial mentions about the person. Fails GNG as well as FILMMAKER. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pirula (YouTuber)

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

A non-notable YouTuber, fails WP:GNG Cuoxo (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cuoxo (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am leaving this nomination open for it to be assessed on its merits. MER-C 18:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep seems like just at the edge of being notable, clearly does not pass NPROF but given the Shorty award, the number of views of the channel and the activism I think he probably pass the bar. --hroest 03:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I would like to note that Shorty awards, like a few other internet awards, are received by asking users fan's to go and vote as many times as they can for the YouTuber. Augu❤Maugu 💕 05:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All together there is just enough evidence to pass notability. Alan Islas (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of sources to pass WP:Prof. UTube acivities are very minor. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 08:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per reasons above. Article may not be close to passing WP:NPROF, but it's good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources there. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Education Dynamics

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

Non-notable. Sources cited are regurgitations of a press release regarding a single event (company acquisition), and a search finds nothing better, just social media accounts etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Education Dynamics is a key player in for-profit higher education in the United States. I have already noted several respected sources, including the New York Times, NBC News, CBS News, The Atlantic, The Hill, NJ.com, and Inside Higher Education. The company has revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars and works with 500-900 colleges in the US, including some of the largest online providers. The company also purchased Unigo which has a Wikipedia article since 2011. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Added links to Unigo, for-profit higher education in the United States, and Hoboken, New Jersey.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that Education Dynamics has not been written about very often. But it has a near-monopoly over its function in the online education business. Online education is expanding quite a bit. The new administration at the Education Dept. is less forgiving of some of the excesses of the for-profit education sector, and many of the problems are related to recruitment, enrollment management and student loans. So my feeling is that the company is notable. On the other hand the article is an orphan, the lack of links does argue for non-notable. And finding good references has been difficult. It doesn't help that Springer publishes a book series Higher Education Dynamics.) So it might be reasonable to delete the article. And if the company becomes more obviously notable in the future it can be restored. -- M.boli (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Seeing all the good work that @CollegeMeltdown: has done, it is much more clear to me that the company is notable and the article should be kept. M.boli (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create

So far two editors oppose deletion and one editor supports it. I read the "lack of quorum" policy as saying few responses with no opposition. M.boli (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't think that any of the independent sources are solely focused on this one company but the number of authors who believe it necessary to discuss this company in articles convinces me that it's probably (barely) notable by our standards. ElKevbo (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K C Mittal

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources provided could not establish notability of the subject. Apart from this [54], I was not able to find anything on doing WP:Before. This one also does not give enough WP:SIGCOV. Fails GNG. I would also like to show a suspicious activity [55] here. User Speedy King is permanently blocked and most of his/her articles have been deleted. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2020-12 no consensus

Logs: 2020-11 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 08:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. --RaviC (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. Sandstein 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Iranian conflict

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has multiple issues because its contents are mainly overlapped with Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, and does not meet WP:NEVENTS, WP:PLOT and WP:NOR -- Wendylove (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose : Firstly, half of the body of the article is about Iran-Iraq war, not Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and secondly, in my humble opinion, this article needs to be expanded (with other current and ancient conflicts), not deleted.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what sources say there is an "Arab–Iranian conflict"? The one source I checked that doesn't fail verification on this point is the 2020 book (so it's probably too soon to tell if its ideas are the majority view or not), and it only deals with the interwar era, long before this article which starts in 1980. (t · c) buidhe 14:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article has already been nominated for deletion in May 2020, resulting in "Keep" consensus. Participants of that 2020 discussion should be notified of this concurrent re-proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 08:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively the information and soruces into the main article; right now it's a WP:POVFORK, then redirect. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft redirect to JoJo discography. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December Baby

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

Not notable per WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG, albums that have gained little more coverage than about their release or tracklisting should not have their own page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to JoJo discography. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. HĐ (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article (except for Genius) seem reliable. I also found a few reliable sources about the album: [56], [57] and [58]; including a couple of listicles: [59] and [60]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no information on the editorial policy or the information on who the editors are for LadyGunn or OutinJersey. The release hasn't charted and content will be limited. A separate article isn't warranted. There could easily be a paragraph at the artist's page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider discussion around if sourcing meets the required minimums.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nothing happened then. One more time?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 07:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in the article are anything but reliable. Not reviews from critics. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM. Sources presented by Astig and ones in the article are reliable enough IMV. Whether it charted or not, it's got some coverage and reviews, including Ladygunn and Celebmix mentioned. SBKSPP (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JoJo discography. Fails WP:NALBUMS, with no charting, certifications, or accolades. Questionable sources mostly unreliable with no evidence of editorial oversight as Lil-unique1 pointed out, and do not comply with WP:RSMUSIC. --Ashley yoursmile! 16:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birdies (company)

