Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 22	April 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artificio Conceal

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

like the others in the Qanir series, still isn't notable. Being nominated for these festivals is misleading as anyone can submit content to them, it's virtually meaningless and there is an absence of meaningful coverage of the film. TAXIDICAE💰 15:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G11; article was created by the filmmaker Ayoubqanir. Looks like Seraphimblade deleted Ayoub Qanir for the same reason. Came across this when related content was inserted at Polly Morgan (cinematographer). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G11 and as per nom. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Research Centre

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

Fails WP:V. There is a Radio Research Centre at the University of Auckland, but that has nothing to do with this. Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no content and no sources Applus2021 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG There is no content and no sources. RockOften (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Morris

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

Searches of "Amelia Morris" and "Amelia Stanislas" did not come back with any clear examples of significant coverage. Mentioned in TWG and Gameday but neither of those would count as anything other than a passing mention. I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I don't see "Amelia Stanislas" mentioned in the article. Where'd you get that? Hmlarson (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is mentioned under both surnames at TWG but it's only a passing mention so no WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is where contextual awareness comes into play. How many referees are women in the men's game? Is that what this is really about? Hmlarson (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created by editor Hack in 2009 and has existed here for over 10 years. Why the need to delete now? Hmlarson (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If she gained a lot of significant coverage for her role, like Sian Massey-Ellis for example, then the article should be kept. I see no reason to keep the article purely on the basis of being a female assistant referee in a male-dominated role. By that logic, should we create articles on every female bricklayer or every male midwife regardless of level of depth of coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:LONGTIME is listed as an argument to avoid in AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 05:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hartley Power

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Significant roles are lacking, as is the attendant media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a New York Times article, "Some People of the Broadway Stage; The Career of Hartley Power" (subscription required), but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable actor with obituaries in The Times and The Stage, the BFI lists a number of roles https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b9f765eb2 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous significant roles in films and on stage. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a notable actor with present roles and coverage. RockOften (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dien Bien Phu on Sea

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

Pure speculation (WP:CRYSTAL) that has only been raised by few individuals. The long quotes in the article seem to be about the extent of the use. Vietnamese Wikipedia has an article created by the same user; a search of the title there ("Trận Điện Biên Phủ trên biển") reveals little more than what the article gives. — Goszei (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complete rubbish WP:CRYSTAL unsupported by RS. Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do have some articles about hypothetical conflicts (e.g. World War III), but the coverage here is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. The only sources cited in the article seem to be two primary sources that only mention the topic briefly. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL unsupported by RS as per Mztourist. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Neologism. It's not good enough to demonstrate use of a neologism; To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think CRYSTAL is exactly the right thing to cite here. Strategic military hypotheticals that are given enough scholarly attention and pass GNG warrant an article. Most of these involve actual planning and preparations that simply never came to fruition eg Operation Unthinkable. This does not meet GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there an appropriate article about Vietnamese-Chinese relations and/or preparations through war games that this topic could briefly be mentioned and merged into? CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sourcing, I don't really think this topic is worth mentioning in any Wikipedia article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is lacking citations from multiple reliable sources. Star7924 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Medical Syndicate

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 22:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick WP:BEFORE on Google News shows that the organisation receives wide and consistent media coverage, especially in relation to the pandemic in Egypt. And I have only checked in English. It is also mentioned twice in the US State Department's 2020 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Egypt. JBchrch (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It gets plenty of independent coverage. The article needs expanding. Rathfelder (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Just a few seconds' searching uncovers reliable sources confirming that this is the body that decides whether any doctor can practice in Egypt, the equivalent of the General Medical Council in the UK. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons cited above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sembroski

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

The subject does not satisfy general notability. His claim to fame is as a space tourist on a future space expedition, but see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and other policies. There has been substantial independent coverage of the planned mission, but all of the coverage at this point is crystal balling.

	Reference number	Independent	Signficant
1	Regional Radio News	Yes	No. Crystal balling.
2	Local news	Yes	No. Crystal balling.
3	New York Times	Yes	No. Crystal balling.
4	People Magazine	Yes	No. Crystal balling.
5	Employer newsletter	No	No. .

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — An astronaut is notable once he has been selected for a space mission and in this precise case he is less than six months away from flight. Preparation for the flight and training of the crew is under way. His flight is indeed the next one to take off from the US. Hektor (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply, because the coverage is of the selection, rather than the actual flight. (Besides, the entire premise of that page is WP:V violations, which this clearly is not) He's been selected. NPR and NYT have covered it. Posting some fancy graph doesn't change any of that. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply; coverage (and reality) goes beyond speculation. There will come a time that civilians selected for space missions will not be notable, but we are not near that point yet. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above keeps. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as being selected for an upcoming spaceflight. He doesn't need to actually fly for that. --mfb (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass GNG with present coverage. RockOften (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 05:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

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

I understand this is a perennial nomination, but I am having an incredibly hard time finding significant, independent, reliable sources that would signify notability for this article. I recommend restoring the redirect to Wikipedia:Citation needed.

On the sourcing:

First source I will need to AGF.
Second source is an about me page and does not meet criteria for inclusion.
Third source is a blog hosted on boston.com, but not written or reviewed by the site.
Fourth source is a YouTube source, and does not meet the standards for YouTube sources.
Fifth source is only a passing mention of the phrase "Citation needed".
Sixth source appears to be a self-published-source.

While AGF, only 1 source in the article could be argued for notability. A courtesy google search gave me this WMF source. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 13:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 13:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Susmuffin has since removed a multitude of the unreliable sources. You may visit the page as Jack describes it at Special:PermanentLink/1018141230. Chlod (say hi!) 13:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DEADHORSE. Also, take a look at the sources found in the 2nd nomination. Tercer (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On those sources: (saw full text via sci-hub)

De Maeyer, Juliette (2014-04-08). "Citation Needed". Journalism Practice. 8 (5). Informa UK Limited: 532–541. doi:10.1080/17512786.2014.894329. ISSN 1751-2786. "Citation Needed" is only the title, and is not referenced to the Wikipedia usage in the text. Journal is about hyperlinks in text. Not usable.
Lu, Yang; He, Jing; Shan, Dongdong; Yan, Hongfei. "Recommending citations with translation model". ACM Digital Library. doi:10.1145/2063576.2063879. Retrieved 2018-11-06., Wikipedia's usage of citation needed is mentioned once as an example. Not significant coverage.
Willinsky, John (2007-03-05). "What open access research can do for Wikipedia". First Monday. 12 (3). ISSN 1396-0466. Retrieved 2018-11-06. is returning a 404. AGF that it is significant coverage, but it is very likely not.
Jennings, Eric (2008). "Using Wikipedia to Teach Information Literacy". College & Undergraduate Libraries. 15 (4). Informa UK Limited: 432–437. doi:10.1080/10691310802554895. ISSN 1069-1316., again another passing mention. "Citation needed" is used once. Not significant coverage.
Kim, Kyung-Sun; Sin, Sei-Ching Joanna; Yoo-Lee, Eun Young (2014-08-21). "Undergraduates' use of social media as information sources". DR-NTU HOME. ISSN 0010-0870. Retrieved 2018-11-06., again another passing mention. "Citation needed" is mentioned once. Not significant coverage.
Crovitz, Darren; Smoot, W. Scott (January 2009). "Wikipedia: Friend, Not Foe". The English Journal. 98 (3). National Council of Teachers of English: 91–97. Retrieved 2018-11-06. Cannot access this now, but i'll see if I can get JSTOR access soon.
Kriplean, Travis; Beschastnikh, Ivan; McDonald, David W. "Articulations of wikiwork: uncovering valued work in wikipedia through barnstars". dl.acm.org. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460573. Retrieved 2018-11-06. again, another passing mention of "Citation needed". Not significant coverage.
Klang, Marcus; Nugues, Pierre (2016-05-16). "WikiParq: A Tabulated Wikipedia Resource Using the Parquet Format". Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016). Retrieved 2018-11-06. again, another passing mention of "Citation needed". Not significant coverage.
Lopes, Rui; Carriço, Luis (2008). On the credibility of wikipedia. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1458527.1458536. ISBN 978-1-60558-259-7. again, another passing mention. Not significant coverage.
Anderka, Maik; Stein, Benno; Busse, Matthias (July 2012). On the Evolution of Quality Flaws and the Effectiveness of Cleanup Tags in the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia Academy 2012. Berlin, Germany. passing mention of citation needed. Not significant coverage.

by AGF, we might have 2 scholarly sources. These are all passing mentions, and as such ineligible for GNG.JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 14:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an Archive of the one that was receiving 404 [1] WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The paper by Anderka et al. is not a passing mention, they are actually studying the use of the citation needed template. Tercer (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's studying cleanup tags in general on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia Academy sources are neither reliable nor independent so far as I can tell. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, in particular, citation needed. They present data about it, and mention it in the text: The first inline tags were Dubious and Citation_needed, which have been created in July 2004 and June 2005 respectively. and The most common cleanup tag is Citation_needed, it has been used nearly 2 million times in the 2 268 days after its creation, which corresponds to an average ratio of 871.64 usages per day. This means that on average one in 200 revisions has been tagged with this cleanup tag. They are not just name-checking it. Tercer (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't exactly significant coverage. Nobody is arguing that the template hasn't been mentioned anywhere. And even if it was sigcov, it doesn't make it independent coverage. You don't just get to pick and choose which of significant, reliable, and independent a source is, it must be all three. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge to somewhere, perhaps Reliability of Wikipedia. In-depth coverage is rather lacking, despite a lot of passing mentions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think that the article's content should be merged into an article relating to wikipedia in popular culture or so. (Reliability of Wikipedia seems like an alright article to merge into) However, the redirect to Wikipedia:Citation needed should be restored. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 16:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do agree that the coverage is rather limited, and initially I did consider supporting deletion, however the phrase has evidently been much referenced and used in popular culture, and some of the sources mentioned do at least suggest that the tag is well known or at least considered infamous. Should that not be enough? Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:GNG. It stipulates that such phrases must have significant independent coverage by reliable sources. 100 passing mentions do not equal significant coverage. Being known "in popular culture" is not a criteria for notability. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 16:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my opinion: I believe this should either be outright deleted or just simply merged per Eddie891. I am not seeing reliable coverage here, so it doesn't deserve its own article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real significant coverage, passing mention of the phrase in multiple places but not enough focused coverage to pass GNG. If a redirect was made afterwards, I would think article space Reliability of Wikipedia would be better than WP:CN. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to applaud everyone for doing a far better job of AFD discussion than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk page was back in 2008. We all at least looked to see what sources were available and how policy actually applies. I'm sure that several of the people in that discussion didn't even look at the article that they were discussing.
On that note, and following the observation by Eddie891, I point out that we do have books and articles on this, one with an entire chapter on Wikipedia Cleanup processes, and the others discussing {{fact}}, other related tags, and cleanup in general at several points. So yes if we want more than XKCD there is a real umbrella subject to write about, that this can be renamed and refactored into.
- Ayers, Phoebe; Matthews, Charles; Yates, Ben (2008). "Cleanup, Projects, and processes". How Wikipedia Works. No Starch Press. ISBN 9781593271763.
- Broughton, John (2008). Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. O'Reilly Media. pp. 17, 125, 151, 152, 186, 189, 312, 325. ISBN 9780596553777.
- O'Sullivan, Dan (2016). "Contributing to Wikipedia". Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice?. Routledge. ISBN 9781134766246. 'Cleanup' is the general term for improving articles. It may involve […]
- Ford, Heather. "Infoboxes and cleanup tags: Artifacts of Wikipedia newsmaking". 16 (1): 79–98. doi:10.1177/1464884914545739. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
- Anderka, Maik; Stein, Benno. A breakdown of quality flaws in Wikipedia. WebQuality '12: Proceedings of the 2nd Joint WICOW/AIRWeb Workshop on Web QualityApril 2012. pp. 11–18. doi:10.1145/2184305.2184309.
- Redi, Miriam; Fetahu, Besnik; Morgan, Jonathan; Taraborelli, Dario. Citation Needed: A Taxonomy and Algorithmic Assessment of Wikipedia's Verifiability. Publication:WWW '19: The World Wide Web ConferenceMay 2019. pp. 1567–1578. doi:10.1145/3308558.3313618.
- Jack, Kris; López-garcía, Pablo; Hristakeva, Maya; Kern, Roman. Mayr, Philipp; et al. (eds.). {{citation needed}}: Filling in Wikipedia’s Citation Shaped Holes (PDF). Proceedings of the First Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval co-located with 36th European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR 2014). pp. 45–52.
Uncle G (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to an rename and general article about Wikipedia clean up. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from all the specific sources catalogued above, note that Wikipedia did not invent this concept. Churchill wrote, I am reminded of the professor who, in his declining hours was asked by his devoted pupils for his final counsel. He replied, "Verify your quotations." Churchill didn't actually provide a source so I tracked down the original and found that this was probably Dr Routh. Anyway, the worst case here is obviously merger to citation so why are we having yet another deletion debate? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about the concept in general though. It is about the citation needed tag specifically in regards to Wikipedia. A lot of people have mentioned merge, but a rename and expansion to Wikipedia Cleanup in general based on the sources posted by Uncle G could also work. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was agreed to be kept during the previous AfDs. Per reliable sources indicated above and in the previous AfDs, as well as the reasons above, the article is still good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources directly above aren't for the citation needed template, but more on general cleanup tags in Wikipedia. And if you look at the top, I run down all of the sources presented in the 2nd AfD nomination, finding all of them are unsuitable (just passing mentions of "citation needed", instead of about it. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See also above and previous nominations, there are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. User3749 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The tag has become a permanent fixture on the Western cultural landscape. It's a cultural icon and as such doesn't need a treatise in several volumes dedicated to it for its significance to become apparent. As for sources, quite a few have been brought up above, and even a cursory search will come up with more (on Google Scholar there are about half a dozen papers on the first two pages that are about Wikipedia and have "citation needed" in their title). – Uanfala (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything pointed out above. I feel like this is the second time within this year I'm seeing this up for AFD, were the last couple of ones not enough to establish that it's clearly notable?★Trekker (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Phil Neville#Personal life. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Neville

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

Notability is not inherited, so he's not simply notable because of his notable father. He's also not notable as a footballer, as he's never played in a competitive, senior match for a fully professional club. He's ALSO not notable for any other reason, as demonstrated by the lack of non-routine coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Pee Jay 15:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 16:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems to pass GNG despite clearly failing NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator) - clearly meets GNG per Guardian and BBC Sport references. NFOOTY is irrelevant in this case SK2242 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no, does not meet GNG. All sources are routine news. Giant Snowman 08:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

so player signings and international call ups are now routine? SK2242 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have they ever not been? JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phil Neville#Personal life, where his embryonic career is mentioned; he's a plausible search term. The sources currently in the article don't constitute anything like a GNG pass: their content is basically son of well-known football figure joins academy, son of well-known football figure signs pro forms, Ireland pick U19 team including son of well-known football figure. The Guardian and one of the BBC pieces are puffed out with the same lengthy quotes from justifiably proud daddy, and all have more about the notable family members than about Harvey. I can't find any RS with in-depth coverage of Harvey himself at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re stretching this; the articles provide SIGCOV of Harvey and that’s that really. This doesn’t fall under WP:NCORP where the standards are clearly higher to keep out nn spam. SK2242 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, per Struway2. Notability is not inherited; coverage needs to be direct and in depth. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phil Neville#Personal life as per all above. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phil Neville#Personal life. There's not enough significant coverage to guarantee the article of it's own. Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phil Neville#Personal life as per Struway2 explained above.Poppified ^talk 06:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phil Neville#Personal life as all above. Riteboke (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lokesh Kumar Meena

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NSPORT. The claim to fame seems to be on obscure records without any verification, participating in obscure championships. The claim for Asian indoor marathon record is utter nonsense. First of all their is no verification, Asian Athletics doesn't even track that event [2]. No substantial coverage in any RS. Roller26 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dudhhr (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable coverage, doesnt meet WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zenetic Esports

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

This article is on a company that does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The sources used certainly don't point to the contrary. I have not found sufficiently reliable coverage on a WP:BEFORE search. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The current article appears to be written as an advertisement, and looking at the edit history shows that there is unlikely to be much of value lost if the page is deleted. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant hits in secondary sources and clearly promotional. IceWelder [✉] 08:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Pbrks (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to showcase notability yet. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Water caltrop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singhara Kachari

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

I do not consider this notable -- I know its hard to tell in this field, but refs 1 and 2 are primarily about other foods. I'm not in able to look properly for references in Hindi, so I'll withdraw this if people can find substantial references. DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Water caltrop. Ingratis (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding a lot about water chestnut flour as an important grain substitute(p79) for religious purpose and a mention of puri and katle(barfi?) also made from chestnuts, but nothing about a mash of fresh chestnuts. Finding RSs for food is a certain kind of suffering (there are food blogs I'd trust with my life, but never use on WP. Others don't seem to share my hesitation). If no foreign-language RSs turn up, Water caltrop would benefit from some additional information. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Water caltrop as per Ingratis. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect After consideration and examining the Water Caltrop page, I think it'd be nice if the paragraph starting with "In India and Pakistan..." were moved to its own section under Culinary Use and the images from this article moved to accompany it. I looked around for other articles that would incubate Hindu-fasting cuisine, but I was surprised not to find any. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bayo Ododo

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

Non notable musician. unreliable sources. Some are interviews, not secondary sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC Xclusivzik (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - satisfies neither WP:GNG nor WP:NMUSICIAN; coverage consists of some promotional Q&As, brief press releases/announcements and links to download his songs Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as said above, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Riteboke (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Basso

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

Fails WP:NBASE. While minor league baseballers can be notable, and he received lots of piecemeal coverage (as reflected by the last no consensus, which no consensused on the grounds of non-significant coverage), I don't think WP:GNG is met here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like I said the first time, there is some coverage but it is all routine in nature, not in-depth as required for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply not possible Basso managed for 10+ years, including six years at Double-A and Triple-A, and didn't receive enough media coverage to pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not wholly convinced by that keep argument considering it asserts sourcing without presenting any, but let's see if anyone else finds some.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage I'm seeing from Newspapers.com is basically at best brief quotes from Basso on his players and mentions of him as manager. There's maybe one article with some depth from May 1991 in the Wichita Eagle, although it's pretty local coverage. And anyway, one is not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News coverage and sources are not enough to pass WP:GNG. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Beecham

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

Non-notable assistant referee. Despite having 33 references in the article, there is no evidence that Beecham meets WP:GNG at all. The creator is an WP:SPA with a probable WP:COI as, in there many years of editing, they have only edited this one article.

Clearly a lot of effort has gone in to this exhaustive list of matches that Beecham has assisted in refereeing, including a list of youth matches and friendlies. Each of the references, the ones that are accessible via archive anyway, are only passing mentions. A search centred on Australian searches yields no useful results nor do Google searches. Mentions are always brief such as News.com.au, SMH and A League. Beecham is never mentioned in detail; just a passing mention, then quickly onto the next person.

