Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 10	March 12 >

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last of the Grads

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

I initially requested WP:G5 deletion but realised that there have been edits by other users (good-faith editors) other than the creator. I'm still not completely satisfied that this film is notable. There is only one reference and while it is a decent one, I could not find anything else while searching. Everything else coming up just seems to be either self-published or just a rehashing of the Decider article. My understanding of WP:GNG and WP:NFILM is that there should be more than one decent source to justify an article. This might be WP:TOOSOON as maybe there will be clear notability after the film is actually released. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move: Yeah, while there isn't much notability now, there may be some in the future. I would recommend moving this article into a draft until enough notability has been found. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Decider article is pretty sparse with only three sentences describing the plot, and one of those sentences is a summary of the other two which are both a direct quote from the movie's website. In fact, there is little to nothing in the source that is original content, and I would not consider a simple restating of the film's basic details substantial enough for WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, especially as the sole source (and I too failed to find better). This is WP:TOOSOON and we shouldn't assume the film will be notable in the future per WP:CRYSTAL. Paisarepa 00:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paisarepa: While I agree with you on not assuming future notability, I say we move this article into a draft, and if not enough notability can be found within a certain period of time, I say we delete the draft and call it. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The film just doesn't meet WP:NFF. Articles can sit in the draftspace waiting for notability to be established, but not waiting for notability to be gained. Paisarepa 22:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could have been speedied since the creator is a sock of ProTaylorCraft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NFF/GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep? - Maybe instead of deleting this article completely, I say we move the current contents of this article into a draft and turn this article into a redirect to Cr1TiKaL because his role is the reason why so many people know about this film. But like I said, if not enough notability can be established within a certain period of time, I say we delete the draft and call it. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles on the off-chance that they might meet criteria if and when the film is released. See WP:CRYSTAL Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: If this is the case, then I say just make this article a redirect to Cr1TiKaL. Also, I said move it to a draft, not keep the actual article. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete and redirect" might be the best solution. I would ideally prefer this to just a normal redirect so that the long-term vandals edits are removed. I would have no issue with a good faith editor, that isn't blocked, creating an article in draft and following WP:AfC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - as per conversation above, I would have no issue with this closing as 'delete and redirect to Cr1TiKaL' if preferred. I'm not sure if this is the done thing with non-notable films or whether outright deletion is preferred. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Now that we have a solution, I have copied all of the contents of this article into a draft. I am still waiting for permission to change every content of this article into the redirect to Cr1TiKaL. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Chicago State Cougars men's soccer team

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

As per a related discussion at WT:FOOTY, I don't think that this particular team season meets WP:GNG. I also feel that it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. My main concern is that this season lacks significant coverage from independent sources. This is not, in any way, a comment on college soccer seasons in general, just that this particular one isn't notable. There should be no prejudice against this being recreated if it does rise to a level of notability later on. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to previous discussion's participants - @Stevie fae Scotland:, @Joseph2302:, @GiantSnowman:, @Smartyllama:, @Jay eyem:, @Quidster4040: Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON for current college soccer seasons to have articles, and unlikely to pass WP:GNG. Also seems unlikely to make the final tournament given their first couple of games. I am not against draftifying it, but don't think it will likely ever be notable. Jay eyem (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jay eyem, the only reason I think it's notable is because it's their first ever season, so it's historic -Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I disagree with the TOOSOON argument and feel that this is an appropriate time to have articles on the ongoing season, but this one isn't notable. Smartyllama (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence subject meets WP:GNG Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 11:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No suitable list to redirect to at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Zubair (cricketer, born 1989)