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

Company does not meet WP:NCORP- claim to notability seems to be that a Duchess was photographed wearing their shoes. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wrote the page because I kept seeing reliable sources about the founders and the company. Female founded and run American company with more than $10 million in funding and large collaborations. Coverage in many third party, impartial news sources. Hope to see other opinions here. Hailey McAllister (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I initially was skeptical to see e.g. TechCrunch as cites since they allow pretty much anyone to write there. But a review of the articles cited shows most are not pieces by non-staff "contributors," although the Forbes piece is. The remainder of what I looked at (TechCrunch, Insider, Observer, FastCompany, Real Simple) appear to be written by staff journalists or editors. Further, the cites are more than a cursory mention of the company. Coverage is significant, appears in multiple reliable secondary sources, and in sources independent of the subject. Sauzer (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revising to Delete per the convincing research below my post. Sauzer (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is not GNG as indicated above but is WP:NCORP. We require multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is also important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they are some of the most obvious examples of advertorials you could come across. They fail NCORP guidelines as follows:
- This from Forbes is from the "sites" portion of the website and the community has long ago regarded these references as unreliable and fails WP:RS. In addition, the article is based entirely on an interview with the founders and therefore fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from The Helm is likewise based entirely on an interview with the founders and fails ORGIND.
- This from Norwest is a blog post (fails WP:RS) from one of the investors and therefore fails ORGIND also
- This from Business Insider is a review of the product with zero information about the company - the topic of this article - and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition, this is a review where the "Insider Reviews" team "frequently receive product free of charge" to test and where they receive "a small share of the revenue from the sale" that is made from the links in their article. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This TechCrunch article (mentioned above as a reason to Keep) is also based entirely on an interview with one of the founders with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This Fast Company reference is based entirely on an interview with Ken Fulk who discusses his collaboration on a "luxury home slipper", fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from the Observer is based on an announcement from the company on a collection to "encourage women to vote". The PR for the launch resulted in numerous similar articles in various publications such as footweatnews, Town and Country magazine, Yahoo Finance and lots more. This is not "Independent Content" and these references all fail WP:ORGIND.
- This from Sportico is entirely based on an announcement of their sponsorship of Angel City FC. Also fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Town and Country contains zero information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- This from BizJournals is based entirely on an interview with the founder and information provided by the company, fails ORGIND
- This from People contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Not a single reference comes close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability, the references are simply PR and advertorials, nothing more. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and an extensive research by HighKing above. Once you look at the ref's they don't pass. Kolma8 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy Docket

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

No significant coverage. [61] [62] [63] mention them in passing, without significant coverage, while [64] [65] don't mention the website at all - only Elias. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Am page creator) There is more coverage than cited above or than cited in the article (which is all the proposal has cited). See for example coverage of recent notable litigation by or supported by Democracy Docket.^[3]^[4]^[5] See coverage in the NYT^[6] and also that the Pointer Institute lists Democracy Docket as a notable source in their election guide for working journalists.^[7] Also, Also, it appears that Elias uses Democracy Docket as the umbrella project for all of his 2020 DNC, DSCC, DCCC, etc. election litigation -- the site refers to "we filed suit" or "we intervened" for essentially *all* of Elias's election litigation in 2020 (see [66] for example). This body of litigation is of course extremely notable, but the association is not really spelled out. I am still looking for how to source this. Chris vLS (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added sentences and sources 3/14/2021.ElsaObuchowski (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "mccourier 1".
^ "mccourier 2".
^ Wickert, David (2021-12-16). "Groups sue four Georgia counties over early voting". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
^ Murphy, Erin (2021-03-09). "Lawsuit challenges Iowa's new elections law". Sioux City Journal. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
^ Brennan, Paul (2021-03-09). "One day after Gov. Reynolds signs new voting restrictions into law, a lawsuit is filed to overturn them". Little Village. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
^ Corasaniti, Nick; Vogel, Kenneth P. (2020-09-24). "Battles Over Voting Rules Fuel Concern About Postelection Fights". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
^ Tompkins, Al (2020-11-02). "Here are 19 tools and resources for covering the 2020 presidential election". Poynter Institute. Retrieved 2021-03-13.

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bass song

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

Obviously songs have bass and some feature bass more prominently than others, but I see no sources to suggest that "bass song" is a notable topic in its own right. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author, I agree that it should be deleted. When I created this page (as an extreme newbie) the page Bass music did not yet exist. In 10-year retrospect, that is what this article should have been named. I was just too inexperienced at the time. I do believe bass songs are a notable topic, like the ones from Bass Mekanik and the artists on his record label. In my mind, they are good examples of songs where bass is their express purpose. But any discussion about that "genre" should go on Bass music. AnsonMBO (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a real genre - "songs" where "bass is their express purpose"? that could describe a lot of different styles, stretching back at least 50 years. Acousmana (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article creator above has it right. Since this article was created, "bass music" has become an accepted term to describe a certain genre of electronic dance music, and it has been discussed in several reliable sources. But nobody really talks about "bass songs" so it's not a particularly useful search term, and this article is original research, so there's nothing with sources to merge to the Bass music article. If anything, it might be worth considering merging UK bass into Bass music, but that's not for this AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the two reasons above and the author of the article is requesting deletion as well. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 15:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Whoppers

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

Entirely unsourced article about a run-of-the-mill ad campaign. Searches did not return sufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 05:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 05:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 05:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as much as I love a whopper, this is unreferenced, wp:before comes up with either the burger or the UK 2007 campaign Manthem, and on the Burger King advertising or List of Burger King ad programs its not even listed!Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this does not appear to meet any notability guideline.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. What the article should be titled is an editorial question and likely should be discussed further. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple histories