Referees do not inherit notability from the matches that they are involved in. They must meet GNG in their own right. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree that Ashley Beecham is "non-notable." How many women referees are there in the men's game? Is that what this is really about? Hmlarson (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it has any relevance whatsoever but Beecham is clearly a man. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Tigray war in photos

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

This collection of photos would be better placed in the Wikimedia Commons. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the copyright holders gave permission for the photos to be used in Wikipedia. ... discospinster _talk 20:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) It is true that these photographs are on Wikimedia Commons, but there the user cannot find them easily in such a way that they are not organised thematically. (2) Discussion about several photographs is ongoing on Wikimedia Commons. If some photos are deleted there, they will be deleted also in this gallery.Jnyssen (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So rather than do that thematic organization on Commons and make a gallery page, such as commons:World War II for example, you came here to do it. This is entirely mis-placed on the wrong project, quite obviously as a consequence of your being repeatedly blocked for persistently uploading content that is not your own as your own and not getting the author to supply permissions on the right project that does do image galleries.
  Wikipedia is not a Commons gallery by the back door. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Uncle G. Well, simply, I did not know about the possibility to organise Commons galleries, like WWII. For sure, then, the place of this Gallery is on Wikipedia Commons and it can be deleted here. The recent issue on Wikimedia Commons that you mention is unrelated. Problem there is that I used a "Twitter to Commons" interface, taht leads then to easy uploads from Twitter. They better deactivate that interface.Jnyssen (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTGALLERY. Encyclopedic context is necessary, and a standalone article isn't the right format for that. — Goszei (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, agreed for Delete. Jnyssen (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a photograph gallery. This can be served with a link to a Commons category. JIP | Talk 13:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTGALLERY applies here on Wikipedia.--Chuka Chief_talk 15:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Super Ψ Dro 07:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chuka. Violates WP:NOTGALLERY. Kosmosnaut87 12:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarso Hardjowasito

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

No reliable sources cited in the article and Google Books has just the one passing mention of him. A search of Indonesian sources comes up with a passing mention in These Football Times and another in Weszlo. Even his World Referee profile page has barely anything about him. Referees do not have an SNG so the fact that he officiated a final, which is presumably the reason for the article, is not enough on its own. WP:GNG needs to be met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Most searches are mirrored from Wikipedia, no notability is established. Failed WP:GNG. SunDawn (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Lawyers Association

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

No references and online search doesn't show up multiple independent secondary sources to warrant for said association's notability. nearlyevil 665 20:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 20:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 20:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find zero sources about this outfit. Marquardtika (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are a few passing mentions in the press, but nothing substantial enough to meet WP:NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are thousands of non-notable passing legal organizations of this sort. BD2412 T 04:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhipuram flyover

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

Even with the additions, we have two sources, all of which are just news items about the opening. NO evidacne this is any more notable than any other flyover.

I am seeing no real notability here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gandhipuram, Coimbatore Ingratis (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gandhipuram, Coimbatore as per above. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Red

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

Long-time unsourced BLP; fails WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage of this person. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 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, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2006-10 ✗ deleted

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) — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants: Original Theme Highlights

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

While Spongebob is generally the better ones in the notability department with its soundtrack releases, I can't say this EP meets WP:SIGCOV, as there's only an Allmusic review to find. I was also considering nominating The Yellow Album for deletion, but I've been a bit more skeptical about doing that as at least there I could also find a Sputnikmusic staff review and a book about the Beatles briefly discussing the album, and its title and cover art is a parody of the White Album. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found sigcov from AV Club regarding a vinyl reissue and from Altpress twice over (1, 2), though the latter could be argued to be more representative of a single song than the album. The Allmusic review is their more reliable sort. I still wasn't quite happy with all this, and I suspected there were print magazine sources missing from my analysis. I headed to newspapers.com not expecting much and was somewhat surprised to indeed find sigcov from the Iowa City Press-Citizen (13 June 2002, page 36) and Reno Gazette-Journal (14 August 2001, page 26). The combination of googleable and paywalled sigcov leaves me confident of a GNG pass, if narrowly. Vaticidalprophet 14:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's... better, although the Altpress sources are announcements, and the A.V. Club, although released a decade later after the album, is an announcement as well. I'll have to find out if the newspapers.com sources are sigcov. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article can be improved with the additional sources found by Vaticidalprophet above, though I agree with him/her that it's a close call. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vaticidalprophet's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vaticidalprophet's rationale. Riteboke (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Miracle Ross

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

Non-notable American geologist. No major scientific achievements, in-depth book coverage or press coverage. Fails WP:NBIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like her scientific contributions were essentially founding a subgroup within a local geology group? She has an undergrad degree and no scholarly publications that I could find outside of maybe a book, so certainly wouldn't meet NPROF, which leaves GNG as the only avenue to notability. Google yields nothing outside of articles by HGS and AAPG, which obviously cannot contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She isn't a notable Geologist. Originalcola (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as keep, noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Loomis

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

I do not think this article about a photographer meets WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. It has been tagged for notability since 2009. There is a link to an Associated Press article which does look like decent coverage and has three paragraphs about Loomis. There is a link to an archived article about an exhibition, which looks as if it could be a press release. There is a quote from a review of her book which I think may be the puff from the book cover (reference just says Review of Portraits of Pregnancy by Ricki Lake and Abby Epsiten, authors of Your Best Birth). I have found and added a recent interview but cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC - I have been working from a list of sources on her website, and have found more than trivial mentions of her and her work as a photographer in the San Francisco Chronicle (2004), The Los Angeles Times (2004), CBS News (2007), Time (2008), in addition to the Associated Press (2006); there is also a brief mention in The New York Times (2007) and coverage I cannot fully access in The Wall Street Journal (2005). Some of these sources also offer biographical and career information that could be incorporated into the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to pass WP:GNG and as per sources presented by Beecaynr and per below.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jun-19-et-netburn19-story.html, http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,1727691,00.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/style/tmagazine/15tbaby.html
https://www.today.com/popculture/celebrities-make-pregnancy-seem-glamorous-wbna12466527
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/the-3-minute-interview-with-jennifer-loomis/
http://seattlerefined.com/features/artistoftheweek/artist-of-the-week-jennifer-loomis
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112372315198410490 Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the coverage demonstrated by Beccaynr and Frigidpolarbear appears sufficient to meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. VocalIndia (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Tacyarg this is why WP:BEFORE is a very good idea. I looked at how the article was before you nominated it for deletion, and yeah, it was pretty marginal. It's now not remotely marginal, not going to be deleted, and your nomination statement is so at odds with the current state of the article that it's painful to see the disconnect now, EVEN THOUGH when you nominated it this article was indeed a pretty "meh" BLP. I suggest you withdraw the nomination, because the added sources demonstrate that indeed, Ms. Loomis is exactly the sort of artist who should be profiled in Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw (as nominator). Thanks to other editors for finding the sources which I did not find in my WP:BEFORE. Tacyarg (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Büşra Taşkın

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

A very similar case to Büşra Demirörs and Sude Mihri Çınar. No inherent notability from career to date so we need to look at WP:GNG.

Current references do not show any WP:SIGCOV and the article is currently a synthesis of stats from the Turkish Football Federation. Google searches and a Turkish source search come back with a passing mention in an under 19 report, a squad list mention, one sentence about her scoring 13 goals in a regional league and one quote from her in Aksam. None of the sources found address Taşkın in depth. There does not appear to be anything that we can build a biography from. Wikipedia is not a TFF mirror. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sankha Subhra Devbarman

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

Vanity article on a non-notable person (writer? civil servant? son-of-a-politician?), so much so that I would have requested speedy but there's a bit of a history there already. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO.

Also, there's at least one of these in drafts, so if this AfD results in deletion it may be worth salting the name, as the creating editor seems persistent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article as written does not establish general notability or author notability. There is also a draft, which can be kept if the article is deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The version that is now in draft space was moved from article space to draft about 24 hours ago, after which time this version was created in article space. This behavior is characteristic of an attempt to game the system by creating multiple copies. Concur with nominator's recommendation that the title should be ECP salted after deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, and most likely a case of UPE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I gave the author the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to improve the article. I don't think giving them any further chances will achieve anything. Deb (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Matthew Luke

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

Long-time unsourced BLP, fails WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afia Amankwaah Tamakloe

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

Non-notable and clear fail of WP:GNG Nearlyevil665 (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are several national awards here, all cited to sources independent of the article's subject. Furius (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The notability and significance of said national awards is not established. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject in article is notable in Ghana, per checks from articles and references, the subject is a notable tv and radio personality in Ghana Ampimd (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above, Subject in article is notable in Ghana for receiving national awards. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject in the article is a notable broadcast journalist in Ghana. From the sources, she has been given national awards. Mellowdeaous (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Looney Tunes Show. Selectively - whatever is reliably sourced and duly relevant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from The Looney Tunes Show

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

Only sources to find is listings in retailers. That's all the coverage, folks! 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Looney Tunes Show. Trivialist (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Archival searches show up nothing more than FUTON ones do, unsurprisingly given the relatively late date. Not sure this is important enough to merit a merge, but could be convinced. Vaticidalprophet 15:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to The Looney Tunes Show. As opposed to the merge suggestions above, I don't think there is much worth merging because this album article is little more than a list of songs that have received no independent coverage on their own or as a group in soundtrack form. It is possible that the album title could be a search term, in which case the searcher can be sent to the show's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Music of Samurai Champloo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Champloo Music Record: Departure

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

I'll individually nominate the other animation soundtrack articles, but I'm nominating all four records of the "Samurai Champloo Music Record" series for deletion because (1) There all of the same series (2) It is only four articles, people, and (3) they are all non notable. You will not find one bit of WP:SIGCOV for these albums anywhere... None! I dare you to find it. If you do, I will award you with money for a vacation to the Bahamas followed by several tickets to Chuck E. Cheeses. Please someone find coverage for these.... because I can't. At least the other animation soundtracks in that bundle animation had an Allmusic or Common Sense Media review, which doesn't itself establish WP:GNG, but I'm bringing it up to show how not notable this topic. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~!vote~~ I created a couple of these articles I'm not completely sure about where to fall on this in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. But I can at least provide some context and sources. In terms of significant coverage of the Samurai Champloo soundtrack: here are some magazine articles from Pitchfork^[1] (listed as one of 9 of "rap's most memorable animated moments") and 34th Street^[2] (an album review). I believe this qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. There are also interviews^[3] and a book^[4] that discuss the soundtrack further in depth. The difficulty of finding more sources can be explained by two reasons. First, this music has become popular in the Lo-fi hip hop community recently, but was not popular at the time the anime was released, and thus did not receive contemporary reviews. Second, many articles about the albums and its creators are in Japanese. For instance, see this magazine interview [3] of director Shinichiro Watanabe where they discuss the Samurai Champloo soundtrack. Given there is in fact a bare minimum of significant coverage despite these factors, I would lean towards keeping this content around somewhere, perhaps refactored in some way eg. to a single page. Anair13 (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ "9 of Rap's Most Memorable Animated Moments". Pitchfork.
^ "A Fresh Look at Groundbreaking Producer Nujabes' Soundtrack for Anime 'Samurai Champloo'". 34th Street.
^ Tsuchida, Shinji (March 2019). "Interview - TSUTCHIE" (Interview). Interviewed by Magical Mystery Mix. Japan. Retrieved December 28, 2020.
^ Shinichiro Watanabe, Kazuto Nakazawa (March 13, 2007). Roman Album: Samurai Champloo. ISBN 978-1593076429.

Thanks for the sources. I also should clarify something else. I don't have money for that Bahamas trip or any Chuck E. Cheese tickets. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, no problem, I won't hold you to it. Anair13 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new article called Music of Samurai Champloo. Not covered as unique albums, but sources shown above by Anair13 show coverage as a set. — Goszei (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a good idea to me, this is also how Music of Cowboy Bebop is done. Happy to start this page if there is consensus. Anair13 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Samurai Champloo. The show's article is repetitive and unorganized on the topic of the music. There is a Soundtrack section, but then the same matters are covered in more detail a little later in the Other media section. Cleanup needs to be done over there. With that out of the way, this particular soundtrack got some minor notice due to Fat Jon's involvement, but introductory coverage at the show's article (whichever sub-section applies) is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new article, titled Music of Samurai Champloo, per Goszei. Link20XX (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Following the discussion, I created the Music of Samurai Champloo page which merges these pages and adds additional sources and context; should I go ahead and make these articles redirects? (It's not clear to me what the process is to resolve an AfD.) Anair13 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 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 Rock-a-Doodle#Soundtrack. Ultimately I found the merge arguments to be more convincing than the straight keeps; namely, that the soundtrack reviews tended to also contain coverage of the film, and the coverage in the film reviews is effectively secondary to that of the film. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rock-A-Doodle (soundtrack)

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, including this one which is credited to Glenn Campbell. This means nothing as Notability is not inherited. Only thing this album has gotten is an Allmusic review, and a couple of blog posts [4] [5]. That does not establish notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rock-a-Doodle#Soundtrack. Much of the information here already appears in the Soundtrack section of the article about the film. This soundtrack appears to have received little coverage on its own (I have found no full reviews, nor any indication that it hit any music charts), so covering it in the film's article should be sufficient. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, does one not think that an established artist like Glen Campbell didn't have coverage when the album was originally released? This is not some unknown person, nothing he has released has flown under the wire at the time of release. Maybe now, 30 years on, nothing can be found online since not everything has been digitalized and archived. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we cannot assume the album has print coverage we don't know about just because Glenn Campbell recorded it. Mind providing any evidence you found there are legit sources covering this thing? 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Allmusic (a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources) rated it one and half stars [[6]] That and the LA Times should be enough for WP:GNG. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. AllMusic is reliable but that alone does not establish notability, and LATimes does not talk about the soundtrack LP itself. It talks about the film. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've added one article from the Los Angeles Times. Will look for others. 1990s coverage is often behind a wall. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- LA Times cite is about film, not the soundtrack LP. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did I say it was about the LP? Nope. I just provided a citation for some of the info in the wp article. And the Los Angeles Times article cited is a feature on Campbell and his role in the film, not the film overall. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film as most of the coverage is about the animated film as a whole (though the soundtrack is covered). The nominator ought to consider merging articles like this with their film articles before bringing to AfD and only bring to AfD if the merges are reverted. Would save researchers some time. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rock-A-Doodle. Trivialist (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it's a weak lean to that. Full-length review dedicated solely to the soundtrack in Citizen's Voice (30 June 1992, page 23), mixed film/soundtrack review in LA Weekly (18 June 1992, page 78). It's an interesting one to search, as the soundtrack is such a part of the film that the film's reviews discuss it a lot, in a way on the border of sigcov. Considering that significant reviews of the soundtrack alone exist, I'm inclined to lean weakly towards the combination of them with borderline sigcov elsewhere makes for a GNG pass. Vaticidalprophet 15:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The soundtrack album received some reliable reviews as found by the other "keep" voters above. Perhaps the soundtrack only got noticed because Glen Campbell was involved, and the coverage is still pretty thin, but there is enough for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage identified in this discussion such as Citizen's Voice, LA Weekly, AllMusic so that WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rock-a-Doodle: 99,99% of coverage is related to the film CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AMC News

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA. The references are not enough to pass WP:GNG. There are some references like whois.com, which is not acceptable. Chirota (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article part of developments of Media in Botswana / Template:Media in Botswana DownTownRich (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See articles articles of the same country and I did mention they just got web presence that is why I used the Whois to show that information. The news outlets in Botswana that is what we usually face on finding information about them but they are key to Wikipedia see Daily News Botswana, Mmegi, The Botswana Guardian DownTownRich (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a generic Wordpress site probably just re-writing and publishing what actual journalists have researched and written. They haven't even removed the default text of the theme. No evidence of notability, etc, and the article is a stub anyway. Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And I did mention the reason I included the Whois was because they just got web presence.DownTownRich (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would recommend the whole articles in Media in Botswana thereafter to be reviewed as they present the same context as the one presented above.DownTownRich (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely and utterly non-notable self published blog masquerading as a news outlet, being spammed crosswiki. TAXIDICAE💰 15:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend blacklisting as they're a source of copyvios. See this article they published without any sort of attribution or indication that it was copied from Bloomberg. TAXIDICAE💰 16:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMEDIA. Sonofstar (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I previously mentioned this article is part of the Media in Botswana and I have since created Kutlwano Magazine, Radio Botswana 2 and will be creating the other ones red linked in the template. All the articles of Media in Botswana are stubs because over time they have been print, the television and radio stations they dont have web presence. But as I was writing the srticles I made sure I only include valuable information to avoid adding uncitable information.

The reason I chose to improve and add these articles started with noticing that the above mentioned AMC News was no online. Even though your input is valued I asked about the future of Botswana Guardian, The Botswana Gazette, Mmegi and more mentioned as they are of the same context of Media in Botswana.overtime I have added the need more citation tags because even though they are minimal they remain important to Wikipedia. DownTownRich (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that is what I face when making articles about Botswana in general, like this one DownTownRich (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Phishing. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page hijacking

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

This article basically describes Phishing, except with no sources. When I search for "Page hijacking" I get a bunch of blog-spam articles which in my opinion don't meet criteria for reliable sources. All of the uses of this term seem to refer to Phishing, which is a notable subject. Therefore I propose deletion of this page with and redirect to Phishing. See prior discussion above. Talk:Page_hijacking contains earlier proposal to merge Page hijacking into Phishing, but I don't see what can possibly be carried over during the merge. I propose creating a redirect to Phishing without any edits to Phishing article itself. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Phishing#Techniques. I've heard page hijacking exists, but it seems to be a type of phishing, and there's clearly not enough information on it for its own article. AdoTang (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a variety of techniques including Pharming and Domain hijacking. What the page in question is currently talking about is hacking a website to add some malware or misinformation to it so that visitors are exposed or misled. This is a real and significant threat. It would be quite ironic if we were to overwrite this page with a link to another, less relevant page. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both Page hijacking and Pharming look like marketing neologisms. Both articles have very few low-quality sources (multiple cited sources are outright dead, I'll try to rescue them). Please note the section Pharming#Controversy over the use of the term. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, this is a phishing technique, already covered at Phishing. No idea why this has been de-proded. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Phishing#Techniques: Per AdoTang. It's best to discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems to be a particular type of phishing. Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Phishing. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 06:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Phishing, per nom. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a comment for now to say that it's not a type of phishing. Phishing is a common goal of using this technique. This has also been done to redirect legitimate traffic to ad-stuffed garbage pages or affiliate links or otherwise serving a monetary purpose other than phishing. Other times it could be to troll or manipulate a website or its users. To be clear, a merge/redirect may make sense here. Phishing has hcertainly become a common reason for this, and one which receives a lot of coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Hog Farm _Talk 05:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoochery Distillery

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

promotional and non notable. A long list of local awards, but no substantial non-` promotional coverage. DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stopped at 'oldest continually operating distillery' and then realised it was founded in 1995. Indeed!!! But a Google news search gets quite a lot of coverage. [7] [8] Someone needs to add it all to the article, it's here [9] but the company passes WP:GNG and does indeed have "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." so passes WP:ORGCRITE Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covered in multiple independent sources and demonstrates WP:ORG. Deus et lex (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG as covered in multiple independent sources. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolos Gerasoulis

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

WP:SOAP no sources, no evidence of notability. Acous mana 15:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Acous mana 15:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep he does have a GS profile with a total of 4200 citatations and an h-index of 27, which is not a whole lot in his field of computer science, but quite decent. However, a decent number of publications + creation of an algorithm that is widely used and powers a well known (relatively well known) product, taken together that is notable. --hroest 16:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: in addition to the points hroest mentioned he also won an award from ACM (Test of Time) which might help him meet one of the criteria of WP:NPROF. Additionally, I found this article about his wedding on the New York Times: link to article KNivedat (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the page a bit and added 7 citations that I could find. KNivedat (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG as per sources below.

