Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 05	March 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Donors Trust. Daniel (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Lynn Ball

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

Just google "Whitney Lynn Ball". There is no RS coverage of note of this person. The notability of this person is solely tied to having been one of several founders of Donors Trust. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - she was more often covered as "Whitney Ball", which returns more hits. There are brief obits in Reason, National Review, and the Journal of Philanthropy, none of which are particularly helpful. The best in-depth coverage I see is Mother Jones from 2014. Regardless, it seems the entirety of her notability is connected to Donors Trust. As it happens, we already have an article about that. It's possible some background about her could be expanded, so wouldn't be opposed to calling this a Merge, but I'm not seeing a case for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:58, 6 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. The AFD has received three relists and remained open for around month, and there has been very minimal participation. Both arguments (those of delete & keep) incline me to close this as a "no consensus". (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalya Zemna

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

Fails WP:GNG. Some Ukrainian coverage is cited, but I am not getting the impression that it meets the threshold for independent, significant coverage, or that other such coverage exists. Promotional article about a "herbalist and healer" who supposedly healed her own serious heart condition with herbal remedies. Also founded a non-notable political party that I've nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian Party "Green Planet". Lennart97 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Something as simple as Google Translate would have demonstrated she passes GNG through things like this, this, and this. We can be confident in turn more may exist in Ukrainian. "The article is overly promotional/fringe in its current state" means WP:SOFIXIT. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, coverage exists. Source 1 and source 2 are both nothing more than interviews with the subject, which do not necessarily constitute significant coverage, and I am unable to determine whether these are reliable sources (let me know if you know). Source 3 is a very short announcement that she is participating in an election with her party - seems like routine coverage to me. So I'm interested to know why it's so very obvious that she passes GNG. Lennart97 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are usually significant coverage; these ones certainly appear to be. The .gov domain on source 1 is a strong indicator of RS-ism in the "doesn't post puff pieces about random people with nothing to write an article about" sense, and while machine translation strips out nuance, the overall vibe I got from the interviews was fairly respectable. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, that's fair enough. I'm just not as convinced. I really hope we can get some Ukrainian input in this discussion; my request at Wikiproject Ukraine unfortunately didn't result in anything (so far). Lennart97 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold relist for a third chance at native speakers to assist with sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing any claims for notability in the article, and the sources that I was able to get Google to translate didn't give me confidence that the subject has international notability. SilkTork (talk) 12:18, 12 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 Monotype system. SilkTork (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lanston Monotype Company

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

Possible non-notable company, merging or deletion may be needed. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:GNG (I have added a "Further reading" section). Monotype is one of the two dominant typesetting systems of the twentieth century. While the British offshoot was more successful, this is still a historically important company. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A newspapers.com search returns 2,137 results for "Lanston Monotype Company". The only reason the company's notability seems to be in question is because it did not survive until the internet age, where sources would be a Google search away. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Monotype system. Once upon a time, most metal type came out of one of two machines: the Linotype machine and the Monotype system, each of which was sold by a different company. This company, Lanston Monotype, is not very interesting beyond the machine. Here is an article about the Monotype machine, and here is a video of it in action. As you can see, the machine is the main event. I added three slim sources on the company, but they are nto much. What is here can easily be merged to Monotype system.--- Possibly (talk) 03:33, 7 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. Daniel (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mixcrate

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

~~Not notable. Fails WP:GNG.~~ DJFace1 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is blocked for sockpuppetry. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No longer fails WP:GNG as the article has since been expanded and improved with references which was lacking prior, including the Vice magazine interview with Oliver Wang in which he mentions Mixcrate, as (in relation to topic of interview) the site was founded by those in the Filipino-American DJ community of the San Francisco Bay Area. Mixcrate was huge worldwide when it was active, and was the most trafficked social network for DJ artists in the United States (per Comscore). ~Hiddenstranger (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Now vastly improved with many reliable, independent published sources including the Forbes source. Hiddenstranger (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note that the added Forbes source is authored by a contributor, so it is generally considered unreliable. See WP:FORBESCON. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Forbes article was written by notable author, musician and music expert Bobby Owsinski, not just any unknown. Hiddenstranger (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly WP:SOAP, not seeing quality sourcing, notability not evident, passing mention in Forbes does not suffice, it's an advertisement. Acousmana (talk) 16:31, 9 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! 15:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Bitri

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

Person doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There is literally a memorial page as a source. In 2021, everybody knows Wikipedia is not Find A Grave, Facebook, or Geneology.com. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect I have added a citation from the LA Times. I'm concerned this is a WP:BIO1E but I'm unsure where to redirect to. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She had a career. She is on Spotify, probably signed. It is probably worth tyring to find an Albanian speaker to ferret out some sources. The music is very much of that type. scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 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) 23:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- coverage is not super overwhelming but the English sources describe her as a popular Albanian singer, our Albanian article on her seems more lengthy (though poorly sourced) and I'm reluctant to !vote 'delete' without a search conducted in LOTEs, which may not be forthcoming. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus I can see both sides of this, but the sources in the article (NYT, LATimes, Politico) are heavy weight and this is a strong indication other RS had covered the individual. Usually the "sources may exist" argument is made without any supporting evidence, but in this case I think there is reason to believe sources probably exist. The article also receives ~250 views a month, not huge, but people are looking for information about the individual 16yrs after their death; to me this is another indication the person is notable and sources would exist.

The delete arguments are valid though, no sources have been brought forward to show the subject has SIGCOV, 1E hasn't been refuted, and NOTMEMORIAL is a valid argument. I do not believe there will be a consensus to delete here, but I don't think there are sourcs at this time for a solid Keep. I tagged the article as needing citations. This can be revisited at another time with fresh eyes and language skills. // Timothy :: talk 18:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find myself settling into keep on a lot of the edge cases where there is likely more coverage in other language sources. An Albanian singer that gets mentioned in big time sources almost certainly has huge coverage in their own language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 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. I don't see sufficient weight to the keep argument to override the delete arguments. Being a commentator is not the same as being commented on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carissa Christensen

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

Non notable business person who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows hits in sources which aren’t independent of her or sources which are unreliable such as this & this. WP:ANYBIO is also not met. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is very sparse. As a result there is not much to say int he article beyond the fact that she is an executive who is sometimes quoted in the media.--- Possibly (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking in reliable sources and seems to be a known speaker in her field but nothing out of the ordinary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminsurance (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has been a go-to person for commentating on the emerging industry over a number of years ^[1] and ^[2]

I don’t see how the two sources you provided does anything to establish notability & furthermore being a “go to” person isn’t a yardstick used in determining notability.Celestina007 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for using shorthand 'go to'. I still vote 'Keep' as I had noted in the citations and in article's opening section that it shows over a considerable time period, notable major organisations had considered her worthy of using and listening to for strategic advice.Kaybeesquared (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For starters; please always sign appropriately(I have done so for you now, see WP:SIGN all the same), secondly, there’s no need to bolden the keep used in body of the comment because it’s not like it’s going to make a difference or anything. Now, a portion of your comment above reads notable major organisations had considered her worthy of using and listening to for strategic advice, that isn’t still a criterion used in determining notability. Are you familiar with our notability policy? I’m not responding to you for you to change your !vote, I’m merely trying to make you know that you do not know what you think you know, all the rationales you have provided for !voting a keep aren’t in sync with our policy on notability. Celestina007 (talk) 17:32, 12 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. Daniel (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Syria insurgency

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

The article is WP:OR as there are no sources for a “east syria insurgency” and combines multiple incidents into one conflict rather as a part of the broader syrian civil war. Ridax2020 (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was copied from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 6, where it was mistakenly listed initially. Daniel (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Literally what? The article cites dozens of sources. Of course there is an insurgency. Multiple violent "incidents" - as you call it - do literally constitute an insurgency. For example, this article clearly describes that an ISIL insurgency continues in SDF-held areas, with the SDF and aligned groups waging a counter-insurgency campaign. Applodion (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You made no points, i never denied that there were incidents in this conflict. But I denied the fact that there’s a separate conflict called the “Eastern Syria Insurgency”, can you give me a source that calls it that? Using your logic the Franco–Turkish proxy conflict article shouldn’t have been removed. Bringing multiple incidents into a conflict of one person’s original thoughts is WP:OR. Ridax2020 (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still have to ask: What? You know that a conflict can have sub-conflicts such as campaigns, battles, and insurgencies? The article I cited literally says that there is an insurgency. Applodion (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that the nominator is saying that breaking the overall Syrian Civil War into separate regional conflicts is what they consider original research. I think that the multiple sources disagree with the nominator. But I think that is what the nominator is saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources that are clearly WP:RS. This is clearly not WP:OR. SunDawn (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You failed to prove to me that there’s an ongoing conflict called the “Eastern Syrian insurgency” though, I never denied there being incidents I just think that bringing multiple incidents into one article of a person’s original thoughts is literally original research and no article talks about a “Eastern Syrian Insurgency”. Ridax2020 (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above. Pilean (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restructure There is this very real issue with the all "insurgency" articles in how they all combine multiple different conflicts into one which isn't substantiated by reliable resources and is indeed original research. Placing all the different "insurgent" groups on one side is definitely original research and pushing an original POV. The only insurgency and counter-insurgency in eastern Syria as reported by reliable sources is the IS one. Attacks by pro-government and pro-Turkey insurgents have been reported by these resources but as individual attacks only, not as part of a greater insurgency and especially not as part of the same insurgency as the IS one. Lightspecs (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i can find easy sources about this https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/05/isis-airstrikes-deir-ez-zor-syria-coalition-jaburi.amp.html?skipWem=1 this is not OR. But main groups and sources talks about mostly isis insurgency Shadow4dark (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per all above and for obvious reasons. There is an active ISIL insurgency in eastern Syria, as the group was forced underground after they lost their physical territory in the Battle of Baghuz. The U.S. in particular acknowledge there's a continued ISIL presence in the region and even the Trump administration cited ISIL's lingering post-territorial, tangential presence in Eastern Syria for why they're "protecting the oil fields" and re positioned its forces there and are still cooperating with the SDF, so deleting this article meant to cover that area of importance would be a disservice to readers and anyone involved in the ongoing attacks in that area and would make it appear no one is dying and the SDF is doing nothing. Even the Syrian government is still fighting ISIL in its own campaign in the very nearby Syrian Desert, with the help of Russia.
ISIL is conducting a similar insurgency in Iraq, so if this article is deleted, what what makes that article different? You seem to not understand that conflicts can have their own sub-conflicts and overlapping areas of operation, because real life is complex and you don't need a formal declaration of a specifically named "insurgency" by some official body to determine what's practically, observably happening on the ground (an unnamed "low-level insurgency", which is a real term cited by RS's) where people are dying and SDF COIN operations are conducted. Especially for a complex, multi-sided war like the Syrian Civil War. Aren't most insurgencies unnamed anyway? Furthermore, the article is well-sourced by RS's (for the most part) and does not currently meet the criteria for WP:OR from what I see. RopeTricks (talk) 12:36, 13 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. This AfD has been relisted three times. It has had few contributors to the discussion. Of those !voting, three - including the nominator - are in favour of delete due to lack of significant reliable sources, with only one keep (from Piecesofuk, because they added sources). With three to one in favour of delete, numerically that would favour a delete. Also, lack of interest in a delete discussion in itself favours a delete on the principle of "no objection". On the other hand, the article was nominated for deletion when it was in this state: [1], when it had only two sources, and one of those was IMDB, which is generally considered to be an unreliable source, but it has been built on during the AfD discussion, and more sources added. However, two of the deletes came after the sources were added, and commented that the sources were not adequate - for example that the BBC source was an interview, and that coverage of her art career (her assumed notability) was sparse. Having looked at the BBC interview, I agree. The interview is about the town - she is used as a commentator on the town as a resident there. And other mentions, such as in the Irish Independent and Evening Herald, are "sparse" in that they mention her only in passing, in a trivial rather than the detailed or significant manner required of WP:GNG. However, The Impartial Reporter, a reliable source, does provide two detailed articles on her. And here's the rub. Certainly, they do not provide the information required of either WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST as pointed out by the nominator and user Possibly, when !voting delete, but they do provide some detailed coverage of her, as Possibly says, a "public personality". The downside of those sources is that they are local, which brings us back to the point made in the nomination that "The single source in the article is local coverage from her birthplace, so it counts for very little in terms of notability". That point has not been challenged, and has been implicitly supported by those commenting. It's also worth noting that two of those !voting to delete have been active in editing the article to provide sources, yet concluded after doing their research that there was not enough notability evidence for Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. SilkTork (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Falconer