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

Unsourced for over 12 years. Two-word phrase that according to Google Scholar, is used in many very different ways, but without any underlying singular notable and independent concept. Even the examples from physics that the article talks about seem to be three separate and unrelated things. Thus, having an article under this term is inherently WP:OR and a fork of various other articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Path integral formulation, I could not find any source where "multiple histories" is treated as an interpretation, but rather a way to describe path integrals.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added: keep and cross-reference from Many-worlds interpretation and path integral formulation. The most relevant cite is to Hawking arguing that a single cosmic history is impossible. A concept due to Feynman and Hawking probably deserves our attention, even if wrong! -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Hawking's proposal. He is not talking about our present point in time having multiple histories, as the article defends, but that multiple histories sprouted at the origin of the universe. Multiple future histories is vanilla Many-Worlds. Multiple past histories is nonsense. Tercer (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tercer: From Hawking's "Populating the landscape paper": "The top-down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the present time. The noboundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique, observer independent history." Make of that what you will, but it seems consistent with the interpretation in the article. -- The Anome (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, it turns out I was the one who misunderstood Hawking. He is talking about multiple pasts contributing to our present. In one sense this is trivial, as different possibilities interfere all the time to give rise to a single future in quantum mechanics; vanilla Many-Worlds wouldn't call them histories, as histories are usually defined as the possibilities that do not interfere. What Hawking proposed that is non-trivial is to do a path integral without an initial boundary condition, which corresponds to not having a well-defined initial quantum state. For the whole universe, of all things! Tercer (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, redirect or merge -- I came here because it is classified as history related, which it is not. It is a cosmological interpretation from quantum mechanics. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and Tercer's comment below. There isn't a uniquely good redirect target, because the phrase is so common it has a variety of legitimate meanings. And the article has been tagged as needing expert attention since 2009, so there appears to be a lack of interest in making any sense out of it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands the article is talking about two unrelated ideas that happen to use the same name. It can be salvaged if it can be rewritten to be about a well-defined concept, and if secondary sources can be found that discuss it. We should never base an entire article on a single primary source. Also, the relation to the Many-Worlds interpretation seems to be WP:OR: Hawking and Hertog do not mention it, and Hauser and Shoshany mention it only to say that it is not related. Tercer (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has since been edited to address these problems. The lack of secondary sources is still a problem, the article is based only on Hawking and Hertog's paper and a newspiece about it. It's borderline, but I think it is no longer below the deletion threshold. Tercer (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Anome and Tercer's discussion. This doesn't look likely to be the seed from which a good article grows, but I think it preferable to have the comment on Hawking's view separate from any merge target I have so far thought of. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article, as it stands today, is not the same article that was originally nominated. Yes, the old article was deletable. The new article is coherent and meaningful and describes a worthy concept in physics. (Anome fixed it up in the intervening weeks. I recommend that the everyone who voted previously to take a look at the new version; they might change their mind.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to top-down cosmology, since everything not about that has been removed, that's what Hawking and Hertog actually called their idea, and "multiple histories" is just too vague. Currently, top-down cosmology is a redirect to a brief paragraph in Stephen Hawking, so the move would have to be done over the existing redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T Ravichandran

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

BLP of a long serving local politician who has only held office at district level. Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom Padavalam🌂 ► 05:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails GNG as per nom. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being a political party's local district president in one local area nor being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election are in and of themselves grounds for a Wikipedia article, but this is completely unsourced and doesn't even try to suggest that he has any stronger notability claims. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins the assembly seat, but nothing here is a valid reason for him to already have a Wikipedia article now. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not reliable sources. Fails GNG Citterz (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lies (Rolling Stones song)

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

This track by the Rolling Stones off their 1978 album Some Girls doesn't appear to warrant enough notability to have a stand-alone article. I believe it should be redirected to Some Girls. – zmbro _(talk) 04:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no. 5 of WP:NBOOK talks of the author being so meganotable that anything written by them is considered wikinotable, would it be drawing a long bow to suggest that the same could apply to anything by the stones (confession, big fan)? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the Rolling Stones that probably works, since there are multiple books that cover all their songs in at least some detail. In the case of "Lies" there are those plus several pages of coverage in Patell's book (note a book, not an album review) The Rolling Stones' Some Girls.Rlendog (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as familiar with the Stones as I am the Beatles or Bowie but I imagine authors have broken them down song by song. I just acquired Patell's 33&1/3 book so I know I'll be able to add info on each track in the album article. I know that some of the reviews found on Rock's Backpages actually talk about "Lies" a bit (some negatively), so that would work in the song article. In the context of things, anything the Stones made is considered notable, I primarily nominated this as (in its current state), it doesn't warrant enough info to have its own article. Just in my opinion. – zmbro _(talk) 22:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say unequivocally that anything the Stones made is considered notable. But given the vast volume of material written about at least most of their songs, most if not all of their songs would meet the notability criteria of GNG or NSONGS. The standard for notability is the independent, reliably sourced material available and not just those in the current state of an article. Rlendog (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think any song by The Rolling Stones would meet the standards of notability. (For the record, I’m neither a fan of the Stones, nor of rock/pop in general.) That said, the information contained in this article, while interesting, needs to be properly cited. Is there any source for its use in WKRP, for example? Are there books on the Stones which discuss the background of this song? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Besides the Some Girls book, just going off my personal library (which I am sure is not complete in regards to books covering Stones' songs), "Lies" has a full page entry in The Rolling Stones: All the Songs, 2 paragraphs in Rip this Joint, at least 2 paragraphs in The Rolling Stones FAQ and a smaller, 1 paragraph entry in The Complete Guide to the Words and Music of the Rolling Stones. I'm sure there is more coverage out there but even if not this should be enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While WP:NBOOK was cited above for inherited notability, per WP:NALBUM, singles explicitly don't inherit notability, so it must be shown that this song has notability itself. Not voting delete because other comments have mentioned sources that would satisfy this, if those sources could expand the article, and are not only in the context of coverage of Some Girls, then the article should be kept and expanded. But, per WP:NSONGS, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Nangears (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G7. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linny-R

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

Fails WP:GNG. No mention of the software outside primary sources created by the original developer. The software is not open source(yet) to determine its popularity. And the original developer of the software seems to be the one who created the wiki page. That's promotion. Daiyusha (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor's response: Thank you for being so alert and making me aware of this "promotion" aspect. I now (believe to) better understand the criterion: until Linny-R is acknowledged as useful free software in a wider range of (scientific) publications, it should not have its entry on Wikipedia. I therefore concur with Daiyusha that the article should be removed. I will not recreate the page until the criterion is met. I apologize for the inconvenience. Pieter Bots — Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice to an eventual new nomination due to minimal participation. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Jock