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 Cambridge University Cricket Club players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shivaan Bardolia

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players 2 FC matches for a uni side, not really seeing any coverage at all apart from database stuff. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players as per above. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players. Plausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Ashok

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players 4 FC matches but all for uni sides, I'm only seeing a couple of match reports and usual database stuff. Did score a century though so that may have got him coverage in Wisden. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and maybe could have been BOLDy redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players as per Rugbyfan22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frigidpolarbear (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even on the scale. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks substantial significance, how is this one rugby player different from every other world class rugby player also not covered broadly in the news? Star7924 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Star7924: cricketer. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per Rugbyfan22. StickyWicket (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Arif

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players 7 FC matches for uni sides, but I'm not seeing anything other than match reports, so no real significant coverage. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and another that should have been BOLDly redirected to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players as per Rugbyfan22. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. Very very poor quality article on a sportsman. scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment scope_creep much like this article on a pond. StickyWicket (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. He hasn't done much after his FC appearances, is currently a cricket coach at Oundle, but a redirect to a list seems sensible. StickyWicket (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @AssociateAffiliate: The primary difference, is that lochan has got 3 independent sources and is packed with detailed properties that describe it exactly. This article has five db/script generated references that are woeful. There is a world of difference. Nothing with do with the size of the article. I see your the article creator. If you think it is a pond, then your really must in a downer. scope_creep^Talk 22:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Scope creep: Charles Elton would agree it's definitely a pond. And I did create the article, but I don't care all that much for it hence my redirect vote. StickyWicket (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: Ponds are artificial constructions, wheras this is natural. I'm not that keen on doing these lochan articles, but there are tremedously popular with the fly-fishing crown and they tend to be great walks. Who is this Charles Elton exactly and why is he known or associated with ponds? scope_creep^Talk 18:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Rashid

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players 7 LA matches, but all for a minor county. I'm just seeing a few match reports, and nothing that would signify significant coverage. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly redirected to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tenious at best. Fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creep^Talk 21:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia at the 2013 Summer Universiade

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

enormous amount of red links, not a notable attendance ~~event whatsoever~~ — dylx ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The event per se is notable. That Macedonia competed is notable, though I would wish for better referencing. The quantity of red links ought not to be a deletion rationale for an inherently notable attendance at an inherently notable event (no, I am not claiming inherited notability). The article needs attention, that is without argument, and the athletes concerned ought to have articles where they pass our threshold. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Fair points, you've convinced me. I looked at a similar article (Japan at the 2013 Summer Universiade) and noticed that the Macedonia page was lacking a lot of information which the Japan page had. Could the Macedonia page be merged into a page with more information? — dylx ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylxpedia I think that custom and practice is for the attending nations to have an article per attendance, even if they did not emerge clothed in glory. For me this holds true even if the article is as naked as this one. Are you considering withdrawing your nomination? Fiddle Faddle 18:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Actually, I've changed my mind again. See 2013 Summer Universiade#Participants. Many of the participants (many of which have more athletes and won more medals than than Macedonia) do not have their own articles for this specific event.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - enormous amount of red links cannot be a criteria for deletion? Riteboke (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
More comments about how this article does, or does not, meet our guidelines and policies for articles could help to achieve a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. I would suggest merging this if a) it can be reliably sourced and b) we can identify a place to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there simply isn't enough content to warrant an article here. At what point do we say "well we've got Category:Great Britain at the Summer Olympics by year crossing over with Category:Nations at the 2012 Summer Olympics, therefore we should have Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics in Underwater Basket Weaving. It becomes a content fork which smacks of IRL cruft. SITH (talk) 01:31, 8 May 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. ✗plicit 03:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daytonnati

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

article is about a neologism which isn't used in any kind of local vernacular, only 3 sentences long, and has only 1 real source (a newspaper article from 1998) Bobbysirchism (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my search largely turned up total mirrors of this article. So to date the consensus seems to be this is not yet a thing at all, and so expecting there to be an agreed upon name for something that does not yet exist is unreasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ineligible for soft deletion as it was previously deprodded, would prefer a stronger consensus than a quorum of 1 (2 including nom)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage of this term was found in my BEFORE-style search. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not widely used, just one writer's neologism. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Even if its usage was well-documented, it wouldn't be appropriate here - we're not a dictionary. The fact that there's virtually no record of it makes our job even easier. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My BEFORE search came up with this article, a few Wikipedia mirrors, a Reddit post, a DGuide entry, the 1998 newspaper article cited here (and a similar one published one week later by the same paper), and another website that's just a copy and paste of this article. Also fails WP:NEO.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 23:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above. If the idea described here ever comes to pass, it will justify an article, but the title of that article will likely be something like Cincinnati-Dayton Combined Statistical Area instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Quest for Zhu. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quest for Zhu: Music from the Motion Picture

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

For this, there is nothing to find on Google searches besides this that looks like a self-published blog . No WP:SIGCOV 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quest for Zhu. It is possible that someone will search for the album under the "Music from..." title, but the album received no notice as a stand-alone entity. A brief mention of its existence at the film article is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, not independently notable in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Once Upon a Forest#Soundtrack. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Forest (soundtrack)

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

For this, only refs used are reviews from Allmusic and an unreliable blog. That is not WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Once Upon a Forest#Soundtrack. This soundtrack did receive an AllMusic review but it is not too detailed, and I can find little else on the album itself. There is enough to beef up the soundtrack section over at the film's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, not independently notable in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caliber Home Loans

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

Fails WP:NCORP Sock creation.scope_creep^Talk 14:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another run of the mill business. WP is not a business directory. --Kbabej (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to New Residential Investment Corp. The company has been bought out and there is recent news on this. I have added the new info and also added sources from MarketWatch and Dallas Morning News, which states its the 5th largest lender as a result of merger. Peter303x (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have usual list of routine annoucements, press-releases and profiles that fail WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 23:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. I cannot see a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only see one possibly reliable reference - Dallas News, that’s not really “substantial” coverage. Star7924 (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Junaid

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

Non-Notable Politician. Fails WP:NPOL, According to WP:POLITICIAN, politicians are notable if they held international, national or state/province post. Also somehow looks promotional to me. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject has never been elected into any legislative bodies thus failing NPOL. In that case he must pass general GNG criteria. As I can see, there are no sources giving him enough significant coverage. I dont know whether there are any sources in local language. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person fails WP:NPOL but has been covered in mainstream media as social activist. Riteboke (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion needed on notability based on other notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Riteboke, Not significantly tho, Passing mentions don't demonstrate notability. He Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ankit (Talk with me) 20:39, 2 May 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. the wub "?!" 14:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a SpongeBob Christmas! Album

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

For this nomination, all there is is WP:ONEVENT press release announcements and one Common Sense Media review. That's not enough to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Wired cite is not about soundtrack album but about the special itself. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A substantial article about the album (and not just the associated film) in Wired counts as non-trivial coverage under WP:NALBUM #1. This article could use some cleanup though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, that stuff could just as well be in the film article, plus it was published upon the film's release so that's not long-lasting notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:NTEMP. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also see WP:SINGLEEVENT. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That one is for people. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Doomsdayer520's rationale and Wired article. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duygu Sarışın

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. No significant roles etc, not in-depth coverage in news... Non-notable. Kemalcan (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her roles in tv-series are not significant. Sources 1 to 4 in the article are regular "Who is X" kind of publications which are made for almost every slightly-known person, not WP:SIGCOV. Others don't count towards WP:GNG as source 5 is a namedrop, source 6 is about what she said and source 7 is about her going on vacation. I found one interview here, but that also doesn't count towards GNG. The search Duygu Sarışın -kimdir -ulusoy (to exclude sources about her relationship with Çağatay Ulusoy) doesn't result in any further coverage. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 15:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A similar discussion is going hand in hand with this one on the Turkish Wikipedia, so I'm curious to see if a user there can establish notability, though based on what I have seen so far she's probably not notable based on our criteria. Keivan.f^Talk 02:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keivan.f Actually, similar comments has made on TurkishWiki so far. Lack of leading/important roles and sketchy coverage in news do not meet for the notability criterias.--Kemalcan (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sorry for the late reply, the article doesn't seem to be notable, as the actress don't have a lot of leading roles or recognition, maybe in the future if they have notable roles, it might be applicable and adequate to create article on the actress, furthermore the article on Turkish Wikipedia has been deleted, so it's better to delete from English Wikipedia too, and in the future there will be more reliable and adequate sources. Thank you. Tahaaleem ^Talk 07:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per discussion below, the article needs to be improved to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi (album)

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

For this nomination, only thing to find is AllMusic rev and one chart. That's not enough to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is an unusual case, since the animated series Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi is basically an adaptation of the real-life band Puffy AmiYumi, and this album is basically a band album disguised as a soundtrack album. Puffy AmiYumi was fairly big in Japan, and one of the few Japanese pop groups to become known in other parts of the world, and any album they produce will have sources if properly searched. This may require searching Japanese media, but this is not going to end up being non-notable. BD2412 T 17:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll give the benefit of the doubt and suggest this is the result of the difficulty of finding Japanese sources if you're in the Western world, especially if your in North America. I live in the United States, so I can state that. But we need evidence in this discussion to indicate this is notable beyond an Allmusic rev and one Japan chart. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @GimmeChoco44 and Snkcube: I am pinging User:GimmeChoco44 and User:Snkcube, historically two of the more substantial contributors to the main Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi article who have been active relatively recently on Wikipedia. Hopefully one or both of them can provide some insight into possible Japanese-language sources for this subject. BD2412 T 03:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't find any readily available coverage of the album that would merit a change in the current discussion. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It made the Japanese charts and has at least one in-depth and reliable review in English. The album article can be improved by Japanese sources if any can be found by native speakers of that language. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think with some improvements it would be in tip top shape to keep though I also like the idea of having Japanese sources from those who speak it could help in the improving of this article. Pahiy (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BASIC is met. Needs some improvements though to be in tip top shape. Riteboke (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Elsword: El Lady. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El Lady (album)

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

For this article, there is nothing to find, and its tagged for notability concerns since December 2016. The three Melon cites currently in the article don't establish notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elsword: El Lady - Can find no reliable evidence that this album has received coverage as an item in its own right. However, since the album has a separate title it is a possible search term for someone looking for info on the show. There is not much to merge and some of the songs are already mentioned at the article for the show. That is all that is necessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elsword: El Lady as lacks coverage for a seprate article. Riteboke (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brak Presents the Brak Show Starring Brak. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brak Presents the Brak Album Starring Brak

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. For this article, only coverage is Allmusic review. Everything soundtrack album ever gets an Allmusic piece, that is not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Brak Presents the Brak Show Starring Brak. Trivialist (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brak Presents the Brak Show Starring Brak (the associated TV show) because the album appears to have received no notice of its own. The show's notability is questionable too, but that is a different debate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brak Presents the Brak Show Starring Brak as lacks coverage for a separate page. Riteboke (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to American Pop#Production. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Pop (soundtrack)

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

For this, I couldn't find anything about this LP release. The two cites talk about the film itself, not the soundtrack release, and only other cite is a Discogs link. GBook searches only mention the phrase as part of the genre of American pop, not to discuss the movie. Only thing about the soundtrack to find in GBooks are passing mentions. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Pop#Production, where there is some more information, with basic references, on how the filmmaker faced some issues with the use of popular songs in the movie. A brief section over there is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Doomsdayer. Vaticidalprophet 15:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animalympics#Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animalympics (soundtrack)

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. For this article, only coverage is Allmusic review. Everything soundtrack album ever gets an Allmusic piece, that is not enough to meet WP:GNG. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Animalympics. Limorina (t • c) 16:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Animalympics#Soundtrack. There was a vote to merge above, but that is not necessary because a section for the soundtrack already exists at the film's article, and due to weak coverage of the abum there is nothing more to add. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Animalympics#Soundtrack. I'd second the redirect nomination. Pahiy (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nabatieh Fawka massacre

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

Not noteworthy, no continuous news and further, editor has NPOV titled the article by calling it a massacre. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are saying that the usual erratic bombing mode of civilian areas employed by the IAF may kill 9 members of a family, but the incident is not notable? Massacre 'refers to the killing of multiple individuals and is usually considered to be morally unacceptable, especially when perpetrated by a group of political actors against defenseless victims.' The use of the word here is very precise.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We go by RS here, as I'm sure you are aware. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, eminent RS note that this was a gross violation of human rights. So the implication is that 'gross violations of human rights' are not notable. Well they are usually, but then, here we are dealing with Arabs.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no case for deletion. It is covered by many reliables suorces. -- Maudslay II (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG met, a meritless nomination. Problems with the name can be dealt with via RM if necessary.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Wikipedia is not censored, seems like a POV pushing nomination to wipe the record of Israeli massacres.Shadybabs (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- User:2600:1700:4380:1100:5d7b:a924:8f43:c0fc, you struck out this vote. Care to explain why? Are you User:Shadybabs? JIP | Talk 17:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why in my edit summary - ARBPIA sanctions. users with less than 500 edits are not allowed to participate in AfD discussions in this topic area. That's something I expect an administrator to know.

Doesn't that mean you can't participate either? And yet, you are, why not sign in?Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly notable and well sourced. If there is a problem with the name then it calls for a move, not deletion. JIP | Talk 13:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep; as other have stated, this is a meritless nomination. Just imagine: a bomb from Lebanon, killing 9 people, 7 of whom were children in 1996...in Israel? Tell me, Sir Joseph; would you have called such an article for "not noteworthy"? I think such an article would have been, say a 20-100 K article, possibly a WP:FA, too, by now. Huldra (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virar hospital fire

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not a newspaper CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hospital fire with double-digit death toll. Jim Michael (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Double digit death toll is a huge deal. If (very big if) the articles quality and information was to improve a decent amount, this could be an ITN nominations just due to the death toll. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip Please read our Policy Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CommanderWaterford:, I am very aware of that policy. For the last year, I have been a major participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events as well as being the editor who revived the WikiProject last year. Articles like 2021 Guangzhou bombing only had 5 deaths and very little information, but highly qualified for an article and was mentioned on the Portal:Current events. I would actually ask you to read your own advice and read what Wikipedia is and is not. A general rule of thumb that I have learned & adapted during the last year is 4 deaths is about what it takes for an article. Less than 4 deaths depends on the situation, injuries, and stuff. Like if a politician is killed, but only 3 deaths happen (referring to Killing of Luca Attanasio), that still received an article due to the situation. For this article, double digit deaths instantly qualify for an article. Hopefully that helps. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip First of all I ask you kindly to watch your tone. Secondly you still did not explain in which policy do we mention that at least any press release with more than 4 deaths is automatically establishing notability. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isn’t an “official” policy. I was trying to say there is an “unofficial” policy used among editors. The fact that Wikipedia allows articles with 3-5 deaths, I cannot see how a 13 death event would not be notable. Just saying. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also @CommanderWaterford:, my tone wasn't meant to be in a mean way. I see how you thought it was, but it wasn't. I would also like for you to see my bolded comment below, as it relates to our conversation. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable event making headlines internationally. Depressed Desi (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Depressed Desi Please read our Content Policy Wikipedia:NOTNEWS CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It simply doesn't meet either the event or coverage requirements set out at WP:EVENT. This is good example of the type of event that WP:NOTNEWS warns against.

There is no death-count exception for non-notable events to be include in Wikipedia. At most, that's an argument that it should have been more widely reported and commented on, which would make it notable; but it's not a substitute for notability. (And the ""double-digit" characterization seems calculated to imply a much larger number anyway; 13 is barely into the two-digit range.)

I could imagine that the fire may become notable in the future (for example, if there are regulatory changes as a result of it; or it it becomes widely covered by third-party sources other than as simple news reporting); but that's not the case today, and may never be. TJRC (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how this is not notable. Deaths can make things notable, but not always. Socola hospital fire had 1 death and 0 injured. Sultanah Aminah Hospital had 6 killed and 4 injured. Gaziantep hospital fire had 9 killed. When I can easily find 3 articles about hospital fires that have less deaths than this one, no one can tell me this isn't notable. Just saying... Elijahandskip (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths don't inherently make events notable as Wikipedia uses that term. Deaths may make something worth covering in third-party sources; and it is that coverage that may make the event notable for purposes of Wikipedia. But the notability is a reflection of the coverage, not of the number of deaths.

Without expressing any opinion on the notability or non-notability of the other fires you point to... the fact that this fire has more deaths than those fires is a completely immaterial fact to determining inclusion. There is no death-count criterion for inclusion; inclusion based on notability. To say that these other notable fires have fewer deaths, so this fire must be notable based solely on the larger death-count is a non sequitur, because death-count is not and never has been an inclusion criterion. (Also: WP:WAX.)

The most charitable way to characterize this argument is that you're saying that, with so many deaths, one would expect it to get substantial non-news coverage, thereby making it notable; or that, in a just world, it would get get substantial non-news coverage, thereby making it notable. But those aren't the criteria. We reflect what actually does get substantial non-news coverage. TJRC (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I dont have anything to say with the ongoing dispute here with the number of deaths, Im with the opinion that this is definetely a notable event. As per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. This has been covered by several reputed national and international medias in depth. And I also believe this is not just a routine news coverage about an accident as it has caught the attention of entire nation. This was even the prime-time debate topic in some reputed new channels in my state of Kerala. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am really surprised about reading this, @Kashmorwiki - so you are really of the opinion that this hospital fire is of "lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)" (cited by the Policy you mentioned) CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommanderWaterford, I actually didnt meant the full sentence in this guideline. I just wanted to show a part of it here it here so that I copy pasted. Apologies if that was a mistake and made you confused. Actually I just wanted to show that this accident and has been covered widely in several parts of my country by giving that much significance. I am not sure whether this would have as much lasting significance when compared to some other accidents. But you might not be having some idea about whats actually going on in my country now. While my state does not have that much problem, patients from these states like Maharashtra are dying without getting any sufficient oxygen. Along with that, when a tragedy like this happens, how can I say this does not have any significance. Some reports are also coming out like this [10] which says that hospital took almost half an hour to call fire brigade. Several medias including some international ones have already criticised governtments for this accident. While some politicians says this is not a national news due to their political motives, I believe this has that much significance and does not comes under WP:NOTNEWS. Thats why I voted as Keep. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmorwiki I am really concerned - I am having a very good idea of India miss-management of Covid in the last weeks, of course it is a tragedy but every tragedy which occurs in the world does not have sufficient notability for an article at Wikipedia - please think again if this is a single event which is LASTING and HISTORICAL. This is clearly not the case here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above statements. This should be notable. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Swordman97 We do not publish Articles which should be notable, our goal is to have published only articles which are notable. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone really believe that an article about a verifiable hospital fire with this number of deaths would not be kept, regardless of any sourcing beyond verifiability, if the fire happened in the UK or in the US? Of course it would be kept, and by WP:SNOW, so what is it about this one that says otherwise? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger This is an quite interesting argument - are you trying to say that the article would not have been nominated by me if it would be an American hospital? I have to disappoint you, i would have nominated it as well and I am somewhat confused about editors who think that Wikipedia should be used as a newspaper, for which reason do exactly we have the WP:NOTNEWS Policy ?. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is well beyond a mere news story. Had this happened in the Western world, the article would be multiple times as long & a discussion such as this would have been quickly closed with a consensus to keep. Jim Michael (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford, also have a look at this second criteria in the notability guideline; Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. I am pretty sure this accident satisfies this as this were widely covered nationwide in diverse sources with that much significance. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it meets those criteria. Nowhere in the world are hospital fires with double-digit death tolls a common, ordinary or trivial occurrence. Jim Michael (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford, I have no doubt that you would personally be even-handed and nominate such an article about an American hospital. I do not however, think that the outcome would be the same. I agree that WP:NOTNEWS should be followed, but some time ago there was a discussion about that policy, in which I argued that it should be followed in such cases, but the outcome was that most editors thought that news sources should be accepted. That is the consensus, much as I don't agree with it, so it should apply to the whole world equally. I'm afraid that I can't link to the discussion without spending more time than I have available now to look for it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC) And please, someone, fix the indentation here[reply]
Keep. Widely covered, still covered as I type this, unusual event with a double digit death toll. Very likely this will see continuing coverage.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep covered by both local and international sources and I think it will have enduring notability. If it doesn't, we can always renominate it for deletion a few years from now.VR _talk 15:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same reasons as above🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 05:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devlin O'Ryan

AfDs for this article:

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. Character does not appear to have received any attention in third party sources. Previous AfD uses some very old Wikipedia logic, so it's not relevant to today's standards. TTN (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. The character already has a section in that article with a bio and room for other relevant information. There appears to be a quote by the character's creator in the article but it's unsourced. That information can be merged if a source for it can be found. Rhino131 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Redirects are cheap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elysium in popular culture

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

Excessive pop culture trivia, lots of original research, and the majority of sources on the article seem unreliable, citing things such as Wikipedia, MySpace, and Answers.com. Waxworker (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like many of the other "In Popular Culture" articles that have come up in AFD lately, this is just a list of trivia that fails WP:LISTN, as there are not any actual reliable sources talking about the concept of Elysium in popular culture, nor are there any reliable sources discussing the items listed as a group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to preserve this article. Mukt (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm going to keep this for now based on User:Necrothesp's comment. PLEASE discuss mergers and such on the talk page and proceed accordingly. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Police Department Housing Bureau

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article reads in a very promotional manner, even kindly providing a link to official New York City crime statistics. References are all dead links or primary sources from the New York City government.