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

Does not appear to meet wither WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. I was not able to find enough coverage of her to meet WP:GNG, or to indicate that she meets any of the points in the SNGs. The single source in the article is local coverage from her birthplace, so it counts for very little in terms of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Found and added two more references. The talk page lists three other references which are all now deadlinks, but this may indicate more coverage exists. Tacyarg (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added that she was interviewed in the BBC series Town, also added a reference from the Culture Northern Ireland website which probably could be used to add some more information Piecesofuk (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some !votes apart from comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 07:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added an interview from Queen's University Belfast youTube channel Piecesofuk (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the one hand, she has been covered by BBC and a few other good sources... but several of these are interviews. Might meet GNG as a sort of former public personality. On the other hand, coverage of her art career is very sparse. Definitely fails every point of WP:NARTIST. Possibly (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldly relisting a third time, no consensus above currently but with a more detailed review of sourcing one may be established with another 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was on the fence about this one, added a couple of references and appreciate those added by others, but I don't think there is enough coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 20:02, 7 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. Daniel (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Sattar Qasim

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and he doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User:onel5969 Hello dear. Abd al-Sattar Qasim's article is an encyclopedic article, because Dr. Abd al-Sattar Qasim was a certified Palestinian politician and a university doctor, and he has dozens of books that talked about international politics, and he is also a scientific researcher in the field of politics and sociology. And Abdul Sattar Qassem died from the Corona virus. He is a Palestinian legal person. I hope to reconsider the topic of deleting the article. Accept my greetings --Osps7 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osps7 - took the liberty of adding a keep !vote to your note above, forgive me if that was presumptuous, but it seemed to be what you were indicating. I also formatted you comment to keep it flowing in the discussion. Please read WP:GNG to see what constitutes notability. I couldn't find any in-depth sourcing to show that this particular person meets the criteria. But there may be sources in other languages which did not show up in my searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a certified politician and doctor is not, in its own right, ample grounds for a wikipedia page. an article needs to demonstrate that an individual is notable, by showing that he has recieved significant coverage. Totalstgamer (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete 3 out of 4 of this article's links are to material created by the individual, and are not of sources showcasing his notability, the last one is an article about his death, and might be ample ground for keeping the article if more sources are listed at other points in his life, or referring to his various creations Totalstgamer (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - User:onel5969 Hello dear, Abdul Sattar Qassem is influential in the Palestinian people, and has many references in the Arabic language, and he is also a former candidate for the Palestinian presidency. He is a famous Arab academic, you can look at his article in Arabic, and he is also one of the oldest who obtained a doctorate in political science. In the event of a shortage of references, I will pledge to add more and more remarkable references. Accept my regards and respect. Osps7 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly suggest adding more references. as it stands, that appears to be the main reason for this article's deletion nomination Totalstgamer (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on Osps7's comment above, if the result is delete, I would suggest draftifying the article so that they can work on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on this article about his death, it seems the Middle East Eye is a reputable and independent English outlet, so I think this is enough to source the article. --hroest
Keep - from obit found by hroest. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with the statements made by Osps7 and hroest. Rest in peace, Abd al-Sattar Qasim. Jonathan170 (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A number of "keep" !votes don't have any policy backing. Relisting to evaluate source provided by hroest.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the Middle East Eye there is some coverage extablishing him as a prominent political scientist/national figure, including [2], [3], [4], and more. Described as well known critic and opponent, [5], p. 151-152. There's enough online and in english to provide a viable argument for notability (I'd vote 'weak keep') and that is upgraded to firm 'keep' when considering there is almost definitely much more coverage of a similar type in Arabic and offline. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable person, I agree with the comments in the page. Gianluigi02 ^Talk

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. Fenix down (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny King-Bisungu

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

fails NFOOTY as the 35 league appearances (which I highly doubt actually happened, given the lack of a soccerway/soccerbase profile) would have come in the Conference Premier. Fails GNG also, and is largely unsourced. TBH I would have thought this was a hoax, but I found a mention of him playing for Radford in 2014 here. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails all relevant criteria and badly. I also found a passing mention of him on a match report on the Belper Town website. Very, very low level amateur footballer. Not even close to meeting WP:GNG. Probably an autobiography. The fact that this has lasted six years is shocking. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Pilean (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and Notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL, Alex-h (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 17:23, 12 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bletsas

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

I can't find any evidence that he's a notable speaker or computer scientist. The award is a community/group one and ignoring the fact that an interview doesn't work as independent coverage, it doesn't do much to make a case for notability either. Sourcing in the Greek article is similarly thin, and I can't find anything else. He isn't mentioned in One Laptop per Child and sourcing (also discussed in prior AfD) doesn't make it clear that his role was significant enough for this to be a redirect there. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my comment on the previous AfD, which is still valid: I don't think he passes WP:PROF, and I don't think being a sysadmin at MIT is enough to be notable. But he has collected a fair amount of press for his work at One Laptop Per Child and for networking Patmos, and was keynote speaker at several conferences. So I think he squeaks by on WP:GNG grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep basically per David Eppstein. I'm seeing a fair amount of articles relating to his work with One Laptop per Child, as well as some other information on speaking engagements and interviews with him. Also he's good enough for Hairlebrity so doesn't that count for something? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Giggle definitely the first AfD !vote in some time that has made me literally giggle. Wonder if that's a withdraw criteria. Thanks for the laugh. StarM 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both !votes expressed weakly. Relist to determine a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment clearly not notable per NPROF given his academic track record, but maybe through his general reception in popular media. However, general media reception is not evident from the article - where are these media articles about him? He is mentioned in passing with Nicholas Negroponte but rarely as the main subject. The only article about him I could find was this GearLog article, so I dont think we can claim widespread reception in popular media. Also talks at academic conferences are not enough by themselves to make a person notable in general. --hroest 03:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NFOOTBALL, he has been on the roster for a premier national league team (MIT CS/IT), he might not be an MVP, but he has played for many seasons very successfully and achieved the notable award of being Director of Computing for MIT Media Lab. // Timothy :: talk 19:00, 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) 03:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Mohammad (cricketer)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hyderabad, Sindh cricketers or similar Has played 2 FC matches, but I could find no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, is deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rugbyfan22 please correct your redirect target as this one is from Hyderabad, Sindh. Störm (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage, only wide-ranging databases consisting of scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Also fails a strict interpretation of WP:CRIC (which by consensus is overly permissive), since the Patron's Trophy was not the "highest level of domestic competition" at this time. No suitable merge/redirect target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough significant coverage. Pilean (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and Notable reliable sources not found about this cricketer. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage to meet Wp:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:39, 10 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Matondo

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

strong NFOOTY fail and I'm seeing little evidence of GNG Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a footballer that has spent most of their career in the amateur level in Ireland, by the looks of it. Best source found online is this match report. A ProQuest search shows that he gets his name checked in the Drogheda Independent from time to time but no actual WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 12 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Giverin

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as Belgian Second Division was not fully professional when Luke Giverin played for Royal Antwerp. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG either and the only article which links to this is 2016–17 Central Coast Mariners FC season although he does not appear to have ever played for. Article has been twice deleted before for similar reasons. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Possible G4? Giant Snowman 09:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFOOTBALL. Pilean (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, as fails WP:GNG. There are some independent sources, but they look to either be local news coverage, or just interviews. GiantSnowman the last deletion discussion was 8 years ago, so I doubt that this current version is very similar to the version that was deleted, so I guess G4 doesn't apply. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 11 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) 03:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Condemned (band)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. First links when I google searched were to www.metal-archives.com, which is not a RS. The rest of the first five pages are social media, metal zines or sales sites. No RSes in the group. Only user reviews as sputnikmusic.com. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is the only decent source I found. While I have found some album reviews, they are featured on these metal zines. The cited sources are either these metal zines, a promotional Blabbermouth piece, the Zero Tolerance one is not even available, and I don't know how much Terrorizer covers them (though I have a suspicion that said coverage is short or just a section). And finally, we have the external links which do not establish notability whatsoever. Searching is also difficult because there is a brutal death metal band with this name with the guy from Cephalotripsy, and the words tend to appear separately or not in the band's context, so it is recommended to search with the albums to specify that we are searching for this Condemned. Even though, if searched with the albums, it returns only the standard unreliable stuff. They have also released one studio album, and if I know right, a band needs to release two before they can qualify for a WP article. Of course, there are cases when a band released only one studio album, and they have gotten significant, reliable coverage, but Condemned did not as they are underground. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. That source seems to, on fist glance, fail RS as it has no author. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metal.de is usually considered to be a reliable/decent source as I have noticed. While I have used it around huwiki as a source, I wasn't sure about its reliability (since it isn't present on WP:ALBUMAVOID), but then I was told it is reliable. But I really don't know anymore. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources fails in passing WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. --Ashley yoursmile! 20:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Lacks Reliable Sources . Alex-h (talk) 08:53, 10 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) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Records

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

Non notable minor record label that is now defunct. Tagged since 2009.

PROD removed due to "I found sources (not surprising given it is Stax-related)", but none were actually added.

Also, the notability tag was not removed, so let's decide once and for all if this is notable. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep I have added a host of refs, though not two SIGCOVs which would be needed for N:Corp, still think they are an interesting off shoot. There maybe more paper refs as many music chat rooms seem to find them an interesting label. If not kept would recommend merging into Stax Records.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I de-prodded the article) Although I hold GNG/NMUSIC #5 is the most appropriate guideline we have for historical record labels (as producers of art, as opposed to ongoing concerns which are prone to spam) significant coverage in Billboard, 26 Nov 1966, page 3 (already in article), as well as Soulsville, U.S.A.: The Story of Stax Records By Rob Bowman · 2011" not currently in article, and Respect Yourself: Stax Records and the Soul Explosion by Robert Gordon (barely used in article). Unfortunately most of what I need is hidden and in COVID times I don't have access to a library which probably holds these titles, but the index and previews demonstrate coverage of Hip Records equate to more than passing mentions. Discogs as a source needs to be removed, it is used as SYNTH, and isn't reliable anyway. The Billboard June 29, 1968 article, though useful, is not significant coverage on Hip. The Scram magazine is also not significant coverage. The Mansfield book begins to approach significant coverage, but it isn't there. I can't find the Rock Candy Magazine copy, so I am unable to judge whether the coverage is significant. My only result in newspapers.com is The Rock Island Argus (Rock Island, Illinois) 25 Oct 1969, a casual mention again. [6] provides no significant coverage. Global Dog Productions, a discography with editorial oversight, gives a 45rpm discography, which is significant coverage. That what I've been able to find in my search. There are four instances of significant coverage, meeting any definition of Wikipedia notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Three book sources and the Billboard source are reliable and independent and show significant coverage, and makes it notable. Offline sources are likely to exist that can also count towards notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 21:40, 9 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) 12:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aurra Bhatnagar Badoni

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

Less sources, does not meet criteria. DasSoumik (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find RS to support notability. Vikram 08:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Times of India is not RS and the India Today article is a puff piece. Not sufficient to establish notability. Vikram 10:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep has some RS, secondary in depth sources that cover her independently also she is just 9. ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We have tended to delete child actors' articles' unless there is clearly significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 10 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wynn Irwin