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s requirement for products. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. It was deprodded without any meaningful comment, so let's discuss... can anyone find anything to rescue here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Aside from a paragraph in a source which I'm not sure if it is an RS (and anyways is not significant coverage), there is no coverage of the subject. Java Hurricane 08:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, there may be some coverage in offline sources too that I'm not aware of. Can someone try to find any offline coverage? Java Hurricane 08:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And verily so. Striking, and thanks to Andrew for finding sources! Hope he can improve the page. Java Hurricane 16:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - JavaHurricane, Sadly, the sources found are of terrible quality and not suitable for expansion (which I have yet to see Andrew do anyway). Please see my assessment below. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Piotrus, didn't receive the ping (I've turned them off due to LTA abuse) but I'm watching the page, will monitor. Thanks. Java Hurricane 06:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a toy from the 1970s, prior to the Internet. I'm not familiar with it myself but there's a reasonable account here. There's coverage in the trade press of the time such as Television/Radio Age and Toy & Hobby World. And now there is naturally retrospective coverage in sources such as Toys, Games, and Action Figure Collectibles of the 1970s; Cavalcade of Dolls and What's Real in Packaging? The worst case would be merger to Schaper Toys and so, per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, there is no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, Let's review the coverage:
  - Television/Radio Age - you did not provide a link and I failed to find anything that provides even a snippet view. WP:GOOGLEHITS "findings" are useless as they may be simple advertisements
  - Toy & Hobby World - No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in [67]. Snippet view gives us a half-sentence that reads " Company's prodbet manager , Mark Ellis , advises that Super Jock advertising...". Anyway, the identifiable subject is not the toy but its advertising campaign.
  - Toys, Games, and Action Figure Collectibles of the 1970s; 2 paragraphs that read like someone's personal review on an Internet forum and the book seems to be a self-published e-book (no ISBN, no WorldCat entry);
  - Cavalcade of Dolls and What's Real in Packaging? I can't even locate this source, since Andrew like usual didn't bother to provide links. Maybe it is a subtitle of the ebook mentioned above. Shrug. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Schaper Toys. Subject lacks SIGCOV, as Piotrus details above and no need to repeat. There is no properly sourced content for a merge from this article. If someone wishes to create properly sourced content and then add it to Schaper Toys they can, but there is none in the article or above. // Timothy :: talk 03:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the issues of TV/Radio Age that World Radio History has and found no coverage. However, I do note that Superjock (no space), sometimes rendered Super Jock, would be a plausible redirect to Larry Lujack. There's also some coverage of a "Super Jock" mechanical horse racing jockey from 1987. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Radio History's run is incomplete. Television/Radio Age was bi-weekly but they only have one issue for 1976 which is when there was some coverage (Volume 23 page 82). Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pebbles (series)#CDs — ESD Records. However, please do not use this AfD as the only reason for boldly redirecting other albums per the linked discussion below (permalink). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pebbles, Volume 1 (1989 album)

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

This nomination includes:

While part of a notable series of compilation albums, these albums individually do not pass WP:GNG or any of the criteria at WP:NALBUM. The content of these articles consists of tracklists and some original research. I suggest redirecting these to Pebbles (series)#CDs — ESD Records. Lennart97 (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are 46 album articles for the releases in the Pebbles (series), and the clear majority of them have no reliable sources, and often no sources at all. Many were created back in 2007, when album notability rules were looser. See a discussion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Pebbles (series): notability of individual albums. The series appears notable but most of the individual albums have minimal or nonexistent media notice. I think almost all them should be redirected to the series. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Pebbles (series) as recommended by the nominator. That applies to the four particular albums in this nomination. See my comment above and the linked project discussion for more on all the other albums in the series. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this because of the potential it has to impact 40+ pages down the track, I would like a higher level of involvement for that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect agree with fellow editors wp:before brings up series not albums.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (most of) the original 12 - As mentioned above, there's a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Pebbles (series): notability of individual albums page. At this point, the article for the first Volume 1, from 1979 (not this one), is better referenced than the series article. Caro7200 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Caro7200: Of course, but what is your !vote for the four albums up for deletion here? Lennart97 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect--there's certainly nothing substantial for the 1989 Volume 1 via Google, and I think, for the most part (aside from the Back from the Grave series), that the garage rock compilation "craze" had mostly sputtered by the mid- to late 1980s. Caro7200 (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all by nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Pebbles (series) per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Weak consensus (justifiable by long discussion open time) to keep the article based on WP:NACTOR C1 (and the information is wp:verifiable). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Tiwari

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

This seems to be a pretty cut and dried case of WP:TOOSOON. The subject has only portrayed a leading role in Serious Men alongside Nawaz and received some coverage for the same. No significant roles played by her in multiple notable banners to qualify for an article under WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The addition of sources to the article show she has starred in the films Nazarband (2020), Serious Men (2020), and Gangubai Kathiawadi (2021), and is notable per WP:NACTOR, because she has "had significant roles in multiple notable films." Beccaynr (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources also include Hindustan Times 2020, The Indian Express 2020, The Indian Express 2020 (review), News18 2020, ZeeNews 2021. Beccaynr (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTOR as shown in the sources provided by Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Margaret Mann (librarian). Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Mann Citation

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG lack of significant coverage WP:SIGCOV and no secondary sources Hughesdarren (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Margaret Mann (librarian) which already has this information.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked the Margaret Mann Citation page to the Margaret Mann Main Page. I would like to expand on this topic if it is not deleted. I hope this is more acceptable. Thanks for having patience with a newbie! ~~~~ note: this edit added by JCrim616. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this appears to be a big deal for people in this field (recognised as the highest honor in this area of librarianship(?)), i know that WP:NOTINHERITED (and this shouldnt be used for afds:) but reflecting this, recipients include: Henriette Avram (1971), Fred Kilgour (1974), Eva Verona (1976), and Hope A. Olson (2017). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, oops, should of said "one of the highest honors":). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be, but the current article says the same as the Margaret Mann (librarian) page at the mo. If JCrim616 does have further material and refs to back it up to show wp:n, then maybe should be moved to drafty until its ready? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Afghan High Peace Council. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael Qasemyar