The article details a division of the New York City Police Department that is a direct successor to the slightly-more-notable-yet-still-lacks-proper-page-references New York City Housing Authority Police Department, which is also pretty unprofessionally written and is probably also going to be on AfD some time soon. The division isn't really that much anyways; they're literally just the Patrol Services Bureau, albeit assigned to housing projects. There isn't a lot of news about it either; all I can find are crimes they investigated, officers from the bureau who got into trouble, or things that just refer to the Patrol Services Bureau and Transit Bureau. AdoTang (talk) 18:00, 7 April 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 April 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant branch of a major police force. Plenty of sources available. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are? Because from what I see, the page only has two remaining primary sources that are outdated. Also, I'm not sure how a regular patrol division of the NYPD assigned to nine areas is "significant" to the likes of, say, the New York City Police Department Emergency Service Unit, but okay. AdoTang (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are other sources. They are covered in the New York Times, and even scholarly articles. I know it looks confusing because the sources are outdated (just dealt with another topic earlier for the same reason) but it's a legit keep. Just needs to be updated. Megtetg34 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to New York City Police Department. There is no reason to create articles on sub-bureaus of any city police department, particularly ones without indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Even one with 35,000 officers?! Hardly your average police department. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Necrothesp. Megtetg34 (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to New York City Police Department. Couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability for it's own article. Whatever the outcome of the discussion is, I think the list of police areas should be removed as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Suonii180 (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal - merge all current short articles on NYPD bureaus (e.g. New York City Police Department Transportation Bureau, New York City Police Department Counterterrorism Bureau) to a new article at New York City Police Department bureaus. There are several articles comparable to this one, and they would fit well together under one title without bloating the already-lengthy article on the NYPD as a whole. BD2412 T 04:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Sealing

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

Has already been PRODded. Lack of notability, unsourced, and was unable to find any sources to incorporate. Waxworker (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, only found passing mention in a book. Jumpytoo Talk 00:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A cursory look at Google News, Scholar, and Books shows a lot of false positives; which may be impeding attempts to find significant coverage. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This unlicensed video game, as a topic, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, in addition to the searches mentioned above. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 23:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Czar's analysis. IceWelder [✉] 08:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of London Eye appearances in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of London Eye appearances in popular culture (3rd nomination)

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

Was previously AFD'd in 2008 and 2009 to no consensus and keep respectively - the article hasn't improved since then, and I think Wikipedia's notability standards for pop culture articles have increased as well. Largely uncited entries that consist of trivial appearances, and the sources that are there don't explain how the London Eye has impacted popular culture as a whole. Waxworker (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:LISTN as there are no reliable sources discussing the appearance of the London Eye in popular culture, nor are there sources discussing the listed entries as a group or set. Most of the individual entries are not sourced, those that are are usually only briefly mentioned in the source, and some of these are nothing more than "it appeared in the background of a scene set in London". Rorshacma (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with Rorshacma, and also see [11].—--Pontificalibus 13:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Springs, Colorado, in popular culture

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

Largely uncited pop culture trivia - the article doesn't explain how Colorado Springs has impacted pop culture, and just consists of a list of trivial mentions of it. Waxworker (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Discussion of the topic belongs in the Colorado Springs main article, unless a WP:SIZESPLIT warrants splitting it off. However this isn’t discussion of Colorado Springs in popular culture at all, it probably ought to be named List of mentions and depictions of Colorado Springs in media, which is no basis for an article at all. --Pontificalibus 12:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't even that. Segregate things a bit, and it turns out that there is NORAD versus Other for much of this, and the only items with sources are filming locations which turn out to be mostly the same buildings. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like many of the other recent "In Popular Culture" articles up at AFD, there need to be actual reliable sources discussing the concept of this city's appearances in popular culture for it to actually pass the WP:GNG or WP:LISTN, and there are not any. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. --Yoonadue (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel Vision (Pop Smoke song)

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

The song doesn't pass WP:NSongs. The only independent coverage of the article comes from the lawsuit and those sources, HipHopDX, AllHipHop, despite being reliable doesn't address the song at all regarding its composition, lyrics, or the reception all of that comes from album reviews and the background info from an interest third party. Charting does not indicate that a song is notable. That information regarding the lawsuit could be merged into the parent album/Pop Smoke's article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who has time for this stupid shit? WP:SNOW close nomination due to chart performance (which MarioSouldTruthFan is still trying his darndest to not acknowledge the significance of) and the overwhelming amount of coverage of the lawsuit gives it independent notability. The sources about the lawsuit don't have to talk about the composition. They are talking about the song within the lawsuit and other sources are talking about the composition. Look at how much there is to talk about that lawsuit. Merging it into the album article would make it WP:TOOBIG. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a vote! and I've struck it per WP:IGNORE. @HumanxAnthro:, knock off the personal attacks against the nominator, now. Nate • (chatter) 21:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize for the comment, but please keep it WP:COOL, Nate. I wrote this comment when I was in a very heated mood, and I have a sarcastic side that I never know whether it'll be misinterpreted by other editors. I apologize if my comment came off as a PA, but striking an entire comment (including parts that were actual reasons for my vote which made up most the comment) does not solve anything and makes discussions only more difficult. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Due to Billboard charting and enough supporting references. Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song has charted at Billboard and almost all the sources seem reliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 05:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional actuaries

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

Excessive uncited pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional actuaries have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy pass of WP:LISTN – see the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, for example. See also WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs cleanup, not removal. A list of notable works where a primary character is an actuary is a reasonable list. Listing every TV episode where a character has a throw-away line regarding an actuary is not reasonable. Deleting does not help us towards the former. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like this into a prose article that looked like this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. I don't know that the link Andrew Davidson provided is all that helpful to us (So here are five times actuaries have been portrayed on the big screen, blogs Charlotte Forsyth.), but there are other sources discussing actuaries in fiction as a group.[12][13][14] As a sidenote, I think that a few of the broken links in the reference list on the article are articles by Daniel Skwire, who has written several articles about specific instances of actuarial issues in fiction. I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson and 力. In my own words: As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional actuaries, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think that "I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, e.g. by citations (though by its nature, the entries themselves already give primary sourcing), but that is not a reason for deletion.

For the first point, "fictional actuaries" is clearly delineated, and as there are many blue links in the list, it is something that does appear on Wikipedia and is therefore not trivial.

For the second, the fact that eight such lists were nominated within minutes makes it highly doubtful that the nominator did a proper WP:BEFORE search, which is part of the normal AfD process. As found by above, the topic itself seems to be notable, and the list should be kept on that grounds also.

As for changing this from a list into an article, I have no particular aversion against that, but in my opinion the list itself also has its uses. In think the comparison between Climate of London and list of rainy days in London is not quite accurate, because if properly used this list is not indicriminate. We don't have entries about single rainy days in London because they are not noteable. We do have e.g. a List of European windstorms, because many of them (and the topic itself) are notable. Daranios (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 05:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional anthropologists

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

Excessive uncited pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional anthropologists have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy pass of WP:LISTN – see the Anthropologists in Films: ‘The Horror! The Horror!’, for example. See also WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Individually non-notable elements of a fictional work (such as characters and episodes) may be grouped into an appropriate list article." (from guidelines. A List of Dilbert characters is cited in the guidelines as the kind of list that is acceptable (because the individual entries are not notable but the total is acceptable). Fictional anthropologists come up in more than just pop culture, making them more meaningful than a comic series. The entries are either linked to Wikipedia articles or references are given to their sources (books, films, television shows). The list is not indiscriminate: the entries are ones that are of the type named in the list title. Kdammers (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like this into a prose article that looked like this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. I believe the article linked by Andrew Davidson demonstrates that a prose article can be written. I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew's note about WP:LISTN, with another example that covers fictional anthropologists: "On Forensic Anthropologists in Fact and Fiction." Additionally, "unencyclopedic" in the nomination is especially vague when even-further qualified as merely the nominator's "feel[ing]" regarding this list. I do agree with TompaDompa that a prose article is preferable, but don't think this is absolutely necessary for its continued existence. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the editors above. In my own words: As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional anthropologists, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think that "I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, e.g. by citations (though by its nature, the entries themselves already give primary sourcing), but that is not a reason for deletion.

For the first point, "fictional anthropologists" is clearly delineated, and as there are many blue links in the list, it is something that does appear on Wikipedia and is therefore not trivial.

For the second, the fact that eight such lists were nominated within minutes makes it highly doubtful that the nominator did a proper WP:BEFORE search, which is part of the normal AfD process. As found by above, the topic itself seems to be notable, and the list should be kept on that grounds also.

As for changing this from a list into an article, I have no particular aversion against that, but in my opinion the list itself also has its uses. In think the comparison between Climate of London and list of rainy days in London is not quite accurate, because if properly used this list is not indicriminate. We don't have entries about single rainy days in London because they are not noteable. We do have e.g. a List of European windstorms, because many of them (and the topic itself) are notable. Daranios (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 05:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional scientists and engineers

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

Excessive pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional scientists and engineers have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Lots of original research, and while there are citations for some entries on the list, they don't cover the concept of fictional scientists and engineers as whole. Waxworker (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These drive-bys get sillier and sillier: Great Scott!, Beam me up, Scotty... Anyway, here's a couple of papers to demonstrate WP:LISTN: From the wizard to the doubter: Prototypes of scientists and engineers in fiction...; The Scientist in Fiction.

Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like this into a prose article that looked like this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. The first article linked by Andrew Davidson clearly demonstrates that writing a prose article about this is possible. I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thinking logically, since we have pages about books or films where these characters appear, nothing prevents from creating such lists per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists. Same about other similar lists of fictional characters. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson and My very best wishes. In my own words: As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional scientists and engineers, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think that "I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, e.g. by citations (though by its nature, the entries themselves already give primary sourcing), but that is not a reason for deletion.

For the first point, "fictional scientists and engineers" is clearly delineated, and as there are many blue links in the list, it is something that does appear on Wikipedia and is therefore not trivial.

For the second, the fact that eight such lists were nominated within minutes makes it highly doubtful that the nominator did a proper WP:BEFORE search, which is part of the normal AfD process. As found by Andrew Davidson, the topic itself seems to be notable, and the list should be kept on that grounds also.

As for changing this from a list into an article, I have no particular aversion against that, but in my opinion the list itself also has its uses. In think the comparison between Climate of London and list of rainy days in London is not quite accurate, because if properly used this list is not indicriminate. We don't have entries about single rainy days in London because they are not noteable. We do have e.g. a List of European windstorms, because many of them (and the topic itself) are notable. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 05:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional actors

AfDs for this article:

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

Excessive uncited pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional actors have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless some sources discussing the topic of "fictional actors" can be found, this is unnecessary. I know there's some guideline that says it's fine to double up on categories and lists, but it also says it's up to user discretion if we actually do it. This is a case where the category is fundamentally superior in every way. If this is kept, it definitely needs to be cut down to only characters that actually have articles to remove the junk. TTN (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Fictional actors. No need for "cultural impact" to be demonstrated, and we are listing article subjects by what they are. Note the nom copy and pasted the same boilerplate into at least eight separate nominations, all made at the same time. In response to TTN, whether it only includes standalone articles or not is a matter of normal editing and discussion to resolve; regardless there are clearly plenty of articles to list. Even notwithstanding WP:NOTDUP, the list can be (and has been) annotated with what work(s) the character is featured in, time period, etc., so it is already demonstrating a function that the category cannot perform. We really need a compelling reason not to permit a list where we have a category ("discretion" without that turns into IDONTLIKEIT), and none have been presented. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current list proves unmanageable and useless for navigation. Even with stricter standards and careful eyes on it, it'll always be a cesspit of people adding random "important" characters that do not have articles. Compared to the management of lists dealing with real people, they are infinitely easier to manage because it's simply a case of blue links and red links. That would be my criteria as to why it's unsuitable for a CLN list. I don't believe your proposed data points are particularly meaningful when it comes to the management of fictional characters that share a very narrow connection (which honestly only exists in the first place due to not wanting to mix reality and fiction, not that "fictional actors" are in any way actually separately important as a topic). TTN (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The play within a play is a Shakespearean device in works such as Hamlet and A Midsummer Night's Dream and this naturally attract critical attention and consideration of the fictional actors such as Nick Bottom. And there are lots of famous movies in which Hollywood refers back to itself: Sunset Boulevard and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. See The Rise Of Self Referential Cinema for some cultural impact. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like this into a prose article that looked like this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. For a prose article like that, we want WP:Reliable sources with in-depth discussion of fictional actors as a group. My WP:BEFORE search turned up surprisingly few such sources, but it did at least lead me to this source: Esslin, Martin (1987). "Actors Acting Actors". Modern Drama. 30 (1): 72–79. doi:10.1353/mdr.1987.0044. ISSN 1712-5286. I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional actors, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think, especially as this is a second nomination, that "I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, it's possible it needs triming, but I do not think that it is unmanageable. And "needs improvement" is not a reason for deletion.

For the first point, "fictional actors" is clearly delineated, and as there are a number of blue links in the list, it is something that does appear on Wikipedia and is therefore not trivial.

For the second, the fact that eight such lists were nominated within minutes makes it highly doubtful that the nominator did a proper WP:BEFORE search, which is part of the normal AfD process. As found above, the topic itself seems to be notable, and the list should be kept on that grounds also.

As for changing this from a list into an article, I have no particular aversion against that, but in my opinion the list itself also has its uses. In think the comparison between Climate of London and list of rainy days in London is not quite accurate, because if properly used this list is not indicriminate. We don't have entries about single rainy days in London because they are not noteable. We do have e.g. a List of European windstorms, because many of them (and the topic itself) are notable. Daranios (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be a clear consensus to keep this article. Further discussion on the scope (who gets included?) and style (should this remain a list or be converted to more of a prose article) is would be useful (and perhaps is even needed) but that can and should happen on the article talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional nurses

AfDs for this article:

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

Excessive uncited pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional nurses have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Fictional nurses. No need for "cultural impact" to be demonstrated, and we are listing article subjects by what they are; there are clearly plenty of notable examples. Note the nom copy and pasted the same boilerplate into at least eight separate nominations, all made at the same time. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is a cookie-cutter driveby with no specifics. Its basis is the argument to avoid of WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. And it utterly fails to address the fact that this has been at AfD before when the result was a clear keep. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Per Nurse Ratched, "The best thing we can do is go on with our daily routine." Andrew🐉(talk) 18:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion because it's entirely unsourced and has entries I feel are trivial, and doesn't explain how the subject of fictional nurses is notable, which seem like specifics to me. The last AFD for this was in 2017, I don't think creating a discussion about an article that was previously nom'd four years ago is disruptive. The article strikes me as WP:LISTCRUFT, and I don't think that having a category for fictional nurses means there needs to be a list of fictional nurses. Waxworker (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTCRUFT is neither policy nor guideline – that's just like, your opinion, man. And, if we have a category then that's good evidence that a list is sensible too – see WP:CLN which does have official status. This clueless, cookie-cutter spasm is like the recent spree of Coin945 and the consensus seems to be that they are disruptive. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating eight articles that you don't agree with is not nearly the same as 72 in a matter of three hours. I made the same points on several of the articles I've nominated, but I stand by my statements; I feel like you're ignoring my arguments by virtue of you not agreeing with them. I think you're out of line with accusations of disruptive behaviour and "clueless, cookie-cutter spasm" nominations, and I think it's best to discuss the nomination at hand. I would have opted for a batch deletion, but I felt that individual discussions would be more productive, especially as they're different subjects. Waxworker (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These nominations were done at a rate of more than one a minute. And notice that the common courtesy of notifying the page's creator was not done. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that nominating eight articles in a short span is better than 72, because discussing them is a lot of work but still somewhat manageable. The fact that the nominations have been done within minutes, however, suggests to me that no WP:BEFORE search has been done, and that's a step that should be done in the process. Nominating for deletion is easy, finding sources can be hard work. I don't think re-nomination after four years is disruptive. But I think pushing the work of WP:BEFORE on others, or not discussing why the consensus of the last discussion should no longer apply is not helpful for finding the best decision for Wikipedia.

Also, the fact that there's a category is no reason not to have a list, too. Daranios (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like this into a prose article that looked like this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. I believe the sources discussed in the previous AfD nomination demonstrate that we can write a prose article about this. I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I nominated this for deletion the first time. My position on this is that if the article is going to be kept, there is a provision that only notable entries, with articles, are included in the list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, for example, Ajf773 would exclude Margaret "Hot Lips" Houlihan. That's absurd and, in any case, making rules of this sort is not the purpose of AfD. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a character's unsourced and doesn't have an article, it doesn't seem controversial to me to remove it. What does seem controversial is leaving an edit summary of 'kiss my ass' when someone disagrees with you. Waxworker (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced ≠ unsourceable. Clearly Houlihan's inclusion would be verifiable and also strange to omit, and I agree with Andrew that inclusion is for resolution at the article (no comment on conduct issues raised by Waxworker of which I have no knowledge). postdlf (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Write the article then. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's all stay civil and concentrate on arguments, not persons.

No specific editor should required to write anything. A deletion discussion is not the place to call for conditions, or discuss how to improve it - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The question is if it can be improved to the point of making sense. It seems to me all the arguments are about the current state of the article. But, as Postdlf state, Wikipedia policy requires the existance of sources, not their presence in the article. For Houlihan as an example, just have a look at a search in general, or this source in particular. Daranios (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First I think Postdlf has the right of it: This is a clearly delineated subject, and the list contains many blue link to either whole articles or article sections. So on either count the topic is treated often enough on Wikipedia to justify the list. Secondly I have the strong impression that neither a proper WP:BEFORE search has been done, and the previous deletion discussion has not be taken into account. There a number of secondary sources have been listed, demonstrating that the topic itself is notable, which means according to WP:LISTN that the existence of a list is justified on that grounds also. And lastly, the criticism mostly seems to be targeted at the curent state of the article, which is not really relevant for a decision about deletion. Daranios (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My problem here is that such lists should risk being a collection of all information. We don't have a list of all nurses, just list of notable real-life nurses, right? What about fictional? If this list was to be limited only to notable fictional nurses, that's one thing, but if not, where do we draw a line? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: While this may be a problem elsewhere, I think this list has solved it without any specific regulations: It currently contains only fictional nurses that have blue links, i.e. have their own article or redirect to section of an article on Wikipedia. If there should be the need for formalizing something for the future, that's not a question for an AfD but the list's talk page. Or, if a general need is felt, instigate the creation of a guideline. Daranios (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found in the first AfD, which demonstrate that they should have been reviewed before a new AfD was started. Jclemens (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I came across this discussion and saw that the list still had the AFD template. It appears that Wareon restored the template due to this discussion's closing editor being a sock that is now blocked. Therefore I reverted the closing, though I am not sure if this discussion needs to be relisted or restored elsewhere in some sense. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 4 May 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. Missvain (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurst Lodge School

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

Hello, following up on my amends a couple of weeks ago, I wanted to follow up and propose that this page is deleted. The main reason is that the relevant history information is now included on the new School page created by @tacyarg and so this article is a duplication of what is written in Hurst Lodge Established 2020.

As a new editor this is my first page deletion request I have read most of the guidance on deletion and so I am hoping I am making this request properly.