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

No evidence of any notability. Only ref is a mention in a book of obituaries. Searches reveal little better. Appeared to have been a steady bit-part film actor who never hit the big time. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he had very small roles, often red shirts, in major films. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regular on one show and additional roles in other shows and films. I'm seeing results in archives. I will need the rest of the day to add them. Please don't close as delete. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amkgp 💬 17:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment I added some sources. He had multiple roles of note. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sourcing added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have revisited the refs, courtesy of Ancestry's clippings service, and I suspect Wynn Irwin would not thank the reviewing critics. I doubt he was happy about his reviews when he was alive. Now, they don't add anything of significance to notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, wrong, reviews and feature articles add plenty to notability. Your comment about perceived negative reception has nothing to do with notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, would seem to meet GNG through [7], [8], [9], and numerous mentions (in less detail) in reviews of works he acted in. The quality of the reviews is irrelevant. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with GNG, possibly also enough to meet NACTOR. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)strike !vote of sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FlyboyExeter. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eddie891. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe he meets the GNG from the coverage Eddie891 found. Not sure if he meets NACTOR, but is probably close to it for his role in the movie Dirtymouth (where he is 3rd billed), and a few TV roles seem notable enough like Lotsa Luck (series regular) and Hart to Hart (recurring role in 10 episodes). GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG pass doesn't require SNG pass. Only one criteria needs to be met. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 17:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cezary Paszkowski

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP tagged for notability since 2015 and has no sources. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cupper52, what about WP:BEFORE ? Quick search on Google Books gave me several mentions of him as a painter. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if he has works in museums, as the article says, then he is notable via WP:NARTIST. There are a few good sources in Google books as well (example). Possibly (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, I have trouble verifying the collection holdings. The exhibition list doesn't convince me either. Kunst Dichterbij, in Breda? The BVB Volksbank in Bad Vilbel? I don't think so. Vexations (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: you might be on to something there. I just checked four museums listed here, and none had his work. That page also lists him as a musician? Possibly (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- "Google books" hits are actually articles from art magazines. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep There are possible some in-depth coverage, e.g. judging from snippet "Sztuka ( Poland ) , vol . 10 , pt . 6 ( 1985 ) , p . 36 - 7 . 1 illus . biog . An introduction to the work of the Polish painter Cezary Paszkowski ( b . 1949 ) is followed by an analysis of his three major series of paintings , which depict the changeable..."[10] . Also, in another magazine, "...Soon it appears that the serigraphy creates new workshop possibilities for him and he can use it effectively to create his individual world . Cezary Paszkowski was eminent in the generation of the seventies . His creative work is faithful to the..."[11]. There are many refs to sales and exhibitions sites and they naturally hype that he is a recipient on numerous awards. In fact, factual sources say he does have a couple awards from exhibitioins and museums (whose notability I am lazy to verify), but without refs to original awards, i.e., their level is unverifiable. Concluding, there are no modern sources and someone has to take pain to go to libraries to write a decent article from the times when he was famous. BTW Polish wp article says he is honorable citizen of New Orleans. His own website has no bragging, only works, meaning he is a decent person :-) [no argument for notability, just a note of respect] Lembit Staan (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per analysis of sources by LS abive and my own analysis from few years back in the first AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 7 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. Despite the fact that the nominator has been blocked indefinite for abusing multiple accounts, the "keep" arguments make sense. The close as "keep" is not because of the sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Choice School

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

~~This is just like a promotional Article. Nothing more. And also fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG. JaiMahadev (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

The nominator is blocked/banned. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 12:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep - nothing promotional about this article at all, the nomination is false Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever the case is about the existence of promotional material or not, there clearly isn't the needed sourcing for this to pass WP:NORG, because news stories about a schools regulating buses and cutting down on junk food just don't. I'm not seeing anything else that does either. So, based on that the article should be deleted. Unless someone can provide three good, non-trivial references. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep erroneous nomination by an outed sock puppet. If we discover it in time, I don't think socks should have standing to start AfDs. SportingFlyer T·C 22:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's kept just because of the sockpuppeting I'll probably re-nominate it. So it's a mostly a matter of do we want to evaluate ot on the merits now or later. Also, I'm pretty sure sockputting doesn't make any other type of edits null and void. Like if a sockpuppet adds a good paragraph to an article that has a solid reference it doesn't automatically get reverted and wiped from Wikipedia. The punishment is banning someone for doing it. Not setting Wikipedia back. So I don't see why AfDs should be any different. Otherwise, it's punishing the quality of the platform. Not the person who did it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: The nomination itself seems suspicious. Nothing seems promotional in this article and I have found plenty of sources to establish notability. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 11:24, 10 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) 03:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunlake Hotel, Jakarta

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

Unreferenced since it was created six years ago. Searching finds no in-depth coverage in independent RS. Although searching is complicated by the number of hits in hotel booking sites, I didn't see anything else usable as a ref. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG MB 21:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MB 21:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MB 21:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not all hotels are notable just because they can be verrified to exist. With this article having no sources we cannot even verrify its existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BUILD, and WP:RS. Although "five star" hotel sounds nice, it's not quantifiable outside of countries that have actual rating systems (such as France). As a building, there's no evidence it's notably tall or historic. As far as sourcing, there's zero book mentions, three (3) hits on Google news (primarily "free press"), and zero newspaper articles on Google. I can find no evidence this hotel has ever been reviewed or noted in an English travel guide. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 10 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. Daniel (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The New Turkey

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

No third-party sources listed to establish notability. This sounds like an article drafted in order to promote the book. I can't tell if this is the product of paid editing or the product of someone who is weirdly enthusiastic about the book. -- Beland (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NBOOK per reviews: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], p500, etc. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- We cannot have an article on every book. However, the author is a respected journalist, writing about a topic relevant to foreign affairs; it has at least three newspaper reviews. I have not examined those identified by Eddie, but they mostly look like academic ones. The book is now about 15 years old, which means that it may be due for a new edition, but age for a work of this kind is not necessarily a reason for declaring it new useless. Anyway, if it was notable when published it probably still is. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron, I'm confused, why would their being academic reviews be a problem when considering NBOOK? All that is required is "two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" last I checked Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews listed above and in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews. If anything it tries too hard to show significant coverage and the article can be trimmed to have less long quotes. (But that's not an AFD issue.) Archrogue (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As multiple reviews above have it meeting book notability requirement. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:23, 11 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) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photojournale Connections Across A Human Planet

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

Notability tag has been on the article for several years, has no sources. -- Beland (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the concept of the book is very nice, it is a non-notable self-published book, that doesn't meet our criteria for WP:GNG. I looked online for reviews to see if there is something to substaniate sigcov, but couldn't find anything. If enough sources materialize, I'm willing to rethink my !vote. Netherzone (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found nothing to indicate notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above sources fails WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Noah ^💬 16:35, 12 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. AfD Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — Amkgp 💬 14:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Reid

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

WP:TOOSOON, player has played only one match for St Mirren F.C. in 2021 and looks not notable enough per WP:NFOOTBALL — Amkgp 💬 19:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 19:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 19:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the player passed WP:NFOOTBALL a few hours ago, making his debut in the top tier of Scottish football. We give leeway in such cases because of the likelihood that they will build on such appearances. Deleting articles that only just pass the SNG should only really apply in cases where the player has been playing outside of the professional level for several years and is extremely unlikely to ever play at that level again. Otherwise, we will just end up AfDing every single player on the day that they make their debut and it would get silly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Spiderone. Being St Mirren's youngest player, there will undoubtedly be SIGCOV of him soon. Also, he passes the SNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's passed the notability guidelines you cited by playing in a fully professional league. JonnyDKeen (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, meets NFOOTBALL. Nomination is fundamentally flawed and shows a deep misunderstanding of NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is an increasing consensus to delete articles on players whose only claim to notability is one very brief professional appearance and whose professional career is clearly over, but nominating an article on this basis within hours of a player making his debut is clearly nonsensical -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Withdraw nomination per discussion above. — Amkgp 💬 14:20, 7 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. Daniel (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond MacDonald

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources are not WP:RS Jenyire2 19:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 19:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenyire2, well I would not call the official homepage of the University of Edinburgh a non reliable source. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:SIGCOV, per nom. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree with CommanderWaterford, per WP:NPROF it is sufficient to use University resources as these are sometimes the only resources we have. So the question is does he pass SIGCOV or NPROF, to me it seems like he may potentially be noteable as an artist. --hroest 03:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (with the caveat that this is well outside STEM so Scopus analytics may be less accurate/informative/relevant, and my arbitrary cutoff of 10 papers may be inappropriate as a threshold for researchers in his field). Comparing MacDonald to his 30 coauthors with 10+ papers, plus 30 authors of the most recent articles in his field that cite him, he seems to be well above the median and around average in regards to citation metrics: Total citations: average: 2217, median: 902, MacDonald: 1894. Total papers: avg: 77, med: 51, M: 78. h-index: avg: 18, med: 15, M: 23. Highest citation: avg: 349, med: 126, M: 211. JoelleJay (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per David, and after going back over the professional positions of the most Scottish collection of names I have ever seen (his coauthors), I'll upgrade to keep as it seems he is indeed around the top tier for impact in his field. JoelleJay (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can pick out his scholarly works on Google Scholar by searching for author:raymond-ar-macdonald — I thought at first that this included false positives, but he really does seem to be highly cited both on musical identity and on pain sensitivity. His highest-cited work, Musical Identities, is actually an edited volume, so it should not count for as much. But he has another eight publications with triple-digit citations, I think easily enough for WP:PROF#C1. As well as multiple edited volumes, he is also coauthor of a new authored book, The Art of Becoming: How Group Improvisation Works; I didn't find reviews, so there's no second pass of notability through WP:AUTHOR, but that is easily explained by the book being too new for the reviews to have appeared. He may also pass WP:MUSICIAN; I'm not so familiar with that standard, so I'm not going to try to guess whether he does, but coverage of his performance can be found by web and news searches for "Raymond MacDonald" "saxophone", and [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] look like significant coverage, at least. Perhaps the nominator and first !voter were intimidated by all the search results for other Raymond MacDonalds, but some evidence of WP:BEFORE would have been helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citations look solid for WP:NPROF C1. WP:NAUTHOR looks a little unlikely to me, but reviews sufficient for WP:NCREATIVE for his recording work appear to exist. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes WP:NPROF criteria 1 as defined by very well cited works as shown by google scholar so he deserves to be included and have the article improved in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:21, 13 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. TNT case and I'd suggest that any recreation sticks closely to any sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Land Trust Alliance

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:NGO. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & a before search links me to mostly user generated sources obviously not independent of the organization. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I hope I have included enough links now to additional sources. I edit on Wiki occasionally - and noticed land conservation in Canada has very little presence on Wiki. Most land conservation is happening with the support of the Canadian & provincial governments, through Charities/NGOs who participate in the government program. Nature Conservancy of Canada is the largest and Ducks Unlimited is pretty big. You've also got the three provincial umbrella land trusts, with OLTA being probably the largest. Land conservation is by its nature "local" - you can't conserve land outside your geographic boundaries. But through OLTA, UNESCO reserves are being conserved (Niagara Escarpment), and Canada's biodiversity treaty commitments being met. I created the thumbnail page first and invited others to add content. No one else did so - so I have supplemented and linked to the member groups. I would like to ensure the Project Drawdown page links to OLTA or OLTA members as a Land Sink. Critical to the fight against Climate Change. If Wiki wants to inform readers about wilderness conservation in Canada, I don't think it can do so without pages for the land trusts and umbrella organizations. SabaBPC (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - it seems somewhat absurd to me that this page is being considered for deletion - still. When I first created the page, I included just a thumbnail. Since then, I have added news and other links demonstrating this is an important conservation organization in Canada. Perhaps the original lister can review the revisions and reconsider the non-notability tag. thanks. SabaBPC (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding press releases or mere mentions does not constitute RS. We need in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the organization to substantiate or prove their notability. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I added a couple of more. OLTA is a quasi-government organization. It distributes federal and provincial conservation funds. Even without news coverage, the organization is part of Canada's conservation apparatus - and as the umbrella organization of many notable organizations, cannot not be notable. Please note that in 2010, its employees were categorized as provincial employees here: https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-sector-salary-disclosure-2010-organizations-no-salaries-disclose. Here is another link someone could work in: https://www.ontario.ca/page/state-ontarios-protected-areas-report SabaBPC (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is very promotional. --Devoke water 11:32, 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]