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

I PRODded on grounds of BLP1E as he's only notable for his role in the transition government and that he's "Not mentioned in Loya Jirga or Transitional_Islamic_State_of_Afghanistan, so redirect unlikely to be helpful." Necrothesp thinks he was likely otherwise notable saying "one would imagine that only someone already notable would hold this position". While languages are an issue, I cannot find any evidence to establish the notability so bringing it here for discussion. Thanks all. StarM 14:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody with better access to Afghan media than I've got can actually find some reliable sources. Necrothesp does have a valid point in that it's not likely that a person would be selected for this role without having had preexisting notability for other reasons, but that isn't a thing we can just assume to be true in the absence of any sources that verify it. So I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can actually find some real sources, but the only footnote here isn't a reliable source at all, and thus doesn't even properly verify the notability of his stated role let alone offering any other potential notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I just about closed as delete but maybe this might benefit from another 7 days?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the subject appears notable per my opinion, however i was not able to find any in-depth coverage. But we can still redirect it to Afghan High Peace Council

Mohammad Ismail Qasemyar or Mohammad Ismail Qasim Yar positions held:

"the international relations adviser for Afghan High Peace Council"[68][69]
"former head of the Public Security and Public Law Courts"[70][71]
The reason for redirecting to AHPC is that his media coverage is primarily focused on peace council and is notable for the said council.[72] TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Wyett

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

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 15:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, only trivial coverage found. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes my standards for lawyers. He has been on the boards of the Michigan Transportation Commission, Pure Michigan, and Michigan Public TV. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep notable as a public servantMiaminsurance (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. KidAd • SPEAK 21:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find coverage required to meet WP:BIO. The keep !votes don't seem to be based on policy. SmartSE (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus on meeting WP:GNG and relisted twice. No prejudice against re-nomination, however, as the arguments on both sides are not particularly strong and participants are few. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crashh

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

Drama series does not meet WP:GNG- coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for this kind of TV/web show. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SDZeroBot for the notifying me. I have read about WP:GNG & WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, what I feel is many of the citations do have notability. Today, I have also added more citations to back them. I request MrsSnoozyTurtle to check the article again. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 11:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is original web series released on platform with national reach so should not be considered WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and as it has significant coverage so meets WP:GNG Parnaval (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable web series Rajuiu (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

INX (company)

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

notability not established, "first registered token IPO" does not warrant notability. sources are not guaranteeing notability. A mention in Calcalist or Globes is expected for any token launching from israeli initiative. these are all run-of-the-mill PR pieces that you can find covering every single token out there, it should require more to assert notability. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Israeli media coverage of INX published in the major israeli economic media outlets and written by staff writers, it's not a PR-material. 2. Israel it the leading state for high-tech industry and companies per capita, the media is writing only about a small percentage of them. Tzahy (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the company aside from its activities. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: INX received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Tzahy (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tzahy, Gidonb, you both appear to be referencing WP:GNG. The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP with special attention to references wrt WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Can you link to any of the references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notabilty? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:HighKing. I meant what I said. I'm not going to reference the article, just voice an opinion based on my research. I do often find more WP:ORGCRIT sources than others but do not have time to reference each and every article. For the current Israel queue that is two deletes and one keep. Best, gidonb (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, just trying to point out that your !vote will likely be discounted because saying "passes the GNG" is insufficient reason and especially when GNG isn't even the appropriate guideline and NCORP is hella stricter. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is plainly incorrect. Several of the articles below are valid, independent articles, written by professional journalist in fine, national newspapers. Some closers fall for who is loudest but definitely not all. The subject meets WP:NCORP through WP:ORGCRIT. (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion would carry a lot more weight if there was some substance to your response. Very easy to provide a vague "Your analysis is plainly incorrect", much more difficult to show where my analysis is flawed. A statement that the subject meets NCORP through ORGCRIT is also rather vague especially as the basis of my objections were that nearly all of the articles specifically fail ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information, advertorials or announcements or interviews, etc. which seem to make up most of the references. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate sufficient references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

one (Fox News), two (propertyfundsworld), three (Finance Magnates), four (Crowd Fund Insider), five (Finance Magnates), six (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), seven (Globes), eight (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), nine (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), ten (Crowd Fund Insider), eleven (Calcalist), twelve (Finance Magnates), thirteen (Yahoo Finance), fourteen (Jerusalem Post), fifteen (Yahoo Finance), sixteen (Yahoo Finance), seventeen (Globes). Tzahy (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of copying the list of references from the article to here as if that's supposed to evidence the establishment of notability. Here's a breakdown of each one on those references in respect of NCORP - there are insufficient references that can be used to establish notability.

An interview on YouTube with a company official. Probably fails every one of our guidelines for establishing notability and deffo fails WP:ORGIND
Announcement on propertyfundworld.com by a customer] with a quote from the INX CEO. Based entirely on this PR announcement from the company. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Another PR announcement appears on financemagnates.com based entirely on this PR announcement from the company, also fails WP:ORGIND.
This in crowdfundinsider acknowledges in the first few sentences that the article is based on a previous announcement by the company and a read through reveals the article does not contain "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
Another financemagnates.com regurgitated PR announcement, fails ORGIND
A "Notice of Effectiveness" from sec.gov, a "Registration Statement" filed by the company and a draft "Registration Statement" also filed by the company, all fail the test for "Independent Content" as the filings were made by the company and these references fail CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND.
This article from globes.co.il looked promising ar first but its just regurgitating information provided by the company and fails to deliver any "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". Fails ORGIND.
This article from crownfundinsider is like a pre-announcement but is based on information from an anonymous source has "knowledge of the matter". The information about the company is standard template stuff from the company, article fails ORGIND.
This from calcalistech is also based on company announcement and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
Another reference from financemagnates based entirely on an interview with the company's founder, fails ORGIND.
This from Yahoo Finance is based on PR from the company and from the Gibraltar government. Fails ORGIND.
This in the Jerusalem Post article attempts to explain the company's "product" (which had just been cleared as the first digital asset IPO by the SEC). It doesn't talk about the *company* though, fails CORPDEPTH.
finance.yahoo.com based on PR from a partner, fails ORGIND
Another finance.yahoo.com article based on PR, fails ORGIND
Another globes.co.il reference, the best of the bunch in my opinion, but doesn't contain sufficient "Independent Content". Mostly it is regurgitating information and risks highlighted in the company's prospectus and it ends with some quotes from IPO underwriters, fails ORGIND
This from PRNewsWire is PR, fails ORGIND

None of the above meet NCORP and I'm happy to discuss. If you've any other references you believe meet NCORP (it would be helpful if you'd check first though, so of the above were obvious fails) please post a link below. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not quite good enough. HighKing showed how it fails NCORP. Coin (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine press release masquerading as wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaraka

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG — Amkgp 💬 20:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 20:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 20:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Recognised settlements are always notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page has no problem, all the details provided are correct and this page is a well known place. So this article can't be deleted.