I got a bit lost on deletion sorting lists, sorry. SeraphinaBlue (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would actually delete the new page, Hurst Lodge School (established 2020), after ensuring that any additional info is on the old page. This retains the editing history of the old page. The reason for setting up the new page in the first place was because CoI editors were deleting all the info about the pre-2018 school from the old page. I was advised that they should be treated as two different schools. I don't really have an opinion on whether they are in fact two different schools needing two articles, but if they are one school I would keep the old page. Tacyarg (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but merge here Hurst Lodge School (established 2020), per Tacyarg. If the “new” school identifies itself with the old school, very few sources will distinguish between them and only one article is needed. The original school is clearly notable. The new school might become notable, too, especially if it changed its name, but for now almost all of the reliable sources for it have been taken from this page and do not apply to a new school just established. If it is a different school, it needs to stand on its own feet in terms of notability. NB, I won’t say most independent schools have been founded and refounded, running out of money and being re-launched from time to time, and/or merged with other schools, but both are pretty common. Moonraker (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You MoonRaker and Tacyarg, keeping the original page would work - I (or others) can put the additional 2020 info on Hurst Lodge School and then request the new page 2020 for deletion instead. My original point is that two pages are not needed, and it seems there is agreement for that.SeraphinaBlue (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable and well sourced. The page on the "new" school should be merged into this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input - I will flag the other one for closure, and remove this notice.SeraphinaBlue (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello experienced editors, I tried to remove the AfD notice on this page, but on the edit history noticed that a bot has replaced the notice today. Now there is geenral agreement to keep the page how do I remove this AfD notice to stop it reappearing? thanks in advance for any guidance.SeraphinaBlue (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SeraphinaBlue, This is not good to remove AfD notice on your own. Once an uninvolved admin/editor closes this AfD procedurally, they'll manage removing the notice. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:10, 2 May 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. ✗plicit 12:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Coles (businessman)

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

Non-notable businessman fails WP:GNG not reliable in-depth coverage. PR paid sources. Sanketio31 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sanketio31 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are many in-depth sources. For example this long profile in SFGATE. Second: a profile in the New York Times titled "Meet the Newt Killer". The Atlanta-journal Constitution profiled his book here. Those three alone are enough for GNG. In addition here is an NPR interview. The Chicago Tribune wrote about his work at Caribou. And so on. This is a bit of a bogus nomination, as there do not appear to be any "PR paid sources".--- Possibly (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources talks indepth about him just trival mentions for his company. The sources which talks indepth about him are not WP:RS. Also, after checking a bit the creator seems to have a strong COI with the subject for uploading images as his own work. Fails WP:GNG Sanketio31 (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)--- Possibly (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CommanderWaterford:, you didn't need to trim that. Saying that someone's deletion rationale is BS is not a personal attack, nor is pointing out that they have 130 edits total on Wikipedia, seeing as they are suddenly incorrectly nominating articles at AFD.--- Possibly (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly We seem to be quite often not of the same opinion today. We do not call others opinion Bullshit and we do not valuate other Editors just about their Numbers of Edits. Do not repeat this again. I was also thinking about nominating this article for AfD, most of your sources are only by-pass mentions but there are 2-3 sources (SFGate and CNN) which indeed "rescued" this subject. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine to call someone's opinion bullshit, as far as I know. Our own article says that "It is mostly a slang term and a profanity which means "nonsense", especially as a rebuke in response to communication or actions viewed as deceptive, misleading, disingenuous, unfair or false.", which makes it an appropriate word choice here. If you search talk pages, you will find it is frequently used. Regarding notability, I continue to be perplexed as to why you want this deleted, seeing as there are so many good, in-depth sources. Anyway, let's not waste time disputing this minor item; let's sit back and let others give their independent opinion as to why SIGCOV in Time, the Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times and so on does not cut it, notability-wise.--- Possibly (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time Magazine, 1996: "When Democrat Michael Coles announced for Congress against Newt Gingrich, the audience was filled with friends, supporters and a hostile, blue-furred Cookie Monster. The costume, worn by a Gingrich backer, was a dig at Coles' background. He is the self-made multimillionaire founder of the 400-store Great American Cookie Co...

Coles, in fact, has a profile that could have been lifted directly from the entrepreneurial lore of GOPAC, the Gingrich-inspired fund-raising operation. Coles and a partner began business in 1977 with $8,000 in start-up cash, a location at the Atlanta area's Perimeter Mall and so little cookie-baking smarts that his first batch burned and the fire department showed up. Two decades later, his company operates in 38 states and has annual sales of about $100 million. He has pushed hard since he was eight, when a fire at his father's rag-recycling business forced the family into bankruptcy. Coles did yard work in the neighborhood to bring in money, eventually hiring others in his enterprise. He held two jobs in high school and never attended college. At 31, he founded a clothing company and then turned to cookies.

Coles has also triumphed over physical adversity. After a near fatal motorcycle accident in 1977, doctors told him he would never walk again unaided. But Coles struggled back and is today a champion bicyclist; he once set a Southern transcontinental record for his 11-day trek from Savannah, Georgia, to San Diego. Says Coles campaign manager Kate Head: :::"This is a guy who believes in the American Dream.".--- Possibly (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add this Christian Science Monitor article to the list.--- Possibly (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't understand the nomination either. Also significant coverage in the Washington Post. 15 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cleary meets WP:GNG by having significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. ColinBear (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article, like some others, raises the question of how to deal with an autobiography of a person who is determined by a Before AFD search to pass biographical notability, because this article either is an autobiography, or is the result of paid editing. The nominator, User:Sanketio31, is absolutely right, as is User:CommanderWaterford. The image in the draft was from the subject's web site; it says so in Commons. The image either was included by the subject or the subject's flack with permission, or the image was ripped off from the subject's web site. The former is more plausible. The original draft of this article was a puff piece. The questions are, first, whether this article has been improved and neutralized enough to be kept, and, second, whether the originator should be sanctioned. However, this is a content forum and will not answer the second question. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Having done lots of work to combat COI on Wikipedia, I'm sympathetic to what you are saying. However, COI does not matter in notability discussions, which I think you are also acknowledging. Regarding the image, it is an extremely common occurrence that unconnected editors grab images from the web for articles, then upload them to Commmons and mark them "own work". If there was anything to be done about potential COI here, I think we would have done it already. (And our COI policy is toothless; even if the article creator admits to COI it changes very little. They get a slap on the wrist and have to put a tag on their user page. Then they can keep editing.) --- Possibly (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator has stated here that they read Coles' book and also saw him speak at their high school. So, asuming good faith, this is apparently not a COI product at all.--- Possibly (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact. That claim that this is not a COI product is incredible, meaning not worthy of belief by a rational H. sapiens. If the article creator did not have a conflict of interest, then they had even less excuse for writing the puff piece that has now been trimmed down to something reasonable. I agree that our COI policy is weak and problematic, and this appears to be a case where COI editors have driven a cookie truck through a fence. However, I will review the article as it currently stands and its sources before !voting in this AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me their story it seems entirely plausible. The first version of the article looks just like a book report a high schooler might write. Anyway, the whole COI thing is a digression in terms of the AfD.--- Possibly (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This has been a Heymann improvement from the paid piece which I declined. As noted by other editors, the article clearly satisfies biographical notability. In the short run, keeping the article improves the encyclopedia. In the longer run, conflict of interest editors will see that the system has been gamed, and that autobiographies and paid biographies can be submitted, and are likely to be reworked to neutral or nearly neutral form by reviewers. So it is definitely in their interest to submit autobiographies and paid pieces, because they are likely to be accepted, and they might get through in a form that has not been fully neutralized. The system has been gamed. Reviewers need to be even more vigilant than in the past to look for promotional articles and rework them. Keeping is wrong, because it encourages promotional edits, but deleting would be more wrong. There is no right answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I don't mean to bludgeon this AfD with so many comments, but you're mischaracterizing what happened here; keeping this article has nothing to do with enabling COI editors. The article was submitted and then rejected by two reviewers. A good faith editor (me) happened upon it spent some time fixing it. Regarding COI it might appear to be UPE, but the editor who started it has denied that. Decently sourced articles by UPE editors are not deletable unless they are made during a block, as far as I know. Nor do we delete or prevent the publication of articles that meet our criteria as a result of the improvements of good-faith editors like myself. As with many things in Wikipedia, the question is not so much how the article got written or how anyone feels about that process, but rather, the question is whether it ultimately improves the encyclopedia. And you have answered that it does, albeit weakly. --- Possibly (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. SFGATE article is behind a paywall. NYTimes article is a reprint publication and other sources don't talk in-depth about him. It strongly looks like a paid piece by the creator as also highlighted by Robert McClenon. COI and UPE should never be rewarded. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The SFgate article is not behind a paywall where I am. In any case, paywalls have nothing to do with reliability. MarioGom (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like a basic Wikipedia Page for this businessman. The person appears to be extremely notable with well known sources and should be kept. Has helped secured $80 Million+ in profit.
https://beyond8figures.com/podcast_episode/80m-exit-michael-coles-great-american-cookie-company/
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/11/13/caribouceo Thedangeroz (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources already provided appear adequate to meet WP:GNG, issues with COI and tone can be handled through normal editing. --Jayron 32 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a result of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications, thus satisfying relevant guidelines for inclusion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, sourcing is fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boharo

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been nominated for deletion before, and the result was merging it into Maakhir. However despite this the article is still up. Not only does the article violate as it is not notable enough, but it also only contains one reference and the article has been practically unsourced since 2007.

Given the lack of content in this article, lack of sources and the lack of notability I highly suggest this article is deleted. Dabaqabad (talk) 15:53, 15 April 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 April 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bump Just want to see your opinions Dabaqabad (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was "rescued" from AFD the first time around by sourcing it to a 1987 edition of the U.S. BGN Gazetteer of Somalia. Well we all know how badly people use that as a source, nowadays. Indeed, reading the gazetteer cited as a source reveals that the BGN specifically listed this as "MTS" and "VAL", not "PPL". Yes, Boharo was mountains and a valley. In 1987. According to the U.S. BGN.
The other source did not even come from this article, which is why it has nothing about Boharo in it. It's from the Haylaan article and actually says that that is the province, which the source, from 2013, supports. It's not clear why Special:Diff/891826783 was even done. Clearly the pre-merge Haylaan article was better sourced than this one.
This is just yet another confused BGN mess. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haylaan as a duplicate. The Government of Puntland site is no longer live, but the 2017 archive is available, [15]. it lists Haylan as one of the provinces. The search in english on Haylan (or Haylaan) being renamed to Bogaro yields exactly zero results.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete The supplied source doesn't mention this name at all, and I'm not seeing a reason why this should be pointed at any other article. Mangoe (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Mangoe, can't see coverage in sources. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David O. Leavitt

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

This article was nominated for proposed deletion the other day, but the rationale was just so wrong headed I could not let it stand. I suspect if I had let it slide this article would be deleted. The argument was that he was county procesutor for a "small county". The problem is that I see no way to describe Utah county as such. It has over 600,000 people. This means it is roughly the same size as the city of Detroit and several other major US cities. True, Detroit Metro Area has way more people than Utah County, and there are other factors in notability, but Utah County is not small. So much of its growth has been recent that it has not registered on the conscience of some people. On the other hand as the home of Brigham Young University, Utah county has a notability that is greater than its actual population. I am among thousands of people who have spent significant amounts of time in Utah County who do not live there currently. The county's other true university Utah Valley University, is still in some ways a technical college that has evolved to having more pgrams, but it still does have some impact and does draw more students from far beyond the borders of the state of Utah than one would expect, although some of that is people wanting to be part of the BYU culture who do not have the academic background to be admitted to BYU. When Leavitt was diagnosed with COVID-19 in April 2020 not just the Provo (county seat and largest city in Utah County) paper but the two main papers published in Salt Lake City covered it. However I do not think coverage because you were a semi-notable person who got COVID before May 1, 2020 is really enough to justifiy an article. There is more coverage of his race for state attorney general, which some might think exceptional for a candidate in the primary as opposed to general election. However Utah state wide general elections have been all won by Republicans for the last 30 years, often by huge margins and sometimes involving Democrat candidates who did things deliberately designed to alienate over half the electorate in ways that show they are not at all serious about winning and even less serious about building the relationships they would need to actually govern the state if they did win, so Republic primaries get covered because they are the deciding election, and so the coverage of a candidate in them needs to be exceptionally unsually unexpected to show notability. There is also coverage in all three papers about a staff attorney that Leavitt hired in his office, but that is more incidentally about Leavitt. I did find this [16] from the redemptive justice institute on how Leavitt is a leading figure in introducing diversion programs and other methods to try to reduce rates of incarceration. Keep in mind Utah County is not exactly a hot bed of crime, there are some areas of Provo that have some crime true, but I believe overall the county has far lower rates than Salt Lake County, and is way below the crime rates in Wayne or LA counties, plus it has far lower rates of drug use and drunkeness and DUI and underaged drinking arrests than any other county in the US with similar numbers of college sutdents, except maybe Madison County, Iowa. So while Leavitt's programs are innovative, their overall effect is less than if he was in a place where prosecutions and arrests were far more common. THe Deseret News did published this article [17] on the board Leavitt formed to give those conviced a chance to argue they were unfairly convicted. We do have this US News and World Report article [18] on Leavitt appointing Patty Johnston to be the first female to be the chief investigator for Utah County. This is really just an AP rehash of the Daily Herald article, and I have to wonder if some of this comes from a confusion of thinking Johnston is the first woman in Utah to hold the position of chief investigator for the county prsecutors office, instead of the reality which is she is the first women to hold the position in Utah County. Bare in mind Utah was the second state to allow women to vote (although the federal government revoked that right) and the first state to allow women to serve on juries. The coverage there is only incidentally about Leavitt, and my first question to a breathless "first women to do x" article like this is when was this office established? I suspect that it has not existed nearly as long as the county. I am not sure county prosecutors even existed before Utah became a state, and I have my doubts that they thought they needed to appoint someone else to be the chief investigator until more recently than that. Our article on Utah county seems to say nothing about its various government offices, not even explaining the baisc structure. So there is no help there. On full consideration though I do not think we should have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought in the late summer/fall he had been vocally against mask mandates, but on further review I realized that was the Sheriff and not Leavitt. This is one reason why it is hard to consider any county prosecutors/state district attorney's default notable. At the statewide and federal level the attorney general is both the top officer over prosecution and the ultimate top authority on decisions of law enforcement, although they gnerally have to defer to governors and presidents on some of this. They order the raids and they prosecute those raided, thus Janet Reno was balmed for the fiasco when they tried to apprehend Vern "David Koresh" Howell and his followers in Waco. At the county level, the prosecutor only handles the prosection and enforcement side, although in at least some localites some misdemeanor prosecutions and civil enforcements are handled by city attorney in incorporated areas. On the enforcment and incarceration side, sheriffs handle the jails but many cities have their own lock up facilities under the police chief, felons end up in state prison systems run under a different way, some do spend months in jail though, sherrifs oversee all enforcement in unincorporated areas, some municipalities contract police service with the county [the two county seats in Metro Detroit's 3 countries in the 2 counties other than the one that has Detroit as the county seat do this, it was done in Camden, New Jersey to brake up what was seen as a corrupt police department, and there are other cases as well]. Still, in Detroit which I live in and know best, the county prosecutor mainly handles prosecutions on cases where the arrest and investigation was made by Detroit police, and the majority of non-Detroit police cases Kym Worthy handles are from the 20 or so other police departments she takes cases for, not from the county sherif, I am not even sure who the current sheriff is, we had Benny Napoleon but he died of COVID. Yes, we do have an article on Worthy, but she is only for sure notable because she brought down "King Kwame" Kilpatrick and his corrupt regime, and because she as an assistant prosecutor was the lead in the successful prosecution of Budzyn and Nevers for allegedly causing the death of African-American motorist Malice Green. Yes her office also has handled several other notable cases, she was a judge for a time at a level that might be enough for notablity, she did a huge push to process through unprocessed evidence kits gathered in rape investigations, and there is more. Also Wayne County has roughly 2 million people and is the center of the state in every measure, and as I have explained the amount of work that comes under the County Prosecutor in Michigan's system far exceeds that processed under the county sherrif. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 15 April 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 April 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter summary I think the coverage of Leavitt's run for state attorney general falls under standard coverage and so does not meet what we expect for a politician. No one below the atterney general at the state level of enforcement is default notable. As mentioned someone like Kym Worthy is notable because of coverage, but that was true before she even became county prosecutor. The sources we have beyond that are summarized 1-an adocacy article that I am not convinced is a reliable source 2-coverage about someone he appointed that is bascially standard news, and not much about him 3-coverage of another person he appointed that is a breathless news coverage where I do not think the person who wrote it really knows what they are talking about, they are basically trying to decieve us into thinking something is going on that really is not, but even if we take it at face value it is not giving indepth coverage of Leavitt. Oh and 4-new coverage of him being diagnosed with Covid-19. I do not think we want to say that "anyone who someone felt it was newsworthy enough to report had Covid-19 is actually notable" is something we want to make one of our inclusion criteria. Leavitt is a borderline case. This is the type of case that I think would be worth discussing at AfC if we had a truly robust and discussive AfC process. On the whole I do not think Leavitt meets our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NPOL. I think the original PROD notification was fine. Mccapra (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and above, fails WP:NPOL. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Gartlehner

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

Non notable physician, lacks indepth sources Sanketio31 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sanketio31 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added references for Gartlehner's function at RTI International [19] and at Université de Paris [20] --Himbernd (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, it looks like insufficient WP:BEFORE, the subject has an h-index of 58 and 17k citations in the literature. Clearly passes WP:PROF#1. --hroest 14:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. NPROF is one of very few SNGs that supersede GNG, so lack of SIGCOV is irrelevant here. JoelleJay (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep, easy pass of NPROF#1. He might also pass GNG, as there are a whole lot of results in google news with his name (mostly in German).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes, he clearly meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from WP:PROF#C1 considerations mentioned above, I believe the subject also qualifies under WP:PROF#C7, as "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. GoogleNews[21] shows that his views as a medical expert, particularly in relation to COVID-19, are frequently discussed in the media in relation to public policy. GoogleNews has 600+ hits for him and I don't think any of those are false positives. Nsk92 (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambergris (band)

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

Non notable musical band that fails to satisfy WP:BAND. A before search turns up nothing cogent and in all they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Definitely does not appear to be notable. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times coverage of the band and Salon.com, L.L.C. have also been added to the profile.

Mike Jan of the New York Times highlighted this release noting a rock band had been formed that utilized a latin sound.^[1]

Benjamin Wheelock, in his article for Salon Magazine, "You Must Hear This! 'Ambergris'" further notes that Jerry Weiss the band's founder went on to work with Al Kooper playing trumpet and another instrument.^[2]

The New York Times coverage and Salon.com Magazine are two independent sources of coverage of the band Ambergris.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Thus far you have provided two sources which you claim validates the notability of the band, the first one is a good source but one good source doesn’t meet our notability threshold. The second source reads like an opinion piece. Celestina007 (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will Hermes in his book, Love Goes to Buildings on Fire: Five Years in New York That Changed Music Forever, indicated that Ambergris was a rock band in the mold of Blood, Sweat and Tears influenced by Harlow's studying Cuban music in Havana.

^[3]

I've added Will Hermes Book that references Ambergris from the publishers Farrar, Straus and Girous/Macmillian. Thank you. Best regards to everyone currently providing input.