Comment I tried to clean it up a bit, but it is indeed so promotional that it probably requires WP:TNT. There is evidence of COI on behalf of the article creator.--- Possibly (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search shows what looks like a bare minimum of reliable media sources. I would support a rewrite of the article. Julius177 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius177, what you may be referencing is bare notability which isn’t one & the same as being notable per standards set at WP:NCORP or WP:NGO, if there aren’t in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, then it shouldn’t be on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created the article, I have no conflict. I have no personal relationship with OLTA. I noticed that Wiki has almost no information about land conservation in Canada. To fix this, wiki needs to have information about the 2 treaties mentioned, information about ECAN, then the 3 regional conservation umbrella organizations, then the main land trusts like Nature Conservancy Canada and Ducks Unlimited. Canada and Ontario give conservation grants through OLTA. If it's a quasi-government institution - a public institution - I can't see why it's not notable. I would really appreciate revisions rather than removing content from wiki, which is necessary to educate the public. SabaBPC (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SabaBPC, as long as the articles you intend to create satisfy our general notability criteria for inclusion then you should have no cause to worry but if not they may be deleted. Remember that Wikipedia isn’t an indiscriminate collection of any and all articles. Perhaps try out the WP:AFC method to submitting articles you may want to create in future? That way you are certain the article would most likely be retained on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2021

@Celestina007, thank you - but I do worry because I suppose I quibble a bit with the guidelines. The phrase "significant coverage", if taken to the extreme, means that popular topics get on wiki, and important topics may not. I became a wiki editor around the time I met Donna Strickland and learned that she failed to get a wiki page - as wiki editors did not believe she was important/notable. So I routinely choose important institutions and individuals (mostly women) who may not be popular. Botany, for example, is not as popular as zoology. It does not sell newspapers - and a page I made about a botanist was nominated for deletion - it was hard to push back. So too with land conservation. Coverage tends to be from within. It isn't that I want to be a wiki editor for the sake of being an editor. I'm trying to make sure important topics are covered - specifically related to climate change - and also to ensure the achievements of women and marginalized groups are featured.

On this particular topic, the questioning of OLTA's notability confuses me because OLTA is basically part of the Ontario government. It's how Ontario is doing land conservation. So even if no one were writing about OLTA in the news, it should be here. I note the guidelines re: government organizations is scant. There appears to be a lack of consensus. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong page? SabaBPC (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think enough exists for a Land conservation in Ontario article, but not one on this organization in particular. Most of the sources are discussing the organization in discussions of larger conservation issues. I feel for these types of organizations because by their nature for the most part the coverage will be "Organization X received a grant to do Y" rather than actual coverage of the organization itself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tore Kallstad

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

Disputed PROD: "my lack of norwegian stops me from being able to analyse many of the sources, but there are encouraging sources here - https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Tore%20Kallstad%22&mediatype=aviser" Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and - respectfully - I beg to differ on the sources archived at nb.no, which look to fall short of the sustained, non-trivial coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appears to be sufficient coverage. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the only two that look somewhat significant are [27] and [28]; I'm not sure if that's enough Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 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]

Keep per GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - slightly unconvinced but I think the sources found by Spiderone might just scrape this through GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:39, 11 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! 10:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Avruskin

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

A not notable Entrepreneur fails WP:GNG Hulatam (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His company's Instagram accounts collectively have over 5 million followers. He has been covered on Rotten Tomatoes, the Hustle, Washington Morning, Trends, and FANSIDED. He is also business partners with Mark Cuban.B.KaiEditor (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither being business partners with a famous individual nor the number of followers on social media is a relevant criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only important criterion is principal coverage of the subject in reliable, third-party sources. Of the sources you listed, only The Hustle and Washington Morning come close, but their "About" pages and editorial policies are not encouraging. None of the other references listed as sources for the article qualify as reliable, third-party sources. Mind matrix 14:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be fascinated to know which of "Rotten Tomatoes, the Hustle, Washington Morning, Trends, and FANSIDED" you think are reliable or WP:GNG-worthy sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Avruskin’s work in television and film is indisputible. The sources are linked on his page and online. Additionally, his business dealings are all covered in Front Office Sports, which is linked in the article. This source is reputable, and it highlights his whole business career. If you have any suggestions on how to improve his article, I am all for it and will make the necessary changes, but simply saying the sources are not good enough, is not a good reflection of this article. Thank you for your concern and commitment to making Wikipedia a better place for all of us editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.KaiEditor (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and MindMatrix. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the coverage is the substantial coverage from reliable independent sources that is the connerstone of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, John Pack Lambert. I noticed that you voted against keeping this article. I looked at your logs for March 1, and all you did that day was go through deletion discussions. In every single deletion discussion, you voted to delete the article, which is already a red flag (there were about fifty that you voted on). Additionally, the time stamps show that you are averaging about two minutes per article, showing that there is no way you can have a complete understanding of the situation when you practically spend no time looking into it. Just because the person is not a household name does not mean that they are not notable. Also, you have had about fifteen articles speedily deleted in February 2021, which makes me wonder if you should really be voting in these discussions. I mean this in no disrespect, but I implore you to slow down and learn more about these individuals. Thank you; I know you have good intentions. B.KaiEditor (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~B.KaiEditor, If they are not notable then the vote will be delete. Please stop judging and criticizing others as it's against Wikipedia policy. Hulatam (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was nothing personal; don’t get my message twisted. I was stating the obvious, and I have nothing against this individual. I find it quite disrespectful when one judges without knowing the whole and in turn, totally disregarding my hard work and research. That is not appreciated. I would never attack someone because of their personality. I recall I said, “I mean this in no disrespect." I am not trying to make enemies, and this doesn't need to be argument. I was just sharing my findings, which I thought to be relevant. I am sorry to stir up any trouble; that was never my intention. B.KaiEditor (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page should be kept. This page on Avruskin seems to pass WP:GNG because there are significant sources cited in his page an online that are independent of the subject and deemed to pass WP:RS. Because the subject of this pages passes WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG, it should be kept. Jonathan170 (talk) 00:50, 6 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]

delete per nom, no indication of notability. --hroest 22:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough. There are plenty of sources that provide enough context to show his notability, even if it is small. There are plenty of other bio articles that have far less notable individuals. The sources back up the article information, so there are no issues involving living people bio violations. Sure, there aren’t dozens of mainstream sources, but that doesn’t mean the person isn’t notable. Not everyone notable interacts on mainstream platforms. I’d prefer to keep and just modify the structure to make it a sound a little less promotional. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 05:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. There is broad but very shallow coverage in less than reliable sources. I know something about gaming law in North America, and I've never heard of this person or their business. By every indication, this is a run of the mill business person. In 2021, it is untenable that a person could assert that Wikipedia should have no standards for inclusion. I am not a total deletionist, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references here are not reliable sources for the purposes of meeting WP:GNG — GNG does not just indiscriminately count up the footnotes and keep anybody who has surpassed an arbitrary number, but tests the sources for their reliability (e.g. you can't use blogs), their independence of the subject (e.g. you can't use press releases self-published by his own employers, or the directory entries of his own films in the catalogues of film festivals they've screened at), their depth (i.e. it's not enough that his name gets mentioned in a source, if said source isn't about him in any meaningful way), and the context of what they're covering the person for (i.e. you can't use Q&A interviews in which he's the person doing the talking, but not the thing being spoken about). Literally the only footnote here that actually comes from a legitimately reliable or GNG-worthy media outlet is a CBC Radio hit (#9), but that's present only to verify a stray fact about somebody else whose name happens to be present in the text, and isn't about Aaron Avruskin for the purposes of actually helping to establish his notability. GNG requires real journalism about him in real media, not just any web page you can find that happens to have his name in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Bearcat. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:40, 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 merge to Takanawa#Notable sites. Daniel (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stone wall in Takanawa seashore

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

Does not establish notability under WP:NBUILD (not a national historic site). Failed to find reliable sources in English and Japanese. Allanlw 04:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Allanlw 04:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a stub, and not very well written. The title should perhaps be something like "Historical Takanawa seawall". (In English we assume historical walls are made of stone). I could not immediately find "official" (text) sources, but this is mentioned in a number of sensible-looking blogs, and for example there is a "proper printed book" sign: photo from blog. (This is a photo of a local government publication, which is a WP:RS.) Imaginatorium (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Takanawa#Notable_sites per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now with the option of later re-creation. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 10 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) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girideepam Bethany School

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

There's nothing sourcing wise to justify this being notable. This article has sat for 12 years with no sources at all, which is a very clear violation of our verifiability rules. A quick google search turned up no reliable sources at all. JaiMahadev (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is blocked/banned. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 12:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the school is clearly not notable and therefore fails WP:NORG. There doesn't even seem to be the usual trivial news story sources that a lot of schools have. Not that it would matter if did. Since their has to be more then passing mentions. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:06, 6 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) 03:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delta 8 (brand)

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

Of the three sources, two don't mention this company specifically and the first is a puff-piece interview. Does not meet GNG. Written by a SPA, probably COI, and is a declined AFC. May even qualify for G11 CSD. MB 02:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MB 02:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MB 02:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't want to soft-delete on the basis that it will likely be contested at some point, so relisting to establish clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - completely WP:PROMO, but has received recent coverage in the NYT and NYP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I rejected this one at AFC. It's a tricky one to verify and do WP:BEFORE on because Delta-8 is both a chemical (of which there is sigcov) and a brand (of which there does not appear to be sigcov). This particular article is just about the brand. The three sources in the article I evaluate as follows: #1 is an interview so not independent. #2 I didn't evaluate yet, but am willing to evaluate if somebody quotes the line where Delta 8 the brand is mentioned. #3 does not appear to mention delta 8, therefore not significant coverage. The two sources in the comment above I evaluate as follows: #1 The NYT article doesn't mention the brand at all, only the chemical, so no significant coverage of the brand. #2 The New York Post is not a reliable source, per WP:RSPSOURCES. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, and the analysis by Novem Linguae. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per Novem Linguae.-KH-1 (talk) 23:28, 13 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. Noting that CSD G5: pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, is also applicable. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by individuals