AjayDal — Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC) — AjayDal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello Everyone,

There are many places which don't have any trivial mention but they do exist. This doesn't justify the deletion of the article. There are many places which are much lesser known but they are on wikipedia. As Necrothesp mentioned, recognised places are always notable. And I know that the article had some missing info about its location and I have provided sufficient info about it. If the article needs some more improvement, please let me know.

Thank you SambitK (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND #1. As well as the census returns referenced in the article, searches find news coverage such as this (2013), this (2017), passing location mention (2020), passing location mention (2021). AllyD (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG too as it complies with General Notability Guidelines as the town has significant news coverage.

Thank you

SambitK (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND per above editors, also this article shows there is a Gokarneshwar (Lord Shiva) temple there. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep per WP:NALBUM exists, albeit a less-than-satisfactory one considering the majority (used in a strict sense, that is >50%) ignore the sentence starting with "Notability aside..." (permalink).

Sources found here should be incorporated into the article so that the article is reasonably detailed, also per WP:NALBUM, to avoid being re-nominated for deletion. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stripped Down

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

I am uncertain if this article passes WP:NALBUM. Only coverage is from Allmusic. No substantial information regarding the composition, recording, production could be found. Given that "stripped-down" is a common word used in acoustic music, I am not very fond of redirect as a solution in this case. HĐ (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - found another review, though not sure if this is a reliable source. --Ashley yoursmile! 14:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also uncertain with its reliability. But even if it is, I don't think it's sufficient for a reasonably detailed article. HĐ (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Rick Springfield discography#Live albums. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your rationale for keep? HĐ (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is no reason why the history of the article needs to be purged. For this reason, I am fine with either keeping or redirecting the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain if this article should be redirected, the title could be confused with "stripped-down music" (acoustic music), a fairly common term that is used in music journalism. HĐ (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Put a hat note at the top of the article to which the term is redirected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677, you've been participating in several AfDs and yet that's your kind of reasoning? 🤦 With all due respect, your reasoning is very very shallow and is a form of WP:NOREASON. You can't just be fine with either keeping or redirecting the article, for God's sake. If you vote to keep the article, you have to prove that it meets WP:GNG and/or in this case WP:NALBUM by presenting sources you find about the subject. Same goes for voting to redirect or delete it, where you have to prove that it fails WP:GNG. I suggest you read WP:BEFORE and WP:ATA before you participate in every AfD and improve your reasoning. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I disagree. I simply do not want the article history deleted, which I think is acceptable. For that reason, I am fine with either keep or redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677, you obviously did NOT understand what I said. Sheesh. 🤦 ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charted on a Billboard chart. [[73]].Donaldd23 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not make it inherently notable. Notability guideline says that if there is insufficient material for a reasonably detailed article, it should be merged or redirected to a related article. I do not see this article could escape its current Stub-class. HĐ (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coverage is scarce since there are articles mentioning the live concert itself than the album. However, I managed to find a few reliable sources about the live album: [74], [75] and [76]. With these and the sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Donaldd23, got charted on a Billboard chart hence passes WP:NALBUM. Pilean (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Cohen Kagan

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

Topic of article seems to have very little relevance outside of a very narrow scope of focus. Notability seems low; all references are either: in Hebrew, and thus useless to an English readership; dead urls; links that don't directly relate to article topic; newspaper clippings Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cohen Kagan is mentioned along with his activities yet he isn't the topic of the coverage himself. Fails the WP:GNG. 18:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidonb (talk • contribs)

I contests \ oppose deletion. This action maybe unconstructive since more efficient alternatives are more appropriate and does not require deletion. Atricle topic is valuable and has sufficient notability. It was created over 5 years ago and revised \ corrected \ contributed by number of highly ranked editors. Further reviews suggested. please feel free to improve. All the links are leading to official undoughtable sources. I will review and recheck the article according to your suggestions.

Liquidspice (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose deletion - KEEP~~. 20:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquidspice (talk • contribs)
~~Contest deletion - KEEP~~ Business career out of notable scope, removed and refined 22:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquidspice (talk • contribs)
Delete looking at the accomplishments, he's been a vice-presend of several organizations involved in standards is Israel. It does not apear he was ever president of any. Our usual rule for officers of national associations, is that notability is only implied for the President (or other title) who's the actual head. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources (including those in Hebrew, as there is no reason sources must be in English) appear not to provide significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject. Therefore, the article fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies or general articles. For the record, I also struck a couple of duplicate !votes above. Jack Frost (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reading the article and using Google in Hebrew, shows me that the article is indeed notable: He was an envoy in the Israeli Embassy and one of the leading Israelis in the certification / standards field and represented Israel in international organizations. The problem is that this article does not reflect it enough. Therefore, I suggest asking the people who can edit this article to do so in the next month or so, before deciding its fate. Atbannett (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sócrates (film). The was consensus that the subject is not notable and that the article should be a redirect to the article about his film. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Moratto

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

this guy doesn't yet meet inclusion criteria, all of the coverage relating to him is about his film, i've attempted to redirect but it's been contested so here we are. Anything that can be said about him can be said in the target Sócrates (film) which is notable and the sole focus of all coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 14:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been quite a bit of coverage about his upcoming Netflix film in Forbes, Oprah Mag, MSN, GQ, Cosmopolitan, and more. Filmmaker Magazine had a piece about his SFFILM grant win. Huffington Post has a piece about his documentaries on suicide awareness. I propose keeping it. Squigglyturtle — Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sócrates (film) per WP:TOOSOON. He's not independently notable, may become so in the future. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sócrates (film) per WP:TOOSOON as per above. Pilean (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie McSwain Jr.