It's not a question of being able to verify that they existed, it's a question of being able to verify that they accomplished something that would pass an WP:NMUSIC criterion. (Also, you definitely need to learn what a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like, because this...isn't it.) Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and all above, clearly fails WP:GNG. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajit Dev

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

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of a dancer and choreographer, swathed in far too much promotional advertorialism to sort out whether he actually has a credible claim to passing WP:CREATIVE or not. As always, everybody who exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he has a job -- he needs to be able to show some evidence of distinction (awards, critical analysis of the significance of his work, etc.) to pass the notability bar, and he needs to be able to show real reliable source coverage about those distinctions to verify that the claims are accurate. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody is able to write and reference an article properly, but he isn't entitled to keep an unreferenced article that reads like it was written by a first year public relations student. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although Google search returned results, very hard to find reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage. Not notable as per WP:NBIO and WP:CREATIVE as of now. Roulisegee (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Roulisegee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (striking, blocked sockpuppet.─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete There is some coverage but as per nom not enough news coverage to qualify for notability. Citterz (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All comments so far are by blocked editors...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the nom . There is no sigcov hence fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom.--Ankit (Talk with me) 21:17, 2 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Acharya

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

The person does not seem notable enough. The present references probably isn't good enough. Anil Acharya seems to return a number of Google News results, but none of these are referring to Anil Acharya, the essayist. Dixiku (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nom is correct. Searched on google and nothing showed up. This must be deleted unless someone comes up with any useful sources. Sources might be availabe in local language. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:NPROF, the Tagore National Scholar award appears to satisfy criteria 2, "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national [...] level," because it is from the Ministry of Culture in India. Also, per criteria 8, he appears to have been the editor of a peer-reviewed journal. My !vote is weak because verification has been challenging. Beccaynr (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if he qualifies under 8, but not all peer reviewed journal editors-in-chief qualify. There is at least some basic level of notability that is needed for the journal. I think it is higher than our inclusion notability guideline, but just being peer reviewed is not enough>John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, nothing significant notable here. Sanketio31 (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reviewing the article history, I noticed that content was removed diff as 'irrelevant' and 'promotional,' but it actually may support notability if rewritten to clarify Acharya's role, and help focus research for additional sources. Beccaynr (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, also passes WP:AUTHOR for contributions to Bangla Little Magazine movement. I found mentions in Bangla press with a quick search, including BBC Bangla and coverage of the Kolkata book fair [22] [23] ... what kind of BEFORE was carried out in Bangla? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I don't speak Bangla so I'm happy to defer to others on that but it looks like WP:AUTHOR is just about satisfied. ~~First and final paragraph of the Career section need sourcing and a good prune though.~~ Done a preliminary prune, I'd be leaning draftify if it wasn't for the article's longevity. Could the Bangla !voters please provide links to their WP:BEFORE sources? (cc Goldsztajn) SITH (talk) 01:15, 8 May 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. Keeping for now. Feel free to improve and discuss on talk page. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matters of Life and Dating

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NFILM, a Lifetime network made-for-TV movie with little to no qualifying G-hits... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep Found this review, [[24]]. Not sure the reliability of the site, but I have seen it used on many film articles on Wikipedia, and sometimes as a defense on AfD. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Movie Scene isn't enough all by itself: I've certainly seen people try to park film notability on worse sources than that, to be fair, but it isn't highly meganotable enough to get a film over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only source that's actually been offered. Even just a basic WP:GNG pass would require more. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Present coverage is not enough to qualify for GNG. Citterz (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've expanded it quite a bit, so it would be good to revisit just to determine notability on its present state. @Bearcat, Citterz, Donaldd23, and Adolphus79: ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, expanding the article does not necessarily mean it now passes WP:NFILM... I still do not see anything that changes my mind about the notablility concerns... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the footnotes you added, #2 and #3 aren't really doing anything to help (one that just briefly namechecks this film's existence in a piece that's primarily about a song, and the other is just a 38-word blurb) — and while #1 and #4 are better than that, they don't really add up to enough by themselves. I'd need to see at least one more fairly long piece that was as substantively about this film as 1 or 4 before I'd be convinced that I need to rethink my initial reaction. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is just about enough significant coverage in refs 1 and 4 and The Movie Scene article for a bare pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Atlantic306 that there is probably enough coverage to pass GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Torriano Primary School

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable primary school. Gets the type of local coverage one would expect, but fails WP:GNG. Just got a blurb in the Spectator, so was resurrected, but still not enough to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG - appears in national press articles (Guardian, Spectator 'a snapshot of four notable schools'), plus Pathe Newsreels. It's a notable school, with notable alumni (BAFTA award winning actor Daniel Kaluuya) and notable RIBA award-wining architure. Seaniedan (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Seaniedan. I repeated the search on my own time and found this to be clearly distinguishable from a WP:MILL primary school in coverage terms. The article does have some balance issues and could be a bit more wikified. Vaticidalprophet 10:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but refactor a bit to incorporate more of the history of the institution as the Torriano Junior School, which it was for a much longer time. This should not be treated as a separate institution to come after the previous version, but as the same institution under a new name, with another school merged into it. BD2412 T 00:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above, there was national news coverage in 2015 of a teacher whose whose children joined ISIL.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astrovamps

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

Unsourced, appears to fail WP:BAND. I can't find any significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Google search does not turn up reliable sources that are independent of the subject and talk about the subject in depth. The only hits on Google are from self-published and user-generated sites such are Discogs, Facebook, and Spotify. The recordings have not charted on national music charts or have received any certifications or accolades. The record label is not a major one. --Ashley yoursmile! 16:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akif Abu Assi

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

~~Current sources fails in passing WP:GNG Pilean (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the sources are in arabic.--شوشو مسعود (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his roles as a director do not add up to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He worked as a director at Al Jazeera Sports, which is currently called the Bein Sports media group, won at Cairo Film Festival for Radio and Television by direct a movie "Long road to the school". the sources in Arabic confirm my words. i just don't want any pages i creat to be deleted so that i make sure i create a page which is already exist in Arabic wikipedia so i think it's for sure this person is a notable.--شوشو مسعود (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator has been blocked as sock. Does that mean this AfD is invalid now? Riteboke (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Riteboke: as there was good faith discussion beyond the sock I choose to relist but closing as no consensus in this kind of circumstance is another option available. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Yes that would be for the best. Riteboke (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both sources in the article are brief namedrops that don’t come anywhere close to establishing notability and a search in Arabic produces nothing else. Definitely not notable. Mccapra (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 05:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeland, Louisiana

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, no reliable sources. EpicPupper 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Poydras, is of very high importance to Louisiana history and there were several major events that occurred in Lakeland. I've slightly improved the article. I may add more tomorrow but it's getting late here. DavidDelaune (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep - In Google Scholar found a only a few references to run-of-mill agricultural research that lists plants from Alma Sugarcane Factory and Alma Plantation in Lakeland, Louisiana. Searches of JSTOR resulted in "no results found." Searches of Google Book resulted in few hits for minor agricultural research listing specimens from Alma Sugarcane Factory, Lakel and, Louisianaand a self-published book lacking any historical significance on geneology listing marriages and so forth in the late 1800s in Lakeland, Louisiana. The Internet Archive produced a number of hits related to school year books, food, Katrina, geneology, funding a coup in Grenada, and so forth, but nothing that seemingly would make Lakeland, Louisiana, either notable or significant. Of course, if they took a look, someone else might have a different opinion. Paul H. (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alma, Louisiana and Rougon, Louisiana are separate articles. Interestingly, these are not GNIS imports, but appear to be genuine creations for what people understand to be actual hamlets. They are all in the GNIS, not that that amounts to anything. Uncle G (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've double checked and the current physical address of the Alma plantation which is of very high historical significance is in Lakeland, Louisiana. Out of all of these semi-related unincorporated community articles... the Lakeland article should be preserved in my opinion. DavidDelaune (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have a source (not the dodgy GNIS) that tells us the basics of what this place actually is? "unincorporated community" is a red flag these days, given Wikipedia:GNIS. A good source for a correct definition in the first sentence is a very good idea. Is it a hamlet? A post-village? Something else? Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given that Lakeland has an assigned zip code and a post office I used that to pull up the boundary map. The last census of 70752 puts the population at 836 which I guess makes it a village.^[4]^[5] DavidDelaune (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I generally prefer to find something that actually says. Like an encyclopaedia of Louisiana. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately I don't have a topo map of Louisiana. But I think I know someone who does. I think @Vsmith: has a copy of the Louisiana Atlas & Gazetteer. Maybe he help us.DavidDelaune (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        See https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/30.6013/-91.4000 the USGS site with access to all topo maps. The area has numerous houses and buildings - obviously sufficiently significant for an article as it exists and per the improved article is of interest. Vsmith (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you. I see the site is in 'beta', how long has this resource been available? I feel like this should be added to a list of topic research tools. DavidDelaune (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I've been using it for 10 years or so. The site provide access to all current and historical topo maps which are far more detailed and useful than the current US Topo series which omits ~90% of the details and is rather useless for any detailed research. Vsmith (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You might want to look at the article first. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Research

^ Jan, Mike (April 5, 1970). "New Rock Band Uses Latin Touch". New York Times. Retrieved April 7, 2021.
^ Wheelock, Benjamin. ""You Must Hear This! 'Ambergris'"". salon.com, L.L.C. Salon. Retrieved April 7, 2021.
^ Hermes, Will (2011). Love Goes to Buildings on Fire: Five Years in New York That Changed Music Forever. Farrar, Straus & Giroux/Macmillian. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-86547-980-7.
^ "Lakeland, LA Post Offices". PostOfficeFinder.org. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
^ "Zip Code 70752 Profile, Map and Demographics". Zipdatamaps.com. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

Comment - found some stuff on newspapers.com from the 1890s. Appears to have had an athletic club, a gun club, an ice factory, a post office, and a town hall in the 1890s, based on numerous passing mentions. Haven't found anything directly describing this place though. Described as a village in 1889. But I haven't been able to substantial. Hog Farm _Talk 05:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I might have to reconsider my "delete." I found that Lt. Gen. Honoré is a native of Lakeland, Louisiana. With what [User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] found, that could make it notable. Paul H. (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've slightly improved the article. Please reconsider your vote, this area has some historical significance. DavidDelaune (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidered my "vote" and formally changed it from "delete" to "keep" as indicated by the strikethrough. Paul H. (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY DavidDelaune (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After we've collectively had a go at it, I don't think that this is in the same league as the thousands of truly problematic "is an unincorporated community" articles, sourced to GNIS and placename books. Nor is it an "X is a rock in the middle of a lake/bunch of trees/empty field/a mystery house." problem, as other geographic articles have been over the years. Whilst we've constructed this by putting together a lot of small things from a lot of sources, I suggest that that's enough to give us an article with a significant amount of information when it is all added up. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep - While I'd like to see a little more in-depth coverage in sources, I think there's been enough done here to establish that this is a legitimate historical community, and would suggest keeping this in the sprit of GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Talk 04:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dogecoin. ✗plicit 09:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Markus

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

BLP of a cryptocurrency founder. The currency is notable but I find no sustained coverage of the founder in RIS. A redirect seems the best solution but has been reverted. Mccapra (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dogecoin: Some significant coverage (Business Insider), but not enough yet. That might change in the future given the recent media attention. 15 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability per WP:GNG, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, Wikipedia articles are a work in progress and WP:NOTPERFECT. It's a stub that can be expanded, we don't delete articles about notable people with wide reliable source coverage just because. WP:SOFIXIT if you think the crypto article has more content that could be folded in. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m disputing that the subject is in fact notable with wide reliable coverage as I have not been able to find it. For that reason I have nothing to fix it with. Mccapra (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By redirecting the article on the founder to the article on the crypto you're saying the article has more content than the stub does. Why would we redirect an article to an unrelated topic otherwise? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m saying the crypto has notability but the founder does not. It isn’t a matter of which has more content. Mccapra (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dogecoin per above. I'm not seeing much significant coverage of the founder, and much more on just the cryptocurrency. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dogecoin as per all above. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's a real weakness i the quality of this discussion in that editors have not explicitly been able to highlight for the sources behind paywalls what is specifically contained that satisfies gng, but it is clear that there are sources out there and pretty clear consensus at the moment is to keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Hoffmann

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

A footballer that has spent most of her career in the amateur, regional divisions of Germany. None of her appearances meet WP:NFOOTBALL.

Searching for sources, including using those in the German Wikipedia article, gave these as the three best sources; a transfer announcement in NW, another transfer announcement in RS and this article in a local paper. The last source is the only one that comes close to showing WP:SIGCOV but it isn't enough to pass WP:GNG, in my view. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I also found [25] while [26], [27], and [28] (which if there's any length to it would be directly on her) are paywalled. There's also quite a few match report articles like [29] [30] in which she's not significantly covered. Quite a bit of coverage, actually - I'd be neutral since this isn't a home run but will be going with weak keep since there's clearly enough here to write a decent article from. SportingFlyer T·C 19:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources from SportingFlyer: WAZ is a major newspaper in NRW and links from it were not trivial match reports. Article needs improving, not deleting. Seany91 (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think SportingFlyer has picked up some good sources there, I do feel it could use a bit more, I see room for the article to be improved, borderline GNG pass for me. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there now a growing consensus among the community that transfer announcements and injury announcements add up to passing GNG? GNG is, of course, deliberately vague and open to all sorts of interpretations but I had always thought that such coverage was considered routine and generally ignored for notability purposes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me personally, there's a difference between transfer/injury stories in a major news outlet vs. for example a blog. If one of the largest newspapers in the most populous state in Germany deemed her transfer/injury noteworthy enough to write about it, that's good enough for me. Seany91 (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all of these stories were routine transfer/injury stories (though again some were paywalled), the coverage's not dissimilar to what you might see for a lower division men's player and it's not as if she's a completely random player since she did play in the German top flight and captained a 2. Bundesliga side. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know that she is definitely mentioned in this source? Google translates it to 'Confused wrestling [or struggle] for 09 women'. I was wondering if there was a preview of the article somewhere. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be translated as "Confusing fight for 09 [Wattenscheid] Women," just a Google translate issue. Not sure if it's SIGCOV or not, just that it came up in meine Deutschsuche. SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Try searching Google with the article title and Hoffmann ;) Gives in the preview Konfuses Ringen um 09-Frauen. Bastian Angenendt ... Laura Hoffmann und Sara Doorsoun-Khajeh wechseln zu Bundesligisten. Konfus bis --SuperJew (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell from the excerpt alone whether the source is just a passing mention of Hoffmann or something more in-depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: You asked Do we know that she is definitely mentioned in this source? My above comment shows she is definitely mentioned, but indeed does not show the depth of it or not. --SuperJew (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly some coverage and no clear consensus, definitely worth extending to see if other sources can be presented or if someone can contribute who has access to the sources in full.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. WP:NFOOTBALL aka WP:NFOOTY excludes the majority of top women's leagues around the world and is unreliable. Hmlarson (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Dougal18 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- leaning delete. From the 16 comments on the second WAZ ref ("confused wrestlers"), that article seems to be entirely focused on Herr Jacob's activities and very unlikely to provide SIGCOV of Laura (who isn't mentioned once even indirectly by the commenters). Since we can't know that the other refs are SIGCOV, we can't use them to support anything in our article other than what can be gleaned from the headlines, which for me since this is a BLP puts me more in the "delete" camp. JoelleJay (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles on the grounds that an article may be inaccessible to a specific user. SportingFlyer T·C 12:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALLAloolkaparatha (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus, I agree with sporting flyer that just because an individual User can't access a source we don't delete. The problem here is no one seems to be able to access them and if that is the case then, tantalising as it is, we can't say if they amount to sigcov. No rush to conclude yet but we really need someone to outline what the paywalled articles say if assertions of GNG are to carry real weight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with articles in major news source about her. We also should remember that Wikipedia is not based entirely on online sources, and not every source is readily available to all readers. --SuperJew (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. NFOOTY is a failed SNG since it is such an unreliable predictor of GNG. Although women's football biographies account for <3% of all footballer biographies they seem to attract an inordinate amount of attention at AfD. You have to wonder about the motivations of those involved. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might not like NFOOTBALL but it is the relevant guideline until somebody comes up with an SNG that supersedes it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back Daz Sampson and SuperJew, which sources demonstrate she passes GNG? The WAZ article on her injury that no one can access? The very short local article mentioning her appearances on B-Junior teams? The only source I found even remotely close to SIGCOV is this, but it's hyperlocal, not in depth at all, and is basically routine recovery news. This leaves the paywalled articles as the sole potential for meeting GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: The sources you mentioned and the articles in WAZ which is a big newspaper. The articles being paywalled does not make them less reliable or count less for GNG or SIGCOV. If you think that is the truth, you can go ahead and delete a mountain of articles about footballers from the 1990s and earlier who are based entirely on non-internet non-free sources. --SuperJew (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew:, being paywalled absolutely does preclude us from asserting the articles contain SIGCOV. If we can't see what's written and don't have any evidence that such articles virtually always provide in-depth profiles, we can't claim they support GNG. I have maintained this position in dozens of sports AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: You may maintain whatever position you wish. But per Wikipedia policy, as said on WP:PAYWALL: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. --SuperJew (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...Yes, but in order to actually cite a paywalled source you have to know what it contains. No one here is suggesting non-trivial content that could be added to the article from WAZ, or that WAZ regularly provides stellar in-depth coverage of players in its injury reports; no one is even claiming they have access to WAZ, so there is no dispute over whether it can be cited in the article -- which is what PAYWALL is supposed to mediate. If PAYWALL was a loophole in GNG we could allege SIGCOV exists for anyone whose name appears in a headline. JoelleJay (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ignoring the baseless accusations of sexism from a particular editor, I think the sources found by SportingFlyer are probably sufficient for GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When Fenix down writes, "I agree with sporting flyer that just because an individual User can't access a source we don't delete. The problem here is no one seems to be able to access them and if that is the case then, tantalising as it is, we can't say if they amount to sigcov. No rush to conclude yet but we really need someone to outline what the paywalled articles say if assertions of GNG are to carry real weight." - that is an opinion. Is there a reason you don't add your comment(s) to the discussion instead of repeatedly declaring yourself arbitrator of these discussions on articles about women's footballers? WP:INVOLVED and hiding in re-list commentary is problematic. Hmlarson (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. Fenix down has given similar relisting feedback on tons of AfDs for men in numerous sports. Portraying this as if they (or any other !voters here) are on some misogynist vendetta against women footballers is extremely disingenuous and a pretty clear personal attack. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the gender of AfD subject, opinions shouldn't be listed in a relisting comment. I also hope that Fenix down doesn't intend to eventually close this AfD and later state that they didn't think they were involved. --SuperJew (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay - LOL. Ping me next time. Any editor can close the discussion, but Fenix down seems to be really on it in this area (you seem "new here", though, interestingly enough). Maybe review the evidence based on the edittor's "contributions" or if you'd like I suppose we can ask him if he keeps a calendar / obsessively checks every day to close right at 7 days. Odd, huh.Hmlarson (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Cheng

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted page, Fails WP:NSPORTS Purosinaloense T/K 06:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Purosinaloense T/K 06:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quite surprised to see FOOTY project participants electing to delete in last AfD discussion when the player plays for, Penang F.C. a fully professional league. My primary concern with the article is the block evasion by an editor who has frequented the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/123.136.112.0/21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/123.136.96.0/19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/27.125.249.0/24 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/27.125.250.0/24 Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's worth noting that the situation has changed since the last AfD and Cheng now has multiple appearances for Penang, so meets WP:NFOOTBALL comfortably. The previous discussion occurred when it had been announced that he would be joining Penang in 2021 and so any suggestion that he would play at that point were WP:CRYSTAL. Deletion was the correct outcome, in my view, then but, now, there's enough for this to be kept. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY now. Had I been involved in the 1st AfD, I would have suggested moving it to draftspace as a valid WP:ATD then. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, meets NFOOTBALL comfortably. Giant Snowman 10:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Keep As per WP:ATD and let it vet through AFC. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets NFOOTY with 9 fully-pro games in the ongoing season. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NFOOTBALL without problems CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Singh

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

Fails WP:GNG not enough coverage Purosinaloense T/K 06:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Purosinaloense T/K 06:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. -Hatchens (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nowhere near meeting our notability criteria. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, nothing fails GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - accomplished does not equate with notable. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Combined Campuses and Colleges cricket team. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ojay Shields