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

I've been party to various "is this a meaningful list or isn't it" debates, but I reckon this takes the biscuit. WP:LISTCRUFT -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it isn't a meaningless list, the list isn't intended to be only a simple list of links, but should include the number of works to every entry, thereby allowing a comparison of lifetime production. I think my original inspiration was Wittgenstein "genius" but only published 1 book during his lifetime, compared to, for example, Picasso who was prolific. John B123, Rodw reviewed the article and didn't think it was needing deletion, so your opinion is currently in a minority (probably) of 1:3. Perhaps you'd like to refer to Chunking (psychology) "...individual pieces of an information set are broken down and then grouped together in a meaningful whole...", I couldn't think of any other meaning to "biscuit" than dog-food (with biscuits) (I don't own a dog), or biscuits (human biscuits), I don't own any either, and don't want to (sorry to be flippant) i am uniquepw (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable or defining about the entries in this list, and thus no need for it to exist. Suggest, based on history and articles under discussion, creator take a pause to learn more about Wikipedia policies before diving into creation. Courtesy pings to John B123 who are mentioned above. StarM 18:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reading further into their cited reason for creation makes me endorse the second half of my comment. The issue is not Tolstoy v. Leo Tolstoy (as in disambiguation needed), which seems to be the creation reason. Courtesy @PamD: StarM 19:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: "nothing notable or defining about the entries in this list, and thus no need for it to exist." the subject is "productivity" "works" ---> number of works i am uniquepw (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the list would be useful because by seeing numbers of works produced: for example Wittgenstein produced 1 published philosophical work in his lifetime + "genius" compared to Pablo Picasso - who produced 1000's, people could identify patterns of causes to different productivity - the defining aspects are: creativity & productivity i am uniquepw (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC) correction after signature i am uniquepw (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

btw @DoubleGrazing: Crufts < ---> WP:LISTCRUFT "biscuit" ----> sorry about your biscuit, it wasn't me honestly i am uniquepw (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC) correction after signature i am uniquepw (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: your biscuit was taken (the guy had flees, he must have taken it and ... (had fleas) - I don't fleas, and I never have i am uniquepw (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC) pinged after signature (the only thing I have done needing an apology, because I'm not guilty, by rights of ... my tale is true, I am not a roamer (i.e. "indiscriminate") to sniff out i am uniquepw (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC) corrected error after signature ---> "done" (a do-do I don't stink, really - my work is eau de toilette, not a stinky mess) i am uniquepw (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an AfD discussion is not really the place for the above, Uniquepw StarM 19:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- true i am uniquepw (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC) change after signature i am uniquepw (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I copied the article to my sandbox, so it's possible I won't argue if others think deletion is necessary i am uniquepw (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge to List of everything on Earth) per WP:SALAT: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". Hopelessly indiscriminate. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i am unique pw is moving the goalposts. How numerically prolific an individual is - something not explicitly specified as a criterion or implied in any way by the article title - is a rather meaningless statistic. As Gimli would say, the Sistine Chapel ceiling "still only counts as one" work, the same as the three-word poem "Lines on the Antiquity of Microbes". Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so I agree the scope is too broad and decided to divide the article to list of fine art works, list of scientific writings, list of fictional writings, list of philosophical writings - based on number of works, lifetime, years active ... within my sandbox i am uniquepw (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a lot of Category:Works by creator. Category:Philosophical works by writer, you got list of works by painters, writers, filmmakers, and others. List of works by Stephen King is on the list. Every single writer who has enough work to have a separate article to list it all could be on this vague list. Doesn't seem to serve any point as it is now. Not sure if this navigational list can be turned into anything useful. Dream Focus 23:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. Far too broad of a topic for a list. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad for this website to handle. Mohanabhil (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too broad as per WP:SALAT. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~This would include many, many thousands of notable works by hundreds of different authors.~~ This is a list of lists that lacks clear, specific inclusion criteria. One link took me to a list of buildings by the same architect. In principle, it could include hundreds of bibliographies and discographies, plus some filmographies for directors. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) ~~23:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)~~ 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:SALAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also, article was created by a sock of Whalestate, who has now been blocked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Onel5969, I wondered whose sock that was as he was quacking. I've !voted so I won't delete it. StarM 17:04, 12 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Dickson

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted about three months ago for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; this still applies despite what's written in the article. The Scottish Championship is not listed at WP:FPL so his 26 min appearance doesn't pass the guideline (see Soccerbase and Soccerway). In terms of coverage, I'm seeing a few hype pieces in Rangers News but nothing really in independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY currently. Not to mention this article has no sources. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without sources, unverifiable against either general notability or association football notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. possibly restore the orginal page and add sources from todays match????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnelwaq (talk • contribs)

Have you found any sources showing significant coverage? That 26 min appearance was not in a fully professional league so, unless he has received coverage that would allow him to pass WP:GNG, there isn't any point in restoring the previously deleted article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No sources. fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fully agree with the points made above. No sign of notability at present. Might go on to meet NFOOTBALL, but clearly does not at the moment. Dunarc (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- WTF needs to be done here, I have updated the page. If he does not class as notable then have a look at the rest of the Queen opof the South player pages as I doubt all of them are notable as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnelwaq (talk • contribs)

@Johnelwaq: - the issue seems to be that it has been determined (I don't know the background to this, TBH) that the Scottish Championship ceased to be a fully professional league at the end of the 2019-20 season. Therefore, players who played in it prior to then are eligible for articles, but anyone who has only played in it since then (like Dickson) is not (unless they meet the over-arching general notability guideline, which he doesn't seem to do......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 11 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 Operation Claw-Eagle 2. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gara massacre

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:POVFORK of Operation Claw-Eagle 2. This fork uses unreliable sources (for example, Erdogan's state-run media, Anadolu Agency) (compare with sources at Operation Claw-Eagle 2#References and Operation Claw-Eagle 2#Further reading). It portrays the death of 13 hostages (the responsibility for which is still debated) as a "massacre". Compare with how the NYT describes it: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed the United States and opposition Kurdish politicians in an effort to deflect responsibility for a failed rescue operation. [29]. The title "Gara massacre" is not backed by RS, and is highly POV, and perhaps should not be kept even as a redirect. There is nothing to merge because nothing is in this fork that isn't already stated with better sources and more neutrally at Operation Claw-Eagle 2. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha.. One more hostility to Erdogan ... killing civilians is a massacre. Turkey is a democratic country. Turkey a republic. Also, the title has nothing to do with Erdogan, nor with the media. The title is remarkable, let it stay. Resource-owned media organizations are independent, not state monopolies. -Pivox (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pivox's !vote is below. Miniapolis 14:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the fact that the incident got coverage even from Cumhuriyet and Bianet, and the article is detailed enough to deserve its own article. Although I agree the problem about excessive usage of somewhat biased/unreliable sources like Daily Sabah and Anadolu Agency, that should be addressed in the article talk page instead of here, in my opinion. Plus, there's enough amount of reliable and unbiased sources with high amount of coverage if you do a quick Googling. For example, here is a less biased content, also includes speeches about the event by politicians: [30] Here is again a coverage about the parliamentary question that given to the minister: [31] (in Turkish) And here is a coverage by Reuters about the aftermath of Gara events: [32]. again, here is another coverage about aftermath and speech of Erdogan: [33] [34] I believe that qualifies an independent article about the events.

Ahmetlii (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough and has lots of coverage. Anadolu and Sabah were only used for statements by foreign representatives in the reactions section, as well as Turkish claim on PKK casualties of the rescue operations. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 20:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note the attempted canvassing on the Turkish Wikipedia village pump, which I have reverted. I will add my own thoughts once I have had a chance to examine the article. --GGT (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Obvious POVFORK of Operation Claw-Eagle 2, presumably created to avoid page bans after a number of editors were banned from that article for trying to editorialise the article in the same way as this one has been. Probably could have been deleted as WP:CSD#A10. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect To Operation Claw-Eagle 2 which has a more NPOV and presents the same information that is up to Wiki standards. Valeince (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect To Operation Claw-Eagle 2 Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect this POV fork per nom and others. In future, the reliable sources noticeboard is thataway. Miniapolis 01:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as PoV fork.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per reasons given by Black Kite.Mr.User200 (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i explained above. -Pivox (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect This page already exist and therefor this AFD we wanted merge this but it was ignored by disruptive users.Shadow4dark (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect – Aside from the fluff sections (background, reactions) the sourcing for the key claims of massacre are either Turkish outlets, linked to the Turkish state or attributing statements to Turkish officials - WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here. Given the absence of sourcing in mainstream, third-party media sources I agree with the nom that this is ultimately a POVFORK of Operation Claw-Eagle 2 to promote the Turkish line (and loaded term) about it being a "massacre". Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Let's break down the points one by one:
- The killing of the hostages and the operation itself seem indistinguishable when it comes to the focus of the sources. If we are splitting hairs, yes, these are two separate entities, but that's not the way RS in general have covered them. So yes, this is a POVFORK and should not exist as an independent article.
- In the ANI thread as well as above I have seen an inclination to treat all sources coming out of Turkey uniformly as products of Turkish propaganda. That's a dangerously simple and to be frank, inappropriately stereotyping narrative that reduces any Turkish voice to either a pro-Erdoğan propagandist or a well-meaning but self-censoring journalist. As any such stereotypes would be, this is incorrect and reflects a certain unfamiliarity with the subject at hand. For all their worth, it is also important to keep in mind that foreign outlets may not have the same insights or connections as native Turkish ones. Outlets such as Birgün and Cumhuriyet, which have maintained their editorial independence at great expense, have also called this event a massacre (see this interview of the father of one of the victims). I really wanted to get this one on the record, but this does not mean that the term "massacre" should be given in Wikivoice, English-language sources clearly don't commonly call this event as such. But it is worth mentioning the use of this term universally in Turkey, by pro- and anti-Erdoğan outlets alike.
- Finally, I find it hard to understand why the nom has argued that there is "nothing to merge" here and why others have jumped on that bandwagon. Clearly, this article has a lot of content that can be merged into the operation article, which does not cover domestic or international reactions nearly as well. Yes, there may be some need for editorial review and cleanup, but outright deletion is clearly unwarranted.
--GGT (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GGT. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 19:18, 10 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) 03:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Vandersteen

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not adequately referenced for the purposes of passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist: the notability test for a mayor hinges on the ability to write and source some genuine substance about their political significance -- specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the city, and on and so forth -- but this is sourced to just four hits of purely local verification of election results, and features no substance at all about his political impact. Making a mayor notable enough for inclusion requires a lot more than just offering technical verification that he won one or more mayoral elections: we need to see some real evidence that his mayoralty is genuinely important, not just minimal proof that it exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and I could only find local coverage about him. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My local mayor, but he does indeed fair WP:NPOL; his mayoral run is purposefully stunted (as will future mayors of my community) due to the actions of Bob Ryan, where an anonymous city administrator now does most of the city's day-to-day business. Nate • (chatter) 23:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I appear to be in the minority who believes mayor of cities over 75,000 are notable. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Sheboygan has a population of 49,000. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close to being a notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:53, 12 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! 06:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Red

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

WP:TOOSOON. Not being released for a year and a half. ... discospinster _talk 16:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. Reasonable to have a draft article but fails WP:NFF as no indication that film is clearly out of pre-production. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:44, 6 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) 03:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Behnam Khedri

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. ... discospinster _talk 16:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - fails GNG. Not mutch about him in Persian, just on sharing websites. The source provided is a promotional piece published on a non notable website that present him as a young singer, inviting readers to follow him on Instagram.Diderotd (talk) 14:09, 10 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) 03:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamer Hassan (businessperson)

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

WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Business is notable however, subject lacks notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is truly a borderline case. I would not oppose a redirect, but notability is not gained merely due to co-founding a company or store. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 10 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. Nomination is Withdrawn. I think they just made it in the last few days. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 15:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Trash Mermaids

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Currently non-notable. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 6 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. Daniel (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Street, London

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. While this street existed, not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's claims are false. Following the prod, the article was being improved by Thoughtfortheday but they seem too shy to have removed the impertinent tag. As for the topic, the place is quite historic and there are multiple books specifically about it including The Lodger: His Life on Silver Street and The History of the Church in Silver Street, London. And, as it has a history which goes back centuries until the Germans bombed it, it is naturally covered in general histories of London including London, Past and Present; The History and Antiquities of London; A Book about London: The Streets of London; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is certainly quite a range of material related to Silver Street and this is being added into the article — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would have voted delete based on the current article, just because Shakespeare lived in a house on the street that doesn't make it notable. However, Andrew Davidson's sources check out - there is enough coverage to keep this (particularly in The Lodger: His Life on Silver Street). power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 11 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) 03:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Guestbook

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

Generic hotel site article. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 15:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 6 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) 03:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Physician Recruiters

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

Reads like a press release, was even worse before I cleaned it up, but feel like I am wasting my time given that it provides no independent sources and I can find no substantial coverage other than press releases Dexxtrall (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google News only turns up press releases. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a non-notable organisation, no WP:RS found. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:37, 6 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) 03:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ashley (producer)

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:PRODUCER. scope_creep^Talk 14:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have deleted scores of film producers. His directorial debut was for an indie horror film. I don't see how this person passes the relevant standards of WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, and WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 10 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) 03:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Traver H. Kennedy

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 6 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) 03:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topher Hall

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

Bit-part actor. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 14:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom and WP:RS. I don't see a single reliable source on that page. Please ping me if you find anything better than a deprecated tabloid or user-created content. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 10 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) 03:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Teitelbaum