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

Not enough in-depth coverage (simply routine) to pass WP:GNG, and meets neither WP:COLLATH or WP:NBASKET. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If article needs to be worked on more and supplied better sources then perhaps it goes back to draft. Nowhere in the Proposed deletion protocols does this article warrant erasure. Youngjtdyt (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)<smalll> Strike sock !vote. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your article was declined for submission multiple times then you decided to move it to main space without adding sources to establish notability. Maybe you should have left it as a draft. If you want it kept then go find more reliable sources. Rikster2 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn’t mean anything. My actions in moving the page do not change the deletion protocol. Sources or not, you need consensus and a reason other than you don’t like that I moved a page that others have declined. If you all feel it isn’t ready to be an article then it should be returned to draft, not deleted. I think he does meet WP:GNG and will add sources when I can. Deletion is an overreaction and if you’re abiding by the rules I’m not sure how you would justify it. Youngjtdyt (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is nothing in a “deletion protocol” that says an article can’t be deleted if doesn’t pass WP:AfD. That’s what the process does. That said, “draftifying” articles is a possible outcome and most people would probably go along with it if it comes to that. Rikster2 (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ doesn’t meet WP:NBASKETBALL and no sources indicate he meets WP:GNG yet. Rikster2 (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Changing vote due to new sources added. The Indianapolis Star, Wichita Eagle and South Bend Tribune sources suffice in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Action I have now updated the article and included 9 new sources. As it stands now, the subject meets WP:GNG. There are in-depth articles on him, providing significant and reliable coverage: Yahoo Sports, Indianapolis Star (x2), South Bend Tribune, The Wichita Eagle. There is a significant number of secondary and independent coverage as well. I look forward to further discussion. Youngjtdyt (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck edit by sock (and page creator)—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Context for those !voting or closing The article creator is a sock [77] [78] suspected of paid editing / COI. See edit history at Draft:Trace Cureton. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was tagged under CSD:G5; I have declined the speedy deletion as there is insufficient evidence available to me that the creator is indeed a sock of Inspiralens. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update - the creator's request to unblock as been denied, see User talk:Youngjtdyt#Blocked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notwithstanding issues with article creator, sources need further analysis per Rikster2's !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the creator might be a sock, the article still passes WP:GNG with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the assertion of meeting some notability guideline contributes to a consensus because presumably the participant has done some analysis themselves, giving the analysis itself will help a lot more as it can be evaluated more fully than an assertion.

Relisting again to see if there will be more participants or a convincing argument will be made.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with not enough significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to write a substantial article per WP:WHYN. The article is mostly composed of redundant seasonal stat lines and a resume of his pro team transactions. A bulk of the content is just dependent team site and state site scraping, unlikely to be found in independent coverage. Then there's unreliable fan blogs like SB Nation and SI's rebranded Fannation (who are not SI employees (i.e. no oversight))—Bagumba (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the reliable sourcing is a tad too thin to establish a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Institute (company). There seems to be general agreement that the article as it exists is not compliant with policy; with ultimately those having expressed an opinion on this favouring redirection; and that appears preferable to closing as no consensus due to continued lack of participation (there's nothing that prevents the redirect being fleshed out at some point in the future if the article subject's status changes significantly enough). (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gardenhour

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

I fail to see how gardenhour is notable on his own, The Institute won the emmy, not him and all the coverage relating to him is primarily about The Institute and thus should be redirected and merged there but the subject insists on edit warring to restore his unsourced spammy bio. CUPIDICAE💕 22:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it exists, the article has no references about Scott Gardenhour. And Gardenhour, claiming to be (User:TruthPR) is blocked, so he cannot request on the Talk page the addition of references. It feels very Catch-22ish. Would one path be to draftify the article? Of is it clear that an attempt to find citations about Gardenhour is doomed to failure? The article has been around a long time, but looking back, always weak on references and long on ~promotional wording. David notMD (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't on the subject to verify the content, any editor can. It's not a catch 22 and it's ineligible for draftification. This isn't punishment, it's policy. When you find a badly or unsourced BLP, you look for sources and if none exist, you AFD it. CUPIDICAE💕 10:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've agreed to unblock Scott, subject to them confirming their ID, doing their disclosure to comply with the Terms of Use, and to changing their username to something less problematic. I'm therefore happy for them to use their user talk page to pass relevant source information to David notMD who can then bring it to the attention of users here, on the article talk page etc. Nick (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unsure. Have we ever kept a producer because his commercial won an Emmy? Bearian (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno but that seems like an OSE type argument for keeping but we could also redirect to The Institute. CUPIDICAE💕 18:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Institute (company), not seeing significant independent coverage of him, reasonable target. Reliably sourced information can be added there-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhandanand

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

I have searched about this and the reference to this article only appears in product name etc and some kind of advertising platform. It is already tagged for non notability. Hence, it gives me a belief that it fails WP:GNG Heba Aisha (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If he dies in 1987, it would be indeed difficult to find online sources. I tried searching him on Google Books to see if something has been documented but nothing. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources fails in passing WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art Alive Art Gallery

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

Notability fail. I saw one or two brief sources that discuss the gallery itself. The vast majority of the sources in this refbombed article are about the artists showing there and not the gallery. Notability is not inherited. It might be worth noting that this was created by a now blocked undisclosed paid editor. --- Possibly (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be a major art gallery in India, and has good sourcing. The category 'Contemporary art galleries in India' lists only four (this is one of only two in New Delhi), so Wikipedia is not overrun with pages about India art galleries, which implies that this one is an important venue for national and Asian artists. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: whether or not we have article on something is not an indicator of notability. The sourcing here is about the artists and not about the gallery, by and large.--- Possibly (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Right now it's borderline WP:TNT. The formatting is a nightmare, the page is filled with trivia, and the sourcing is focused on the artists, rather than the exhibiter. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worth looking at notability criteria for subjects related to contemporary arts here [79]. Notability of a contemporary art institution is met if the following standards are being followed (1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale (2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. The artists hosted at the gallery are both national and international artists including Raghu Rai & Maite Delteil.