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Combined Campuses and Colleges cricket team 8 LA matches, and lots of coverage in match reports and squad announcements, struggling for GNG a bit though. There may be more offline or in paywall news sources that searches don't bring up. At this stage I'm redirect as a WP:ATD. Would be nice for List of Combined Campuses and Colleges cricketers to be set up though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Combined Campuses and Colleges cricket team as suggested above. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Rugbyfan. JoelleJay (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Create an article for a redirect. Fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creep^Talk 21:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Combined Campuses and Colleges cricket team. Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Daley (Combined Campuses and Colleges cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Combined Campuses and Colleges cricket team Has played 4 LA matches, and there's a fair bit of coverage in match reports and squad announcements again, but struggling a bit for GNG. There may be more offline or in paywall sources that a search isn't accessing though. At this stage I'm redirect as a WP:ATD, but would be nice for List of Combined Campuses and Colleges cricketers to be set up. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rugbyfan22: - I don't know if it will help find anything more, but he seems to be known as "Aaron Daley Jr", as a search for "Aaron Daley + cricket" brings back lots of false postivies. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lugnuts, seeing some more match reports and squad announcements, but no interviews or anything like that, don't think there's enough for a GNG pass unless anybody can find anything else. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per Rugbyfan. JoelleJay (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a mention is added to Combined Campuses and Colleges cricket team. {{R to article without mention}} should be avoided. feminist (talk) 07:43, 1 May 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. ✗plicit 05:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, Mendocino County, California

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

And another one where I've got nothing. Topos show a single building out in the middle of the woods near the town of Comptche. Searching is very difficult, as Cameron seems to have been a common last name in this area in the early 20th century. Even searching for Cameron and Comptche together just brings up the Cameron family of Comptche from the 1920s. No idea what this was, no evidence of notability. Another standard mass-creation-with-no-indication-what-this-site-is stub. Note to closer: if this is deleted, then the dab page Cameron, California will need attention. Hog Farm _Talk 05:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per noms rationale. Per my experience in rural NC areas, perhaps said Cameron family owned a store or a farm in that area. At any rate, doesn't seem to be much of a geo feature.-Indy beetle (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron's—Comptche. One mile on private road which joins the Orr's Springs and Mendocino stage road 2 miles east of Comptche;
— Vacation, Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company. 1908. page 145.
In the index under "Resorts, Hotels, Private Homes". I'm not coming up with any documented history attached to the place.
Uncle G (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On topo maps, the 1:24000 Comptsche quadrangle from 1991 seems to show a number of buildings around this location. On satellite imagery from Google Maps I can count approximately nine houses. jp×g 18:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Old enough topos use an odd sanserif font to label this spot, and they label the area just to the east which is now a cleared area occupied by a bunch of poly greenhouses and other farm buildings as "Layton Sky Ranch". It's pretty obviously a residence/farm and not a town. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been to Comptche (see photo on article). Comptche is as close to nothing as you can have and still call it a town. It's a general store, a post office, and a handful of houses, at a crossing of two back roads well off the main ones. If the most you can say about a place is that it's located two miles from Comptche, it's even more nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Hassan (cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 4 LA matches, but all for cricket board sides. I'm not seeing anything other than match reports in the coverage, and nothing significant. No suitable redirect as he played for 3 different cricket board sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good reason for a redirect, and it should be mentioned in the articles. A redirect could go to any of the lists but for consistency there could be a guideline - possibly first played for, last played for, or number of matches. Peter James (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG needs to be met here, but per Rugbyfan's search and my own there is nothing showing SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. Entirely non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Participants favoring deletion demonstrated far stronger arguments which poked holes in both the assertion that the subject is notable and that the references sufficiently illustrated this. ✗plicit 05:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Oliver Guion

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

Fails WP:GNG as a commander. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG, sources are passing mentions and the only significant coverage is of his death. Long and completely irrelevant details regarding his wife and her will. As with the page for his brother Gardiner Henry Guion this is a complete cluster of a geneology project. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He wasn't a commander. He was a captain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability guidelines exist to avoid the creation of of poorly-written, unverifiable, and promotional articles. This is none of those things. It looks to me like a well-written, stable, and neutral article that is verifiable to reliable sources. Now, if the sources are unreliable, that's a problem, but nobody's even claimed that: only that he fails to meet a nebulously defined threshold of being "important enough". jp×g 04:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination still seems to be clinging to WP:SOLDIER even though it has been deprecated. The person's rank is not a reason to delete and, in any case, the nomination gets it wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andrew passes WP:BASIC as per coverage. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Mztourist. I don't see much in the way of RS...just a collection of genealogy websites and what is likely OR in archives. I suspect it's stable because no one looks at it. Intothat darkness 16:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current content. The article doesn't clearly indicate, or emphasize, what made the subject notable as a military person. However, it does clearly emphasize who his father's friends were, who were his distant relatives of the same religion, and who his wife left bequests to in her will. I might reconsider my recommendation if the article received a significant rewrite. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments on the sources: Henry Cort, Quirks of History is a personal website that refers to the subject's father (also named Daniel), not the subject himself. "Archive of the Royal Navy" is too vague a citation to be identifiable. Royal Naval Biography; or Memoirs of the services ... might be a useful source, but it's a work that was published in several volumes, each of which has multiple copies available at the Internet Archive, and I don't know which volume the article about Daniel Guion might be in. Saint George (98) 1785 appears to be part of a personal website, on which the subject is briefly mentioned twice. Strandingsmuseum St. George does not appear to mention the subject. "Archive of the Albers/Lips family in the Netherlands" is too vague a citation to be identifiable. [31] and [32] are genealogy pages. HumphrysFamilyTree.com is a genealogy web page which does not mention the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with JPxG over whether the purpose of our notability guidelines to avoid the creation of of poorly-written, unverifiable, and promotional articles. In any case, they are doing a terrible job in this regard. And this is a poorly-written article. I strongly advise anyone writing an article and wishing to avoid a speedy deletion at the hands of the New Page Patrol to clearly state, preferably in the first paragraph of the lead, what it is that makes the subject worthy of an article. Instead, the lead tells me that he was a Royal Navy officer (should have said captain), had relatives who were not notable, had business dealings with some folks, one of whom was notable (I bought a copy of Microsoft Windows 10, so I'll put myself down as having business dealings with Bill Gates), and another was a good the friend of someone notable, and he lived opposite Royal Navy HQ. We are then left to puzzle out whether his career gives him notability. What we are given is three paragraphs (two of them unsourced) which avoid telling us enough to make such a determination. For example, the source supplied says that he was lost when St George went down on 24 December 1811, but the article avoids telling us this! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but copy content to Commons picture first. Fails NBIO but he can preserve this content by adding it to the Commons image page. Image is in PD and there are no limits on the size of descriptions, are they? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Charles Liebengood

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

Per recent talk page discussions at Talk:April 2021 United States Capitol car attack/Archive 1#Separate article for William Evans (police officer) and a bundled AfD discussion that I've opened earlier on the United States Capitol Police officers slain in the 1998 United States Capitol shooting, I've also decided to open a separate AfD discussion for Liebengood as well, per WP:SPLIT and WP:BLP1E.

Unlike Brian Sicknick, Liebengood's death isn't being classified as a homicide and there is no ongoing investigation into his death, since it's quite obvious how and why he died. He wasn't even laid in honor at the United States Capitol, a basis of notability that's currently being contested. At most, Liebengood will be a footnote in the broader context of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Love of Corey (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither here nor there, but the death is still "under active investigation" according to Capitol Police Feoffer (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only investigation regarding Liebengood's death is whether it should be considered an in-the-line-of-duty death or not, not whether there are any suspects to be sought out in connection with that death. Love of Corey (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Weak Delete -- Liebengood doesn't fit the notability criteria. However his father already has a Wiki page. Howard Liebengood Sr Howard Jr has already been added to that article under #family. I suggest we merge this article into that paragraph since the death is not notable as much as tragic and fresh in the minds of people. If more information about his death in regards to the Capitol Riot attacks, then maybe he can get a stand alone page later.
Keep -- unlike other officers, Liebengood found minor celebrity as a professional auto racer prior to entering law enforcement, winning the Motorola Cup and sponsorship from major corporations. In addition, Liebengood had a notable family background, law enforcement career, and death. Contrast with, for example, Warwick Banks or Jon Dooley or any number of people who are truly only notable for their racing careers. Feoffer (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Forgot this, but pinging the following editors from Talk:April 2021 United States Capitol car attack/Archive 1#Separate article for William Evans (police officer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Chestnut for participation: @Gildir:, @WWGB:, @WikiVirusC:, @Berchanhimez:, @Edge3:, @XavierItzm:, @Slywriter:, @148.75.194.41:, @Coasterghost:, @KidAd:, @Novem Linguae:, @John Pack Lambert:. Love of Corey (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless more sources are found. Per WP:NSPORTS, he doesn't qualify - the series is minor, and he wasn't even part of the main event. All news coverage I can find of his racing career is what I would consider "routine" - and very little is biographic at all, not to mention significant and independent. I could be swayed otherwise if (especially offline) sources can be found and presented that lend more notability to his racing career, but unless he is meeting WP:GNG based on those sources, he does not meet WP:NSPORTS for a presumption, let alone actual notability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not notable for his death, and his sports role was not enough for notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pinging more editors from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Chestnut for participation: @Bearian:, @Willbb234:. Love of Corey (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Chestnut, the articles on Chestnut and Gibson are to be merged back into the event article. WWGB (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. :) Love of Corey (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 04:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jp×g 04:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His story can be told adequately in 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and the article of his father Howard Liebengood, WWGB (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Did not know that article was a thing. Go figure. Love of Corey (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. My opinion has long been that evildoers should be exposed in Wikipedia for the harm they cause, but that has not been the consensus for as long. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhhh...what? Love of Corey (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the textbook WP:RGW opinion that Wikipedia should be used to be the place that exposes individuals for wrongdoing. That someone with 70k edits and advanced permissions believes in this is absolutely absurd. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So much for WP:NPOV I guess. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it. Am I the evildoer? Is that what they're getting at? Or is it the creator of this article? Love of Corey (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no way that this individual meets our notability requirements for his own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for a stand-alone article (WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL) as seen by consensus in other recent AfDs. SportingFlyer T·C 20:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Telugu language#Dialects. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godavari Telugu

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

A single reference, and sources turn up virtually nothing else. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Searches for "Godavari dialect" do better:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, assuming it is the same thing as "Godavari dialect" per above comment, and I assume it includes both "East Godavari dialect" and "West Godavari dialect", some English sources: Mohan Lal (1992). Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature: Sasay to Zorgot. Sahitya Akademi. p. 4075. ISBN 978-81-260-1221-3. "His (P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri's) stories run into twelve volumes, written in the native idiom of the East Godavari dialect."; Mikhail Sergeevich Andronov (1970). Dravidian Languages. Nauka Publishing House, Central Department of Oriental Literature. p. 20. "Five dialects may be distinguished in Telugu: the dialect of the eastern districts (Guntur, Krishna, Godavari)..." Rinbro (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by Onel5969, I too don’t see how GNG is met. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Telugu language#Dialects. May not pass GNG but verifiable and a likely search term. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Telugu language#Dialects as this would be best. Namkongville (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Telugu language#Dialects, Telugu means it's a one Telugu Language, there is no Andhra Telugu, Telangana Telugu, Rayalaseema Telugu etc Applus2021 (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hermitian hat wavelet

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

No independent sources on this topic. An editor admitted on the talk apge that this was copied from his thesis which qualifies this as WP:OR. A very similiar article by the same editor went to AfD in the past and was deleted. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet) Rusf10 (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jp×g 04:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't qualify as WP:OR if it has been published in a PhD thesis, those are generally reliable sources. The problem is lack of notability. Given the lack of interest in the article, the completely absence of sources (including the PhD thesis it supposedly comes from), and the fact that the sister article was also deleted for lack of notability, I assume it's also not notable. Tercer (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding substantial discussion in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the originator. This seems to fall into that all-but-OR region: it was technically published somewhere else first, but the same people who wrote that wrote this, and nobody else has paid real attention to it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Coverage of this subject in published reliable sources seems limited to: this conference proceedings and this conference proceedings, both involving the Szu in 1997 mentioned in this article. Besides this supposed PhD thesis, this hasn't received attention anywhere else. Besides the now-deleted Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet, the article Morlet wavelet is also based on the same PhD thesis (as mentioned here). — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KVM College of Engineering and Information Technology

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

No independent sources are there which gives significant coverage to the subject. Fails GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the creator of the article. According to WP:UNIN, In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia. This is a higher education college recognized by and affiliated to state university- Vis M (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vis M, the current notability guidelines of educational institutions are listed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and this subject fails GNG as per that. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmorwiki, That's for secondary schools. This is an accredited degree-granting college (tertiary educational institution), which is still kind of considered de facto notable I guess. Also, news article https://archive.ph/H5GCO is an independent source that gives significant coverage for the subject (the original link had expired) - Vis M (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vis M, see WP:NSCHOOL. This is applicable for all types of educational institutions and the subject clearly fails it. And this source you provided is mainly giving coverage about all the educational institutions under KVM trust. Moreover this source is written like an advertisement. KVM College of Engineering and Information Technology is an ISO 9001 certified institution that strives to provide technical education of high standards to all sections of the society. The academic programmes offered by the college are recognized by the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). The institution has been approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the Government of Kerala. Built on a 10.8 acre campus, the institution is located just two kilometers from the KSRTC bus station in Cherthala and five kilometers from the Railway Station and the National Highway. The KVM College of Engineering and Information Technology campus has been Wi-Fi enabled and includes excellent halls equipped with Audio-Visual aids. A well-equipped library in the college offers students with a wide range of latest books and journals. The hostel facilities offered by the college maintain impeccable standards. Among the other highlights of the college is the added importance that is rendered to developing the various skills of its students by its Personality Development Programme and the Soft-skill training. A well-coordinated placement cell ensures that the students are provided with good job opportunities after graduation. So this source from Hindu contains many peacock terms to promote this college, which simply means, it is just written for advertisement purpose (possible paid source) from my perspective. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 02:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 01:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:as per non. clearly lacks significant coverage. defcon5 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ankit (Talk with me) 21:07, 2 May 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. ✗plicit 01:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Encryption layer in storage stack

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

Seems to be WP:SYNTH, search comes up with nothing containing this term. Rusf10 (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a 2006 merger of full disk encryption, OTFE, and filesystem-level encryption that hasn't gone anywhere since. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography/Archive 2#Disk encryption reorganization. Uncle G (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of this article is extensively covered by Disk encryption which has proper sources. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources cited and seems to be covered in another article. Heart ^(talk) 05:49, 1 May 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 Maithripala Sirisena#Family and personal life. ✗plicit 02:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyantha Sirisena

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, apart from his connection to the President there is no evidence of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Maithripala Sirisena#Family and personal life, coverage of his death is WP:BIO1E and mainly WP:INHERITED from his brother. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Maithripala Sirisena#Family and personal life as above. Namkongville (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Maithripala Sirisena#Family and personal life.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Calamba, Laguna. With arguments split between whether or not redirection is appropriate, that discussion is probably best held at WP:RFD. Hog Farm _Talk 04:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poblacion V, Calamba

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

Same concern as that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poblacion 1, Calamba. No sufficient sources (only one is provided: [33]), possibly not notable, and has a WP:DIRECTORY-like content (education). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calamba, Laguna: Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Not all Barangays are notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and do NOT redirect as it would be an implausible redirect. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: I think redirecting is fine, as the topic exists at Calamba, Laguna. I would suggest, however, to delete and redirectto prevent immediate resurrection of the unworthy article content. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to IPB University. ✗plicit 02:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pusat Studi Satwa Primata

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

Non-notable primate research centre with no external sources. Jack (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Jack (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IPB University, the parent institution as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IPB University, the parent institution as ATD per above. Namkongville (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IPB University as mentioned above. No need for standalone article. SunDawn (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 14:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chakandra

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY applicable. Written like primary school stuff, without any source, until I reverted. Its a small village and I m also inhabitant of same state. Not encyclopedic and fails Notability. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources were found on doing WP:BEFORE. Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep — I assume this is the same place as the "Chakandara" listed in the Sheikhpura district census handbook here (p. 90). If so, then it passes WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized populated place. I'm not 100% sure though. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have added the source. [34] The Pincode of this place is 811304. Sonofstar (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep Available sources qualifies for GNG. Namkongville (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a recognised settlement. Passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kafeel Jahangir

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Only 6 LA games for minor counties sides, there is a bit of coverage in match reports, and coverage of his daughter partaking in Britain's Got Talent, but I don't think this is enough to qualify for GNG. Played for two different LA teams so no real suitable redirect as no List pages exist for either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't convince me. Need much stronger evidence for a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 18:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pirahni

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported 14 people in 5 families in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "030507" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GEOnet is a bad source, Tageo is a mirror of GEOnet, bare census mentions otherwise with no evidence of legal recognition or WP:GNG, the FA wiki article is directly cited to EN wiki?!? Just goes to show that the damage these articles did wasn't limited to EN wiki. FOARP (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fawiki is 1) full of "bot"-created stubs; 2) heavily dependent on enwiki. Regarding translating Iranian abadis articles into Persian from English, 🤦 is my reaction :-( 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mapleton Junior/Senior High School

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

Does not look to be notable, no reliable sources. EpicPupper 21:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's some trivial local coverage about their sports teams and graduations, but from what I can that's it. So the school clearly isn't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG only trival coverage. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titcoin

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is an advertisement that was pretty much exclusively written by special-purpose accounts from 2014 to 2018. A BEFORE shows that the company received some coverage back in 2016-2018, but mostly as a joke or an illustration of the absurdity of cryptocurrency projects: in my view, this does not qualify as significant coverage per WP:SIRS. JBchrch (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAlthough having been the one who probably instigated this by editing it after a long period of dormancy, I agree, this is a "s***coin". Although, dogecoin was a "joke" until recently... and the rest is history.-GandalfGandalfo Gris (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing is far better than other flash-in-the-pan internet wackiness. I'm actually disappointed the Playboy article was inaccessible ("I read it for the articles" indeed), but the topic of how sex-workers get paid is actually serious business. Major financial institutions take a pretty severe stance against the sex industry, so bitcoin is just one of those work-arounds. It's a taboo, wrapped up in finance, smothered in a jokey marketing gimmick- but not deletion worthy. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of the cites are broken. Specifically the Playboy and Gizmodo cites. The CNN cite doesn't mention Titcoin. I don't think it meets "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. Hocus00 (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had a good laugh at this. But per Estheim, this isn't a flash-in-the-pan wacky cryptocurrency and is actually notorious in a pretty unique way. Certainly notable and passes GNG. Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to amount of coverage in SIRS already identified. There is also an article in a source where we have no consensus on reliability here The article itself gets a passing mention in Stolarski P, Lewoniewski W, Abramowicz W. "Cryptocurrencies Perception Using Wikipedia and Google Trends." Information. 2020; 11(4):234. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11040234. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Present news coverage and sources qualifies WP:GNG. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IC Markets

AfDs for this article:

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

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 announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the very well reasoned argument for deletion of HighKing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Most articles are entirly about them and there are some peer reviewed site reviews. Check: 55brokers.com, forexbrokerlistings.com, bestctradebrokers.com, publicfinanceinternational.org, thenextbitcoin.net, financialcommission.org, financemagnates.com and more. They seem to be a major Australian stock broker. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Not exactly non-notable and has been featured in Australian and international news, like the Sydney Morning Herald (I found [35][36] on Google) and Reuters. Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news shows 24 pages of results on them, some press releases and most mentions, but there are several Reuters articles and many industry publication covering them. Peter303x (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with the Google news search comment above. ABC Money, Reuters, etc. - there are reliable sources of news on this one. Star7924 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no doubt the company exists and even mentioned in newpapers, but that doesn't mean the company is "notable". !voters above claim that it meets WP:GNG - but as per WP:SNG, NCORP guidelines set the criteria for references and these are examined fairly strictly. Looking at the references posted above, a fair few of them are very obscure websites and others are broker "referral" sites - these are not "independent", they exist simply to push people towards certain brokers and collect a referral fee. For example, 55brokers uses the exact same descriptions as many other websites such as mytopbroker.com (which although no longer exists you can still see the descriptions here and here), thatreallyworked.com review is practically identical as is trade-leader.com, forexsuggest.com, dailybluepips.com and many many more. The use of the exact same descriptions and text means that the content is being provided by the company - its their form of marketing. Also, check out the company's *own* description and you can see that it says the same stuff too. Another referral site listed above is foxbrokerlisting. BestcTraderBrokers focuses on the community of brokers and traders that use the multi-award-winning cTrader platform on a daily basis - so designed to promote those brokers, not independent, fails ORGIND. TheNextBitcoin.net is also not "independent" and even carries a disclaimer here, fails ORGIND. This leaves us with PublicFinanceInternational which looks good, has no disclaimers and claims to have done all the research, but has a referral system in place. Big red flag though is that the founder, Ziga Breznik, appears to also promote himself as an SEO expert and also promotes First Page Elite which attempts to convince you to sign up for his video on how to make $$$$ selling on Amazon. There's more online if you look. Hard to treat this as a credible source, fails WP:RS. The remaining references are this announcement fromm the Financial Commission which offers no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH; this mention in Finance Magnates also has no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH; Two articles in SMH and one in Reuters which mention the company but they're either talking about an event involving the company or they're fleeting mentions-in-passing, none though which meets CORPDEPTH criteria. I've searched and the majority of stuff is PR or referral sites with some newspaper mentions-in-passing or an article talking about how some brokers complained about false margin calls - none of which meets NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated the article with some info and two new links from The Australian, which is a huge publication here in Australia. Here are the two article links: 1 and 2. These are good in-depth articles. You will also see that the article states that the company is the 60th largest tax payer in Australia and the CEO is the 69th richest person in Australia. Mvonabo (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the new sources from The Australian, I re-emphasize my Keep vote. Regarding the issues that HighKing brought up, your concern that all these sites may not be credible is understandable, given your arguments. However, none are listed as a bad source here Reliable Sources. So we can't assume they are all bad. Sites having Affiliate Links are not necessarily bad. It is just one way of generating income, besides banner ads. Many credible sites use Affiliate links. In addition, some guidelines for notability state that having peer reviewed reviews is good to have. All these sites are industry sites that have reviewed them positively, so its a good thing that they have so much coverage from industry sites and it shows their notability. If they were unknown, then they would not have so much coverage. Also, suggesting that the company paid for these or submitted bios, is possible, but it's more likely that the company bio was copied from their site or other sites when these sites did independent reviews. Finally, I could not find any evidence that their founder is an SEO guy by the name of " Ziga Breznik," the article states that their founder's name is " Andrew Budzinski." Lesliechin1 (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Maynard (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No coverage found. schetm (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The subject has not played significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. There is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject to demonstrate that the subject is notable. --Ashley yoursmile! 14:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After much extended time for discussion, there is a stalemate of consensus. If there is not in the future a substantial improvement in coverage by sources, this is likely to end up at AfD again. BD2412 T 19:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social Finance (consultancy)

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy renomination. While it looks like there are a lot of good sources here, the primary subject of all the RS listed is Social Impact Bonds, the policy this firm is promoting. They thus all fail WP:CORPDEPTH Mottezen (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This org has an in-depth article in the NYT this morning, focusing on the organization and not just the social impact bonds: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/business/job-training-work.html Ew3234 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh awesome! Alright, that's one source. To satisfy WP:GNG, it needs at least one more RS. This source covers specifically Social Finance's job training initiative, while the organization does much more than that. GNG was developed to ensure that wikipdians can write a comprehensive article on the subject, and unfortunately this is still not this case for this organisation. Mottezen (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mottezen, I'm somewhat new to Wiki but my reading of WP:GNG didn't find the "least one more RS" requirement for significant coverage. The policy says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." I would say having an in-depth feature in today's New York Times, the nation's newspaper of record, meets significant coverage on its own. It's pretty much the most significant and quality coverage you can get. I don't have much of an investment in this topic, just stumbled upon this article after reading the NYT article and was surprised to see the deletion tag. And I'm not saying the article is perfect as-is, it can certainly use some clean up Ew3234 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, this is indeed a high-quality source, but it's just one. See Wikipedia:Multiple sources, which says "the strictest sense the word "multiple" means "more than one" ". Mottezen (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When assessing wether a subjects has enough sources to pass GNG, users need to ask themselves wether it's possible to write a comprehensive article without relying excessively on non-RS, biased sources. Usually that means having three sources, but it can certainly be less. In this case, if we rely only on the NYT source, we'd be forces to disproportionally cover Social Finance's job training program. However, this is not a core part of their work. The current article doesn't discuss it. Their "about us" page doesn't even discuss it. This is why more reliable sources are needed. Mottezen (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a link to a 2020 article in The Guardian which mentions the organisation's work on school exclusions, which has nothing to do with social impact bonds. Daejn (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on NYT article meets WP:GNG. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off - for those discussing passing GNG - that's the wrong guideline. This is an organization and it needs to pass NCORP which is a lot stricter when it comes to references to establish notability. 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 announcements or interviews, etc. Looking at the references (omitting Primary sources) most spend their time describing "social impact bonds" and not the company. None meet the criteria as follows:
- ThirdSector is entirely based on information provided by the company and/or a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
- The Economist article explores the "idea" but only gives this company a passing mention to say the company "took up the idea" and then there are two more sentences where the company provides their "hopes" and describes "other areas" in which bonds might work. Article does not provide any in-depth information on the company. References fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH
- The Guardian article relies entirely on information provided by the topic company to describe the topic company, has no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
- BigLottery website is a Press Release, fails ORGIND
- BBC reference is a mention-in-passing (based on PR) and the article mainly describes social impact bonds, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
- Civil Society is a blog post, fails RS. Also the discussion is on social impact bonds and the topic company only gets a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- NYT article relies entirely on information about the company which was provided by the company, fails ORGIND
- Finally, this NYT article referenced above by some Keep !voters is one of the "discovery"-type formatted articles where they follow an individual's story (saw Facebook Ad, unusual pitch, careful its not a scam, signed up, intensive training - then BINGO, you've been on a Social Finance course, how Amazing now let me tell you more) but quickly becomes clear that the article is an "advertorial" for the company. Once the original feel-good beginning has been read, you start to see that the information is being provided by the topic company, promoting its profile, mentioning that it is "powered" by a fund, has "supported" training programs, is "advising" Ohio, is "preparing a proposal" for the new labor secretary, is "seeking, designing and supporting" new programs, etc, etc, you get the drift. You'd expect this type of gushing language only in a company brochure. This is precisely the type of company-echo-chamber pseudo-article-advert that ORGIND's guidelines are there to prevent being used to establish notability that otherwise might skip through GNG. This article fails ORGIND.

None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no reading of WP:NCORP or even the WP:GNG which suggests a single source, no matter how good may, on its own, establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per HighKing. One source doesn't hit GNG, and the rest of the sourcing is not up to snuff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wilson, Harry (2010-06-27). "The investment bank with a difference". The Sunday Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "In September 2007 Social Finance officially came into life with a high-profile board, chaired by former NatWest director Bernard Horn and packed with finance heavyweights such as Fink, David Blood, a former Goldman Sachs banker, and James Strachan, a former Merrill Lynch managing director and former Audit Commission chairman. Since then Social Finance has grown into a 13-strong team headed by former investment banker David Hutchison." The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but there is substantial independent research and reporting.
2. Lohr, Steve (2021-04-07). "Job Training That's Free Until You're Hired Is a Blueprint for Biden: Social Finance, a nonprofit, is spreading a model in which training programs get paid if students get hired, not just if they enroll". The New York Times. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "But Social Finance, founded a decade ago to develop new ways to finance results-focused social programs, is showing how the idea could grow quickly just as the pandemic made job-training programs more important than ever. ... The Social Finance effort is powered by a fund of more than $40 million raised from philanthropic investors. The money goes toward paying for low-income students, as well as minority candidates and veterans, to enter the training programs. ... Social Finance is seeking, designing and supporting new programs — for-profit or nonprofit — that follow that training formula but then apply a different funding model. “There is emerging evidence that these kinds of programs are a very effective and exciting part of work force development,” said Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. “Social Finance is targeting and nurturing new programs, and it brings a financing mechanism that allows them to expand.”"
  The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but there is substantial independent research and reporting. The article includes analysis from Lawrence Katz.
3. Crowley, D. Max (August 2014). "The Role of Social Impact Bonds in Pediatric Health Care". Pediatrics. 134 (2): e331–e333. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-4056. PMID 25049341. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  The article notes: "In 2010, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice entered into an agreement with a nonprofit known as Social Finance to prevent reoffending by juvenile offenders released from prison in Peterborough, England. What made this contract unique is that the government payments to Social Finance were not based on delivery of services but instead on the level of government cost aversion from reduced recidivism. To cover the upfront cost of funding this prevention effort, Social Finance raised $5 million from private investors. If the effort successfully reduces recidivism 7.5% by 2016, then they will receive back their initial investment plus a performance bonus—totaling up to $8 million."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Social Finance to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles from RSes are covering the company in depth. Also, I am not aware that the NYT and the Guardian—two highly-reputable left wing newspapers—run unlabelled adverts. JBchrch (talk) 12:41, 3 May 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. ✗plicit 01:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PDFescape

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

This article about a non-notable PDF program should be PROD'd but it has already been PROD'd years ago so it's going to AFD instead. There is not much here to evaluate and it has been tagged with problems for over seven years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wyciślik-Wilson, Mark Sofia (2017-10-18). "PDFescape review: Blending desktop and cloud tools, PDFescape aims to be your PDF Swiss Army knife". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2021-04-23. Retrieved 2021-04-23.
  The review's verdict section notes that the pros of PDFescape is that it offers "free online PDF" and "creates PDF from hundreds of file types" while the cons are that the "free version has ads", the "premium version available on subscription rather than outright payment", and "cheaper options available".
2. Lowensohn, Josh (2008-02-13). "PDFescape comes close to replacing Adobe's Acrobat". CNET. Archived from the original on 2021-04-23. Retrieved 2021-04-23.
  The review notes: "PDFescape's editing tool feels a lot like a simple desktop application, with a toolbar up top, and a workspace that's set up with a file source list, and a tool pallet. The one major drawback is that there's no zoom toggle, making it a pain to use for general reading unless you're got a monitor with a large horizontal resolution, or don't mind panning with your mouse. Otherwise it's simple, intuitive, and definitely a step up from Adobe Reader if you need to change something on a PDF file and don't want to shell out for Acrobat, or use a third party editor."
3. Battersby, Jeffrey (2021-04-05). "Best free PDF editors in 2021". Tom's Guide. Archived from the original on 2021-04-23. Retrieved 2021-04-23.
  This is a 161-word review of PDFescape. The review notes, "You'll have to contend with severely limited font options, however. PDFescape offers five fonts, one of which is a generic 'signature' font that looks nothing like your own signature. But otherwise, you'll find a lot more tools in PDFescape than you will in the typical, bare-bones free PDF editor."
4. Alvarez, Katrina Paola B. (2011-02-21). "Must-Have Business Essentials Bookmark These Apps". BusinessWorld.
  This is a 214-word review of PDFescape. The review notes, "Although its tools are very simple, editing a file in PDFescape may be tricky for those accustomed to working with word processors; the program seems to treat documents as images. Instead of using the familiar i-beam cursor to select text for editing, one must erase it with one tool and then retype with another. This can get tedious for those who intend to change large blocks of text, but you can save some time by copying it to your clipboard first."
5. Eldridge, Andrea (2012-05-04). "Easy ways to Edit PDFs". The Reporter. Scripps Howard News Service. Archived from the original on 2021-04-23. Retrieved 2021-04-23.
  The article provides 143 words of coverage of PDFescape. The article notes: "For easy and quick edits, try PDFEscape.com. This handy online PDF editor lets you insert text notes, fill in forms and even create new forms boxes. ... The main drawback to PDFEscape is privacy; you're basically uploading your files to someone else's server."
6. Cox, Dallas (2021-02-18). "7 of the Best Free PDF Editors". Clark Howard. Archived from the original on 2021-04-23. Retrieved 2021-04-23.
  This is a 158-word review of PDFescape. The review notes that the pros are "Completely online; no download needed", "No account or sign-in needed to use", and "No trial period or watermarks" while the cons are "File size limit of 10MB or 100 pages" and "No free desktop version, which means you can’t edit PDFs offline".
7. Stachiew, Mark (2007-03-08). "Networthy". Ottawa Citizen. Archived from the original on 2021-04-23. Retrieved 2021-04-23 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes, "PDF Escape also offers some PDF editing capabilities you won't find in Adobe Reader, but only in the more expensive Adobe Acrobat software. For example, you can add text and shapes to a PDF document. The service is free, but any files you save or email will have the PDF Escape logo embedded on it. If you want to remove that logo, you'll have to sign up for their premium service, for which you are charged by the number of documents you output."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PDFescape to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PDFescape passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which says, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Cunard (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even though this article has significant issues. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having reviewed three of Cunard's sources, they do not link to the PDFescape website via affiliate links, hence meeting WP:RS. feminist (talk) 07:47, 1 May 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. ✗plicit 03:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pekka Ruuska

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP of a Finnish curator. The fi.wiki article linked to it is about a completely different person who has the same name. A search for sources produced nothing to suggest that this particular Pekka Ruuska is in any way notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fiwiki article is about the same person: fi:Pekka Ruuska (näyttelykuraattori). There was some mix-up with the interwikis a long time ago which can be seen in the history, but it is correct now. The Finnish article was created in 2007, deleted in 2009, and then recreated in 2012. (The 2012 version contained a "joke" that Ruuska was born in Russia. It was only fixed years later when a magazine wrote about it, and the English version had it up even longer.) -kyykaarme (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is mentioned or interviewed in some articles about art galleries, but I don't think there is enough coverage of him as a person. -kyykaarme (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, not enough reliable WP:RS. Namkongville (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyside, Mendocino County, California

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

I've got no idea what this was. Appears as a name with nothing there in the middle of Mendocino National Forest on the 1926 and 1952 topographic maps. Searching brings up a "Sunnyside Addition" to Willits in sources from the 1920s or 1930s, but this site is obviously something different. Searching is a bit difficult due to the name being common, but the only thing I've found that can be related to this is the appearance of Sunnyside in a list of names of places where logging rights were being sold at Mendocino forest. Not seeing this as being notable. Hog Farm _Talk 00:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 00:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 00:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that Sunnyside appears in the Covelo 1:62500 maps from 1926 through 1968. However, it does not appear in the Bluenose Ridge 1:24000 1967 map. Searching Newspapers.com and GBooks found nothing. As this location has no legal recognition and virtually no coverage, it does not meet #1 nor #1 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that I had something for a moment, until it transpired that it was on Lake Tahoe. I haven't been able to find out the basics of what this even is, either. Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After two relists, a consensus has developed that he passes NPROF. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Singh Chhetri

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

Fails WP:GNG.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment could be notable as a president of a learned society, here the Nepal Geological Society. --hroest 16:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As President of the Nepal Geological Society meets WP:NPROF C6. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given his work, the person seems to have made a significant contribution in the field of geology in Nepal. Though there is no WP:SIGCOV on online media, there must be more coverage on him in his field of expertise. Thus, at this stage WP:AGF could be applied. Also, it is coincidence that Nepal Geological Society was deleted at the same time? nirmal (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPROF as having significant contribution in the field of geology in Nepal. Namkongville (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwin Meneses

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

Likely fails WP:NCOLLATH. ShadowBallX (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ShadowBallX (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NCOLLATH talks about "NCAA Division I". As this person hasn't participated there, this is not applicable for him. We then fall on WP:GNG... and the sources in the article do not satisfy that. I haven't searched for other sources so for the meantime, in its current state this is delete, but not due to WP:NCOLLATH. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has sources and WP:NCOLLATH only applies to competitors from the United States. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Howard the Duck's comment above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per comments above. Just isn't enough here to satisfy notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG not enough coverage. Namkongville (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Goda

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON #1; WP:ENT #1, #2, #3; and WP:BASIC. AldezD (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: – I started the article. He's notable. He was an NFL player for a bit. And he was/is one of the first male models on The Price is Right. He may not be the most notable person in the world ... and, at worst, he's "border-line". But, he's "out there". And unique in that he is a former NFL player who started modeling on The Price is Right, as one of the show's first male models (third, I believe). And a flourishing career with Wilhelmina Models, etc. He was featured in TV interviews about his unique career, on Entertainment Tonight, Peoples Magazine, etc. I listed lots of sources and references on his Talk Page ... here ---> Talk:Devin Goda. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro, None of those sources satisfy the WP:GNG, particularly the independent sources provision. Interviews are not independent, neither are organization bios. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Etzedek24: Thanks. I recognize / admit that he is "border-line" ... but I do believe that he is notable. I guess we can wait for others to weigh in. If consensus is "delete", so be it ... I will abide by consensus. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. He has appeared in one NFL pre-season game so calling him "an NFL player" is silly. He never made the main team and was waived in late August 2012 before the regular season even started. In addition, none of the sources (either football or modelling) suggest his notability. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article itself is kind of a mess, but he appears to just pass GNG as the creator asserts: "Slippery Rock WR has late-round draft hopes" and "Passing combo lifts The Rock in PSAC" from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and "Forward Township's Devin Goda breaking into TV, modeling industries" from Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks SIGCOV and GNG. Megtetg34 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate evidence of notability. The first two sources are listings of his football achievements (which don't go as far as appearing in an NFL Game) rather than actual discussion; and the third is a listing at his modelling agency, and so not independent. Maproom (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wonder how much before was done before nominating this for deletion? Admittedly, the article as nominated only cited non-independent sources, which do not contribute to notability, but independent sources do exist in sufficient quantities to meet general notability guidelines. I have added 3 such additional sources to the article.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what I added to the article, I see evidence of notability in the following sources

Gill, Moriah (January 21, 2021). "This "Price is Right" Model Was Once an NFL Player". Rare.us. Retrieved 15 April 2021.
Alter, Ethan (October 18, 2018). "Meet the newest male model on 'The Price Is Right'". Yahoo! Entertainment. Retrieved 15 April 2021.
A lot of "Male Model Monday" content on a website called Socialite Life that features him prominently. There's not much text content on those pages, and I'm unsure if Socialite Life meets RS requirements, but to me the existence of that content adds weight to the argument in favor of notability supported by better sources.
Bauknecht, Sara (July 19, 2015). "Stylebook snapshot: Male models on the rise have roots in Pittsburgh". Post-Gazette. Retrieved 15 April 2021.

There's more out there too. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources Unicorn has added gives Goda significant coverage, especially these two. Accounting for the additional sources, including the ones with marginal coverage, both in the article and the four extra sources found above, there is enough to pass the bar. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 20:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per coverage in multiple WP:RS including Usatoday, NYPost, Triblive, Baltimoreravens, Heraldstandard, Priceisright, Yahoo, Chicagotribune, ESPN and many more passes for WP:GNG. Namkongville (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A GNews search is a good indicator that is notable in modeling. I will remind people the New York Post is not a reliable source. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[pitchfork-1] "9 of Rap's Most Memorable Animated Moments". Pitchfork.

[34th-2] "A Fresh Look at Groundbreaking Producer Nujabes' Soundtrack for Anime 'Samurai Champloo'". 34th Street.

[interview-3] Tsuchida, Shinji (March 2019). "Interview - TSUTCHIE" (Interview). Interviewed by Magical Mystery Mix. Japan. Retrieved December 28, 2020.

[book-4] Shinichiro Watanabe, Kazuto Nakazawa (March 13, 2007). Roman Album: Samurai Champloo. ISBN 978-1593076429.

[5] Jan, Mike (April 5, 1970). "New Rock Band Uses Latin Touch". New York Times. Retrieved April 7, 2021.

[6] Wheelock, Benjamin. ""You Must Hear This! 'Ambergris'"". salon.com, L.L.C. Salon. Retrieved April 7, 2021.

[7] Hermes, Will (2011). Love Goes to Buildings on Fire: Five Years in New York That Changed Music Forever. Farrar, Straus & Giroux/Macmillian. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-86547-980-7.

[PostOfficeFinder.org-8] "Lakeland, LA Post Offices". PostOfficeFinder.org. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

[Zipdatamaps.com-9] "Zip Code 70752 Profile, Map and Demographics". Zipdatamaps.com. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]