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

No indication of significance or success that meets WP:NACADEMIC (a range of little-cited papers are listed at Scopus). No substantial coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG (uncritical media appearances don't count). Even if the topic were notable, the article could be worth WP:TNTing per WP:COI or WP:FRINGE as it seems to have been written largely by its subject without a conflict of interest disclosure (at the very least the editor is an WP:SPA), and Teitelbaum appears to be a proponent of "alternative" medicine i.e. pseudoscience, but the article is written thoroughly non-neutrally in promotion of his content. A PROD succeeded in 2016, following which a refund by the suspected COI editor led to the page's reinstatement. — Bilorv (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Science (one controlled human trial) does not meet WP:MEDRS, and the rest of the article is promotional. His notability claim is house of cards. David notMD (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to be an advertising portal for the subject's books and web sites. A search does not find enough sourcing for GNG.--- Possibly (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article reads like a self-promotion / advertisement. In fact, I think it's pretty blatant. This article was proposed for deletion by user Robin hood (here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacob_Teitelbaum and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Teitelbaum&offset=&limit=500&action=history) but it was overturned. Robin hood tried to deleted the article in 2011 and 2016. Reading through the edit history, there are numerous edits that have removed promotional content.--Annemaricole (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ForeverBeach undeleted this article: "17:14, 6 February 2018 diff hist +593‎ Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion ‎ →‎Jacob_Teitelbaum: new section". If this article is deleted now, ForeverBeach will restore it again. Does wikipedia have a method to prevent advertisers from just undeleting the article? If not, what's the point of even deleting articles?--Annemaricole (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Annemaricole: recreations of identical material (or with no significant improvements) can be speedily deleted when tagged by anyone and checked by an admin under criterion CSD G4. Editors can also be blocked for disruptive behaviour. If an article is recreated multiple times it can be salted so that no non-admin can recreate it. However, even a single recreation after a deletion discussion is rare (and has not yet occurred with this article—the page was undeleted via WP:REFUND, as there had not been a full deletion discussion). — Bilorv (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ty --Annemaricole (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annemaricole, there's also speedy deletion criterion G6, specifically the tag {{db-xfd}}. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pseudo-science at best, which, fortunately no-one has paid much attention to judging by the poor set of references supplied. The title should be salted if there is any likelihood of attempts being made to re-create it. Mike Turnbull (talk)

Having been mentioned in this recent discussion, I'm obligated to respond. I am not, nor have I ever been, affiliated in any way with the subject of this listing, Dr. Teitelbaum. No payment, no incentive, no advertising, nothing. Neither was I the creator of the original article however many years ago. But yes, when the listing was inexplicably removed from Wikipedia I made a point of restoring it, adding additional information and links that I acquired with minimal effort via Google and Amazon. The main point, is that I am familiar with his work, not least his seminal book 'From Fatigued to Fantastic', now in its 4th edition across countless printings, remaining a category Top 10 bestseller to this day. As recently as the 1990s, many doctors refused to accept the proposition that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was a diagnosable condition. That all changed with Teitelbaum's book, a 400-page detailed analysis written for medical professionals and laymen alike. How anyone (see above) can call the man's life's work pseudo-science is nonsensical. He has authored other volumes on a wide range of health-related topics, as well as textbook chapters, and journal articles. He has co-authored or collaborated with many notable authors and physicians, including the celebrated Dr. Oz. Despite his advancing age, Teitelbaum still travels the world addressing conventions and symposiums to colleagues of various disciplines. The idea that he should not be included here on Wikipedia is silliness to the extreme, and would be a disservice to the public at large who might encounter his name elsewhere and seek to learn more about him. I urge anyone who doubts the subject's credentials to become more familiar with him. The links in the article are a start. If the article reads to you like some sort of self-promotion, then edit it accordingly. I don't get that sense at all, and certainly never intended as much myself.--ForeverBeach (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ForeverBeach and thanks for what you've written. I hope you understand that the implications that you were associated with the subject comes from the fact that this is true of many users with few edits outside of one particular biography and many articles with similar-looking edit histories on similar topics, but if you're not associated with Teitelbaum then that's fine and we're sorry for the mistaken suggestions. Because Wikipedia can be written by anybody, but there is only quite a small community of dedicated volunteers who maintain its quality (for instance, by reverting obvious vandalism and preventing people from using the site as free advertising space), articles can languish for years in violation of the guidelines we have established as a community because nobody has noticed them. This was the case here, in my opinion, and our jargon of WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG point to pages that explain the criteria we have for hosting biographies on academics (the latter is a more general guideline which applies to literally any article topic). Teitelbaum's work just doesn't seem to me to make the cut. That's not me trying to put him down on a personal level—it's just that a relatively small proportion of people meet the criteria we have decided to put in place for a number of reasons. Those criteria aren't even meant to measure whether somebody's work is valuable, per se, they just establish the limited and pragmatic scope of Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC I have removed some primary sourced promotional content and that doesn't leave anything of value here. Theroadislong (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above rationale. Nightwolf1223 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV - I see a single reliable source cited, which for a biography is tantamount to WP:BLP1E and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. --Kbabej (talk) 00:43, 11 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) 03:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upside Travel

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

Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 6 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) 03:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Workit Health

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

Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 6 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, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-06 ✍️ create

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) 04:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Abbasali Shihab Thangal

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

A non notable leader of a students wing of a political party. Sources are covering about something else rather than the subject. Could not find anything on doing WP:Before and fails GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:NPOL and seemingly fails WP:GNG. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He does not meet WP:GNG Criteria Padavalam🌂 ► 10:45, 11 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) 04:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Armchair Historian

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No reliable sources listed other than YouTube and Twitter - both of which are not reliable. Only sources I could possibly find were the two articles by Forbes, which talks about another YouTube channel covering the similar subjects (and not reliable anyway due to WP:FORBESCON). No luck searching up his real name either. theinstantmatrix (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've seen similar discussions like this before (if I remember, the Canadian politics YouTuber J. J. McCullough is salted at every possible spelling of his name due to repeated creation) in which super fans have been able to make a rather lengthy video off WP:PRIMARY sources such as Q&A sessions and tweets. The only non-social sources I can find are the Gamer and History Net, of which I have no idea of the quality of the source. Amazingly, the second page of results of his real name instead yields "Griffin Johnson", who is apparently a TikTok star. There is no bias against "new media" in Wikipedia's guidelines, as we can find a million sources for PewDiePie or KSI, but not this guy. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be built on sources about a person, not a close watching of their youtube channel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 12 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) 04:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Sadiqali Shihab Thangal

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

Could not find any sources that gives the subject enough WP:SIGCOV. On doing a WP:Before, this [35] was the only source I could find. But this is only his response to a controversy he has involved with. Some other unreliable sources are there regarding the same incident. The subject is only a district committe member of his party and fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could not find anything on WP:Before. Fails GNG Poppified ^talk 07:14, 13 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) 04:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Munavvar Ali Shihab

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

A non notable muslim youth leader, who has neven been elected into any assemblies. The sources provided are not independently giving brief coverage about the subject. They are just mentioning and passing by. And the publisher of this source [36] is the propoganda newspaper of the political party he leads. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:35, 6 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 prejudice against merging or moving. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 08:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Haitian coup d'état attempt

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

Previous PROD, template removed by dynamic IP. WP:NOTNEWS, no apparent notability. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Jovenel Moïse. This is certainly a noteworthy event, with NYT coverage a couple days ago, but without further discussion a merge may be appropriate since it's more relevant to Moise himself. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, per the assessment by Reywas92. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly Rename. There's clearly a political crisis in Haiti [37] that should be separate from Jovenel Moïse's biography. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 10 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 Procedural close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiji Fukushima

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

Current sources don't satisfy WP:BASIC Cuoxo (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cuoxo (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are sufficient for the chairman of the board of directors of Sega one of the largest gaming companies in the world. -- GreenC 14:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Bad faith AfD nominator. Possible extortion scheme. -- GreenC 21:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator blocked as a spam sockpuppet. MER-C 18:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable in Japan --Devoke water 17:26, 12 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 deleted. Thanks for the heads up, Prax. El_C 15:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Eze (entrepreneur)

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

Sources fail in passing WP:GNG Cuoxo (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well known and a popular notable Nigerian entrepreneur and a brand strategist. Dinktods (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete paid for spam and sock creation, see Kevin Eze. CUPIDICAE💕 15:38, 6 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 per G5 (Weareme234). Closing as page was deleted, but this AfD closure does not preclude a non-sockpuppet re-creating the article or merging. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of tourist attractions in Darbhanga

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

Wikipedia is not suppose to be a guidebook. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not fully completed need more things. Simply nominating for deletion. Metteler (talk · contribs) 14:19, 06 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Darbhanga#Tourism. Discussion on landmarks, cityscape, and historic places is needed on that article, not chopped off to a separate page. It is in no way long enough to require a split. Reywas92^Talk 18:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge per Reywas92. I've never liked the use of phrases such as "tourist attraction" or "visitor attraction", which I find subjective compared to "landmark", though I understand there are ENGVAR issues there. Regardless, the title seems to be the nom's sole basis for objection, because Wikipedia does in fact cover what notable landmarks are located in particular places. Doing that does not make this a "guidebook". postdlf (talk) 20:33, 6 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! 06:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Business 2 Community

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

A spammy article about a non-notable black hat SEO platform. BEFORE search finds nothing useful, and the existing sourcing is as follows:

Source analysis

Forbes – "Brand contributor" piece – unreliable.
Bluefocusmarketing – Not really coverage, not an RS.
Constantcontact – Blog. Unreliable.
performancing.com – I had explicitly tell my ad-blocker that I want to visit this one, which probably says something. It also isn't coverage.
business2community – SPS, useless for notability.
original9.com – Blog, not an RS.
Ad Age – 404.
evancarmichael.com – Blog, listicle, unreliable.
business2community #2 – SPS.

Hence delete. Blablubbs|talk 11:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. None of the references are WP:RS. SunDawn (talk) 05:30, 7 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! 06:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HiMama

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

Other than ONE BNN piece, the rest of this is self published/promo (and published in several sites by the same employee of HiMama) so it lacks the necessary independent rs. CUPIDICAE💕 11:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Of no value, and does not meet the requirements for BLP — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sadly, there is some coverage here. It's not huge, but this terrifying little app does seem to be known in the press. E.g. Treehugger: "I was asked to download an app called HiMama and soon began receiving detailed accounts about his day. Everything from the meals he eats and how much, to when he sleeps and uses the potty is recorded, along with occasional pictures." Or this: "New app keeps Durham parents in the loop while kids are at daycare", and the Financial Times (I could only see the snippet), and finally, this. The company has a 1300% growth rate, so no doubt more coverage is on the way. --- Possibly (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than ft, those aren't really meaningful rs and they mostly just quote a piece written by the owners. If more coverage is "on the way", I'd be surprised given the article is 4 years old and the app is 7. It's not really a case of too soon. CUPIDICAE💕 15:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, Possibly the ft piece is an op-ed. See this. CUPIDICAE💕 15:39, 8 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 or advertorials, 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. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 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 redirect to List of Sri Lanka Schools XI representative cricketers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadhula de Silva

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. As with so many other articles incorrectly listed for deletion, passes WP:CRIN by virtue of having played first class cricket. In this instance he also played four U19 ODIs, adding to the importance of the article. Furthermore, it's unclear what sources have been looked at by proposers for deletion, but it has been possible to add a large number of references from CricInfo, including match reports referencing the article subject by name.DevaCat1 (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sri Lanka Schools cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY for when a player has 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of Sri Lanka Schools XI representative cricketers. No significant coverage so fails GNG, which trumps the trivial pass of NCRIC, which is by consensus a very weak SNG for cricketers such as this with very few recorded appearances (and we don't even have an article for the competition they were played in!). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my before search turned up only the directory sources in the article, and it was a U-19 match anyway he played in which wouldn't pass any other sport notability guideline, further showing how loose NCRIC is. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sri Lanka Schools XI representative cricketers - no evidence of the coverage required for GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 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! 06:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bastian Harper

AfDs for this article:

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

I see no change in notability since the first AFD in 2012 but figured after 8 years it needed to go again. Fails NMUSIC, no meaningful coverage in German or English and quite frankly appears to be vanity spam. CUPIDICAE💕 11:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. See also the result of the first nomination and on YouTube, he only has 31 subscribers. -Cupper52^Discuss! 11:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It appears an autobiography. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom:Not notable Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 16:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello my fellow wikipedians, maybe you don't see any relevance for my article, because the artist in the article is "too small" in your eyes .... I wish one would give up-and-coming musicians, who are not yet so well known also a chance, and not only the larger ones, like that also in such a way, does which you for correct holds....had actually rather your assistance with my article hoped, than only depreciating remarks...I thank you nevertheless....ein attempt was worth it...lg wikileseratte

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:F3F:E4B0:DC5C:B8A5:9988:C040 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An additional reason for me to support deletion is: He has 110 followers on Soundcloud, <700 on Instagram and 488 on Facebook, despite being verified on Spotify. -Cupper52^Discuss! 11:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello everybody, Bastian Harpers Profile on Facebook has nearly 4000 followers https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100046689306568 , but which guideline at wikipedia says how many followers an artist must have to get a wikipedia article? i think we should not reduce ourselves to such things....much more important is the music and the lifeblood what is in it, even if not so many people have discovered so many emerging artists, it does not mean that they are bad or could get more attention. ...The BirdsShedTears I like to look at the Nina Hagen article and try to build it up so similar..but I need some time ...warm greetings to all wikipedianer....all the best for you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikileseratte (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello everybody ,i try to find sources : Hits Paris Newspaper: http://www.laparisiennelife.com/2020/08/le-hit-dance-la-parisienne-life-n-233-24-aout-2020.html bastian harper horny night #25 ,http://www.laparisiennelife.com/2019/05/le-hit-dance-la-parisienne-life-n-167-24-mai-2019.html Bastian Harper - Im a Freak #10, Radio Antenne Berlin Bastian Harper - Stranger in my Eyes Mainstreamlist: https://onlineradiobox.com/track/1476360407980958745/?cs=de.radioitsfun , Radio: 8 Songs in 10 Radio Stations Europe :https://onlineradiobox.com/artist/315539612-bastian-harper and so on.... i hope you can give a chance ,because you have already approved many artists from Kontorrecords Germany..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontor_Records thx for yor time and for reading ..i hope i can convince you of my very first article in english..wikileseratte 8 March 2021 ill try to learn about wikipedia programming, maybe i need som help...thx

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. The nominator has opted to change their view and would have sought to withdraw if all !votes supported clear retention. As this is not the case, closing as keep would not be appropriate, although delete !votes do not consider the sources subsequently identified. Any editor wishing to relist at AfD may renominate without prejudice. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kifuta Kiala

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

It seems he fails NFOOTY, with no appearances higher than Portugal's third tier or Germany's fourth tier. [38] looks like it may be SIGCOV, but I cant find any other decent sources, so at the moment, I think it also fails GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG and NFOOTY failure. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above fails GNG and NFOOTY. Pilean (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the NFOOTY test. HawkAussie (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my previous attempt to look for this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Kifuta_Kiala: fails GNG and NFOOTY. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep What about three kicker articles solely about him: [39], [40], [41]? Would they not satisfy WP:GNG? Robby.is.on (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first one is alright (the one I gave in the nomination), but the other two seem a little too WP:ROUTINE to me, though perhaps others may disagree. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources provided above as well as this article in Fussball, are enough to pass WP:GNG, in my view. I also found a small article in Correio da Manhã, which contains some coverage here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The source in the nom and the source found by Spiderone mean I feel this has enough for GNG now, and have struck my nom accordingly. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Microwave Anarchist: Whilst nominators are of course allowed to change their mind, this AfD has seen a number of other editors already express a view for deletion and so on that basis, the nomination cannot be withdrawn as it would not be uncontroversial. You have now expressed that your view has changed and the reasons, which is fine. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: yes, I didn't attempt to withdraw for that reason. If the original nom should be unstruck, that's fine. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:19, 13 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 Quip. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gibbs

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

Doesn't look notable to me. All the press mentions just briefly state that he is a co-founder of Quip. Probably should be re-directed to the company's page. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no coverage found. Lacks WP:GNG. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a google book search on {"Kevin Gibbs Google Suggest" -wikipedia} and found several hits. He looks to meet WP:GNG on just that. Jeepday (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, per nom. Fails WP:GNG. The search suggested by Jeepday returns no results. There are Google Book search results for other Kevin Gibbs. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SailingInABathTub are these references for a different Kevin Gibbs ref1 ref2 Jeepday (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that this counts as WP:SIGCOV, but as I'm not sure I'll retract my vote. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Notability is inherited from the company. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:45, 12 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 Slavic#Languages, alphabets, and names. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic language (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page is not required. It is an incomplete list of entries that are already linked from Slavic languages. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slavic#Languages, alphabets, and names without having to merge anything. Unnecessary dab-fork. The latter dab page comprises all (and even more!) language targets in the one proposed for deletion here. –Austronesier (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all entries are covered there. If redirecting should be the outcome, it could point there. Sorabino (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support that too (nom) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Slavic#Languages, alphabets, and names. Unneeded DAB, all it does is create a layer between the reader and the content they are looking for which is at the target. No reason to have an extra step. // Timothy :: talk 06:18, 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 (G12). MER-C 18:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Korres

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

Poorly-sourced promo/vanity piece. Search finds nothing beyond social media and similar. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails GNG and N. -Cupper52^Discuss! 11:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources fails in passing WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came to add that this possibly needs salting as well, given its history, but I now notice that it's been speedied already as copyvio. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:16, 6 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pär Olofsson

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

Subject is only known for creating album cover art. Does not meet WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has three interviews in Swedish mainstream media about his career: [42][43][44]. Although it is WP:SIGCOV, it's not the strongest WP:GNG pass. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Via Google Translate, the sources located by the previous voter are friendly interviews and don't go into much depth, so I respectfully disagree on WP:SIGCOV. Otherwise, Olofsson seems to be making a solid living as an artist known to musicians (some quite notable) within the extreme metal scene. Congrats to him, but he has not received significant media coverage in his own right, and (except for those minor interviews) is only visible in the usual professional directories and social media services. He has not received the coverage that is necessary per the most relevant guideline: WP:ARTIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He appears to have a following on indie blogs and death metal websites. Noting much in the way of RS though. He will be ready for an article once a couple of RS publications write profiles on his work.--- Possibly (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON for this artist. I also respectfully disagree that the interviews are SIGCOV, interviews are normally considered primary sources/self-published material so they generally don't count towards GNG notability criteria unless there is a significant amount of content before the interview begins. At this time he does not pass WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --Devoke water 11:48, 13 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. Not quite a soft delete since there's a consensus without opposition. I'm willing to undelete if significant reliable sources (better than what was already in the article) are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Dragon (company)

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

Procedural nomination to get broader input so I abstain. I've declined a WP:G11 request on this as I don't consider it unambiguously promotional and it looks like the author has at least made some attempt to source it to something other than press releases. However, I don't think this company appears likely to reach Wikipedia's notability standards; Wikipedia isn't a directory and we only cover companies that have independent notability in some way, and I'm not seeing that here. The Colorado cannabis market is something about which I know very little and it's possible I just don't know where to look, so I'm neutral on the potential that this is a legitimate topic. ‑ Iridescent 07:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think this is borderline, from whichever side of the fence one looks at it. What the referencing lacks in quality, it tries to make up in quantity, including reusing the same sources multiple times (looks more impressive, I guess, than using named refs); most of the sources are either weak, or don't mention the company in question, but that said there are one or two that are okay. Also the whole piece is rather promotional in nature, with possible COI editing behind it — and even then, it hardly impresses me with the noteworthiness of the company in question. Adding up all that, I fell on the delete side of the fence, but only just. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As per DGrazing. Pilean (talk) 17:06, 7 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) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Beach (band)

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

Run-of-the-mill band. As a draft at AFC, I would decline it as not addressing any of the musical notability criteria, except that I declined the draft as duplicating this article. Also does not address general notability.

Note Number		Independent	Significant
1	Describes band as WP:UPANDCOMING	?	No
2	Interview	No	?
3	Interview	No	?

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naïve Google search shows that the band exists. We knew that. It also shows that the band had a first album. No third-party coverage found (and no third-party coverage listed in sources). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage: [45], [46] (reliable?), middling coverage: [47], [48], [49], more trivial RS coverage: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. Overall, enough to justify an article in my view. --Michig (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig's work. Also, Run for Cover Records is an important indie label, I think. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the sources show significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Agreed that we should integrate the material from the draft article, though. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. There seems to have some coverage to pass the bar. Pilean (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all sources here appear to the product of a music PR push, notability is lacking. Acousmana (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough of the coverage such as Paste Magazine, AllMusic and Stereogum is significant coverage in reliable sources and not pr, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for one, anyone can submit copy to Allmusic, and labels/music pr firms do this routinely to raise profiles of bands/artists, so this does not constitute "significant coverage," Stereogum is also dubious with respect to connections to pr companies - it's how this industry works, nobody wrote about this band because they were notable. Acousmana (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic bios and reviews are written by Allmusic staff writers. They are absolutely not written by labels or PR firms. --Michig (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if you check out most of the newish acts listed in this AFD category you will find that the overwhelmingly majority do not have a staff written bio or album reviews which they would have if AllMusic really was a pr operation. In fact what they mainly get is a database entry only. Even the NYT welcomes submissions as do many reliable publications, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 13 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rohrbough

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

Non-notable political candidate, who ran as the vice-presidential nominee for a minor party in 2008. He did not receive the coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG before, after or during that campaign, and he fails WP:NPOL, as he has never held elected office. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete Only ran for a very minor party. -Cupper52^Discuss! 11:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete As per above explained by Cupper52. Cuoxo (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being vice-presidential candidate of a minor fringe party is not an automatic notability freebie under WP:NPOL — it can get a person in the door if he can be shown to clear WP:GNG on his sourceability, but is not "inherently" notable for the purposes of exempting him from having to have a GNG-worthy volume of sourcing. But there are just three footnotes here, of which two are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the third is a dead link that appears to have simply been video of him speaking, which also isn't a notability-making source. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable minor party candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 11 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 keep. Withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atinia (gens)

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

This article covers the same Roman family group as the article called Atinia gens. Chewings72 (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chewings72 (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Chewings72 (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chewings72 (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Chewings72 (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Chewings72 (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If true this issue should behandled with a merge.★Trekker (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Update There is no article named "Atinia gens".★Trekker (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Treker P Aculeius How embarrassing. My apologies. You are correct. It is Atilia gens. So no duplication. Please accept my withdrawal of AFD. Chewings72 (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. *puts away torch and pitchfork* P Aculeius (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Mistaken nomination in good faith, withdrawn. Avilich (talk) 14:39, 6 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Synthesis

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

Totally unsourced article. A search reveals no coverage anywhere at all, massively failing WP:GNG, and no indication of passing WP:NMUSIC either. ser! (chat to me). 04:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ser! (chat to me). 04:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ser! (chat to me). 04:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ser! (chat to me). 04:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It turns out that they have a media mention in a reliable source, Blabbermouth: [56]. Unfortunately a basic album announcement is not particularly significant. Otherwise I can only find them at the usual retail and streaming services. This WP article is old but the edit history shows that it started as a pretty obvious attempt at promotion, by themselves or a fan back in 2007, with very little of substance added since. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doomsdayer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Altough I am a fan of this type of music, there is not a single citation for this to make it qualify and it also doesnt meet the musician notablity guidelines. Lesliechin1 (talk) 05:38, 10 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aanenkilum Allenkilum

AfDs for this article:

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

Movie which was shelved before 2019 as per this The Indian Express article - [57] . Not notable enough to merit an article per WP:NFILM Jupitus Smart 04:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as there is no references that the film was ever released. Fails NFF. Kolma8 (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources fails in meeting WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF Donaldd23 (talk) 12:56, 6 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. I am not seeing a consensus for a redirect, which an editorial decision can be made about separately. Taking my admin hat off, I'll note that while Minecraft#Gameplay discusses it, "The End Poem" or "End Poem" are not mentioned by name, and many sources don't give it this name in a general (i.e. non-Minecraft) context, so it's arguably not a good redirect. — The Earwig (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The End Poem

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

I can't see how the End Poem would be independently notable of its own, apart from its sole use in a video game Minecraft. No reliable sources on this article other than Boing Boing, which is an interview. Plus the article content wholly screams WP:VGSCOPE violation to me. theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC) edited 06:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just seems like complete fancruft and Wikia material to me. Fails GNG per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Since it is mostly unsourced, there is not much to merge either (and Minecraft already mentions the sole sourced fact that Gough wrote it). IceWelder [✉] 09:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources fails WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is barely relevant in the context of the game's own wiki. Mia (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the above. Barely notable fan stuff. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minecraft#Gameplay, where it is mentioned. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and Notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minecraft#Gameplay per Devonian Wombat. Haleth (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Minecraft#Gameplay because it clearly needs to be removed for redundancy purposes, but deletion via the deletion policy is a bit unnecessary. Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see a redirect as being useful given that this is a pretty obscure topic even in the game itself. Page itself is nothing but fancruft that is of no use to anybody but hardcore fans. Namcokid 47 00:33, 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. Obvious consensus. Note that the article was also a copyvio. Anarchyte (talk • work) 11:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalis in South Africa

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

Infobox says that 150 people belong to this community. Both references are dead. I couldn't find notability criteria for ethnic groups, but this doesn't seem to justify an article. Park3r (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Seems to be a relic of a time when some editors thought that Wikipedia should have an article about every nationality-country pairing. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources fails in passing WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Nationals from country X in country Y" has no default notability, and a Google search produces no WP:SIGCOV for this paring. FWIW, though the community figure has risen to 500 residents (including temporary residents such as students). –Austronesier (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, google alone is not the source of WP:SIGCOV as per wiki policy. Any print or online media can be considered as for SIGCOV. See also -Is google search reliable?. Migration of people from one nation to another is a historic event. Registering it is a great value to any encyclopedia for those who want to begin his research in this field. I think that is what the motto of Wikipedia is as well- to be a starting point of research. Whoever had created the article, should have similar logic behind its creation. nirmal (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I pulled up one of the references in archive.org [58] and it looks like the article is also a copyvio. There's nothing here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:39, 11 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. Fenix down (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macarthur FC–Western Sydney Wanderers FC rivalry

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Of the provided sources, only this one mentions the existence of a rivalry at all, and still does not cover the rivalry aspect in significant depth. The rivalry also appears to have only existed for one year thus far; it is likely WP:TOOSOON for serious coverage to have been written about this subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not much of a rivalry yet! Govvy (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NRIVALRY, sports rivalries do not inherently warrant stand-alone articles and the subject must meet GNG. There is not enough to establish notability for this supposed rivalry at this moment and any suggestion that this rivalry will be notable in future is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with he nom as it way too soon for this rivalry to exist yet, maybe in the future this could be one but for now I say delete. HawkAussie (talk) 01:25, 8 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. The keep argument does not reflect policy and the source analysis and delete arguments are compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka (Times magazine)

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

I prodded this with "e coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (media) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". Prod was removed with no meaningful rationale, article has not been improved, so here we go. At best this could be redirected to The_Times#Related_publications where the subject is mentioned (I'd do so myself but given the PROD was simply removed with no redirect I expect redirecting would be challenged, plus I dislike stealth deletion by redirecting w/ no discussion). And hey, maybe someone can dig up something I missed and rescue this as a stand-alone entry? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic appears as a detailed case study in the book Designing News and won a gold medal for design, being described as "Maybe the best magazine in the world". So, as usual, this is a failure of WP:BEFORE and our policy WP:ATD applies – "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, The award from Society for News Design seems very niche. The source is effectively a press release (an announcement from the SfND) and the organization page does not suggest it is even notable in the current state. The book seems more relevant, and there seem to be something on pages 92-96, which have a heading case study: eureka / the times, but unless someone can get access and confirm there is substantive analysis, we are rather close to WP:GOOGLEHITS. Anyway, I would say that the book is probably a good source, but the award, sourced to a press release, is niche and irrelevant. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The two sources in the article are the magazine itself, and a source that doesn't mention the magazine (from the link or from a search). Andrew's sources per usual are not SIGCOV. The magazine did not win a gold medal, the Times of London did for their design, the article has a few comments from the judges, definitely not SIGCOV. The Google books again is about the Times of London design of the magzine with no SIGCOV about the actual subject - the magazine. // Timothy :: talk 13:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the design of something is obviously coverage of the thing in question and so those sources are certainly WP:SIGCOV. The quotation above makes this clear, "Maybe the best magazine in the world". Andrew🐉(talk) 21:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, The quotation would be more convincing if it wasn't sourced to a press release. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 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! 06:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom United

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

I don't think this meets WP:ORGCRITE. This piece in The Independent appears to be the extent of independent coverage in reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: oppose/keep Hello, I think Freedom United does indeed meet WP:ORGCRITE. Numerous reliable sources have covered the organization; please view all recent sources here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rxt6jvjCJmkV3qWDMg4rwgalf69odNmLhQ8_FQPfkbc/edit#gid=0. . Carloladd (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Carlo[reply]

I looked through a few of the more promising entries in that spreadsheet and was not satisfied by what I found. The entries there all appear to be either trivial or non-independent coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: oppose/keep These independent articles all reference Freedom United as a NGO doing solid work: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201013005758/en/NGOs-Are-Industry-and-Governments-Watering-Down-New-Cocoa-Report-Data-to-Downplay-Persistent-Child-Labor-and-Farmer-Poverty; https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2020/12/21/the-bitter-truth-behind-hot-chocolate-this-christmas/?sh=6da5201e566b; https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/interview-why-does-freedom-united-use-the-term-modern-slavery/; A Freedom United petition recorded in Australia's Hansard - the official parliamentary record https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/c213941c-eb14-4c54-a8dc-11b938aad7dc/&sid=0044(use CTRL F to find!); The UK government appointed Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner supports a Freedom United initiative in her official report to UK parliament https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/918675/CCS207_CCS0520602790-001_IASC_Annual_Report_2019-2020_Web_Accessible_final.pdf (page 44, 7.1.3); report posted on the UN Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights website by the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Slavery/SR/Freedom_United_Hidden_Viticims_COVID19_Moden_Slavery.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6b0:cc50:ccfe:723f:d7f8:3843 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are good sources, unfortunately. Business Wire is a press release, clearly not independent; Forbes is a trivial mention; openDemocracy is an interview; the last few similarly do not have significant coverage or are non-independent primary sources. We need to see significant coverage of the organization itself. If these are the best sources you can provide then this organization does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. — The Earwig (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:22, 6 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 Procedural close. Nominator has been blocked and no further support for deletion. The article can be renominated at any time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John McPheters

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

Recreation of a previously deleted page. Most of the sources talk about company, misses in-depth sources. Hulatam (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the Talk Page where I accidentally put it last week...

As the creator of the page I am obviously not thrilled with the idea of having spent several hours researching and creating an article for it to be deleted. This is not a re-creation of a deleted page, it's a new creation in place of a previously deleted page put together by a now-banned editor I have no relationship with. I found the dead link on the Stadium Goods page and, not knowing about the history, thought I'd give creation a go. When doing so, I got the note about a previous article and held off on my work. Instead, I did my due diligence in checking in with the person who had done the deletion to ensure that he hadn't deleted for reasons other than the lack of trust in the original author. I felt that, having confirmed before the article was created that it was worthy of creation (the convo was originally on the article's talk page and is now on mine), I was good to go, but took a lot of care to ensure the article follows the rules for creating biographies for people who are relatively unknown. The article is not about a company, it is about a person. In fact, I mention 8 companies and 2 universities in 8 lines, so hardly a focus on a company.

The deletion for lack of notability is absolutely not in line with Wikipedia's general notability guideline as the criteria required to be met are actually met:

"Significant coverage": 4 of 10 sources are directly about the subject, all others have extensive mentions of him even if the primary focus are the companies he founded "Reliable": Forbes, WWD, Complex, Business of Fashion and the Wall Street Journal are definitely all reliable sources with journalistic independence and integrity. I consciously left out sources like Yahoo and when citing articles about Stadium Goods avoided any sources that sounded like a copy of a corporate press release. "Sources": All but one of the cited sources are secondary sources (there is no named record of his university attendance other than speaker notes at a Fastcompany event). There are 10 sources and 12 citations on an article that currently spans 7 lines. "Independent of the subject": It is. I don't know John McPheters. I understand that notability is relative and that the bio guideline is clear that just because the above criteria are met, it is not guaranteed that a person deserves a mention. I also agree that the article is thin, but that is a feature of my time constraints not of its topic. Another article I created a few years back on ShopStyle is not much longer and currently spans 8 lines. It deserves a "please help build out this article" note, not a deletion warning.

I edit mostly smaller company and lesser-known people's pages as I am a huge fan of not equating size with importance. If someone has created a company with a unique model - as John has done with Stadium Goods - they deserve a mention if the criteria are met otherwise the world will continue to be dominated by big corporate entities and the contribution of individuals continue to be ignored.

Incidentally, you may notice that I did not create an article for Jed Stiller even though he also has a dead link from Stadium Goods, which is what motivated me to create John's article in the first place. While I have no opinon about Jed's contribution to the company (I also don't know him), I couldn't find a single citable source about him and thus decided that - unlike John - he did not meet the necessary criteria for a standalone page.

TineWiki (talk)

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, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create, 2020-10 ✗ G5

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:22, 6 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 18:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Chapagain

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BLP and not notable musician /writer to be here. Owlf 03:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Owlf 03:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Owlf 03:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Owlf 16:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, SIGCOV seems limited to a single article in Republica, not enough by itself to establish a WP:GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Sources fails in satsifying WP:MUSICBIO. Pilean (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reliable sources are weak and Non notable writer. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:26, 9 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! 06:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas R. Kennedy Jr.

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 01:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article originally created by a WP:SPA with a likely WP:COI. Since then, other editors have toned down some of the promotional text, but what remains is largely a description of two firms with which the subject has been associated, BackOffice Associates (deleted at AfD in 2019) and Zudy. Searches find announcement-based coverage which would be classed as trivial relative to WP:CORPDEPTH on these companies; I am not seeing evidence that the subject is notable. AllyD (talk) 13:26, 6 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! 06:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nimesh Gurung

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

The subject is not competing at the elite level of the sport and has insufficient coverage in significant third party sources to meet general notability. Also, the creator may possibly be the subject, given the username. SFB 01:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: largely WP:ORIGINAL, likely written by article subject (or someone closely related) and fails WP:NPOV. Lack of significant coverage in reliable third party sources to pass WP:GNG. — Eliyr [ talk ] 06:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable runner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 12 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 01:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sushant Public School

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

The article has no source and quite clearly its a WP:GNG failing article. The image in second heading also seems to be promotional as the person portrayed has the school named after him.It is not incorrect to call it an article written for the purpose of advertisement. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability, even claimed, let alone demonstrated (as completely unsourced); a search finds nothing better than social media mentions, directory listings, etc. Hence fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. (Could have been speedied, if only that was an option for educational establishments...) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my searches find no substantial coverage, and there's no apparent place to redirect to. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional rubbish with 0 sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per John Pack Lambert. TheWikiholic (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per User:TheWikiholic. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:04, 10 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] ttps://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Charting_the_Course/fas3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Carissa+Christensen%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA70&printsec=frontcover

[2] ttps://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/FOURTH_SEMIANNUAL_REPORT_OF_ACTIVITIES_J/g9agfChD4ycC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Carissa+Christensen%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA82&printsec=frontcover

[1]

[2]