There are also sources talking about the gallery itself. [80] The Culture Trip lists it as one of the Delhi’s best 10 Contemporary Art Galleries. So does Luxeva [81]. I think it is natural for the media to write more about the activities of an art gallery rather than the gallery itself since the identity of the gallery is nothing but the reflection of the artists it would curate.

Some other sources that may help [82], [83], , [84], [85] Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I consider the references above essential PR. There is no indication that this gallery has shown any significant number of notable artists or held notable exhibitions DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many notable artists hosted such as Sakti Burman Maite Delteil Venkat Shyam Paresh Maity Raghu Rai The Singh Twins Thota Vaikuntam, Anjolie Ela Menon, Jatin Das (painter) etc Behind the moors (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a result of a paid for PR campaign, having hosted notable artists does not lend itself without adequate coverage. TAXIDICAE💰 19:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evaluating the sources suggests it's borderline; there's a few sources I would consider solid enough that mention the gallery in more than passing, but I don't think there's significant coverage demonstrated overall. Notable artists don't transfer notability to the gallery. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MO3 (rapper)

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

MO3 (rapper) previously had its own article, which was proposed for deletion for being non-notable and promotional. It was later changed to a redirect to Boosie Badazz, an entirely different person, and then to MO3, which is even less related, as it is a music file format and not a person in the first place. The article was recreated as Mo3 (rapper) and deleted almost instantly for being non-notable and promotional. The article was changed to a redirect to MO3 and the redirect was listed for deletion, with the resolution "restore and bring to AfD". So the original problem with promotion and lack of references has come back. I propose to delete this. JIP | Talk 02:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Boosie_Badazz#Health. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Boosie Badazz. Article fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - a quick search reveals several songs on YouTube with 10s of millions of views. Seems pretty well-known; if not kept, redirect to Boosie Badazz but to a new "Collaborations" section, not to Health. = paul2520 💬 22:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul2520: What part of WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:MUSICBIO is supported by "several songs on YouTube with 10s of millions of views"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Atlantic306's comments below. Thank you. = paul2520 💬 01:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 (only one criteria needed) with charting Billboard hits including placements on the Billboard 200,(136) Billboards rap chart (14) heatseekers (1 and 2) as confirmed in his staff written AllMusic bio here which was written before his death which shows he was notable before his death which was covered in multiple reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 01:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another suitable target may be Boosie Badazz discography#Collaboration albums. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As he clearly passes WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG as detailed in my earlier comment the article should be kept rather than redirected, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Atlantic306:, I do not disagree with you about keeping the article. With that said, if the article can not be kept, it should be redirected with history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ValidSoft

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

No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Montoya Twinz

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

Aside from two local news stories, there doesn't appear to be any RS coverage of these two. The sourcing is pretty much only youtube links. There is nothing to indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need more than local coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All I am finding is the local coverage that the nominator mentioned. We typically need three sources at the national or international level to warrant inclusion. The absurd number of primary sources cited is probably the biggest indicator of a lack of notability in my opinion. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youtube and local coverage do not cut it when we are talking about reliable, secondary sources. Especially the former. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient substantive third-party coverage in WP:RS to satisfy notability requirements. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons above. Northern Escapee (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing spectacularly fails to meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. I'm unable to find anything additional... Jack Frost (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to BabyFirst#Programming. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Galaxy

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

No significant coverage at all for this subject. The current sources in this article are either broken or unreliable. Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BabyFirst: The page should be restored as a redirect. From searching, there are no wp:reliable and wp:independent sources needed per WP:N. Also, WP:NOTTVGUIDE and MOS:REALWORLD applies here. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 12:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed redirection below to a section of Baby First below looks better and I am also ok with it. I would also like to propose a redirection to Baby First#Original programming instead. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a 104-minute series about the alphabet. Every preschool series ever has an alphabet run-down. Both sources 404. There's nothing notable here to even argue for a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 19:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BabyFirst#Programming: Not notable as mentioned by the previous !votes. However, I did not see any ambiguity to which "ABC Galaxy" could refer (except perhaps an even less notable iOS app) and as the TV series's producer, BabyFirst is a natural redirect target as a supertopic (cf. WP:RPURPOSE). Notability is not necessary for a redirect. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Petitpas

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

No references whatsoever in the article, nothing to indicate notability either. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing much coming up on a search. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced mess. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, a Google search didn't turn up anything to demonstrate notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 07:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not reliable sources. Fails GNG Citterz (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devoke water 15:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "mccourier 1".

[2] "mccourier 2".

[:3-3] Wickert, David (2021-12-16). "Groups sue four Georgia counties over early voting". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 2021-03-14.

[:4-4] Murphy, Erin (2021-03-09). "Lawsuit challenges Iowa's new elections law". Sioux City Journal. Retrieved 2021-03-14.

[5] Brennan, Paul (2021-03-09). "One day after Gov. Reynolds signs new voting restrictions into law, a lawsuit is filed to overturn them". Little Village. Retrieved 2021-03-14.

[6] Corasaniti, Nick; Vogel, Kenneth P. (2020-09-24). "Battles Over Voting Rules Fuel Concern About Postelection Fights". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-03-14.

[7] Tompkins, Al (2020-11-02). "Here are 19 tools and resources for covering the 2020 presidential election". Poynter Institute. Retrieved 2021-03-13.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]