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

Nothing in coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any significant coverage (only wide-ranging databases consisting mainly of scorecard data) so this fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The most trivial of trivial passes of NCRIC (although a strict interpretation would say this is a fail based on not the solitary match not being in the Super-Eight) does not trump the lack of coverage. No suitable redirect/merge target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lahore Lions cricketers or Lahore Lions or similar Has played 1 List-A match, but I could not find any coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage. There aren't sufficient source to write a biography, nor will there ever be. WP:WHYN explains we require significant coverage"so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page..." ----Pontificalibus 16:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage and notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails to establish WP:GNG. The subject in consideration has played in only one professional match and quite similar to the case of this afd.Abishe (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete Played one List A game, made no impact at all. Just nothing really to say here. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haifa International Conference for a WMD-Free Middle East

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. The source provided doesn't discuss the conference, and a WP:BEFORE search yields no sign of the sort of "lasting significance" required for notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NEVENT --Shrike (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT and even the WP:GNG. Good catch, Extraordinary Writ! gidonb (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. I created that article 2014-02-09 and -10 with 11 references to articles in places like the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times of Israel, Huff Post and Haaretz as well as Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and others. This strongly suggests it was notable. The criterion WP:BEFORE includes, "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted": Credible sources are available to improve this article. It now has only 1 reference. The 10 that were deleted were credible sources saying important things about this conference. Feng Shi; Misha Teplitskiy; Eamon Duede; James A. Evans (4 March 2019). "The wisdom of polarized crowds" (PDF). Nature Human Behaviour. 3 (4): 329–336. arXiv:1712.06414. doi:10.1038/S41562-019-0541-6. ISSN 2397-3374. PMID 30971793. Wikidata Q47248083., cited in Reliability of Wikipedia#Articles on contentious issues notes that the best Wikipedia articles have many editors from a variety of perspectives. This article on Haifa International Conference for a WMD-Free Middle East suffered from not having enough editors with differing perspectives to prevent those 10 references from being deleted. Peter Binkley (2006). "Wikipedia Grows Up". Feliciter (2): 59–61. Wikidata Q66411582., also cited in Reliability of Wikipedia#Articles on contentious issues, said thad in controversial topics, "what is most remarkable is that the two sides actually engaged each other and negotiated a version of the article that both can more or less live with". Sadly, we didn't have the diversity of editors looking at this article needed to prevent those 10 references from being deleted. However, that doesn't mean that this Conference wasn't notable. Beyond this, I think the world needs an v:International Conflict Observatory. The human psychology that drives conflicts and produces a need for an v:International Conflict Observatory is summarized in v:Confirmation bias and conflict. FYI, I just added a link from the Wikipedia article on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to this article in the Haifa International Conference for a WMD-Free Middle East. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DavidMCEddy, None of the source mention the conference. So its not suitable to include and was rightfully deleted. Please read WP:OR and WP:NEVENT --Shrike (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NEVENT with lack of sources on the conference itself. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZeckoZICK

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

Non notable singer who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. A before search shows they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus this is a GNG fail also. Celestina007 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out please https://m.industry.co.id/read/67428/rapper-zeckozick-rilis-ulang-lagu-lama — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andisetia21 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Found one mention in those Industry Website which clearly do not establish sufficient notability. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problem. please save this in case of improvement. and anyone can help fix it. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andisetia21 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Save. This article is in the form of a stub, which may still be developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxantonio28 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSINGER, plus lack of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This seems like a reliable source but [1] and [2] have published the same article, and Medium is unreliable. --Ashley yoursmile! 07:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've fixed some of the source errors listed. Please maintain this article and anyone can help develop it. Thank you.--Andisetia21 (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Andisetia21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Keep~~ Fixed. In my opinion, because this is a stub article, it must be maintained. I have contributed several reliable sources in this article.--114.79.47.26 (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's note: The above IP has no contributions to the article. I have struck their !vote as it is presumptively a duplicate vote by a registered user. —C.Fred (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Can still be improved. There will be many reliable sources for this article.--Maxantonio28 (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Maxantonio28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment — Let the closing admin note that this article is being infiltrated by possible sock puppets. Celestina007 (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: I have struck the comments by Andisetia21 and Maxantonio28 per WP:SOCKSTRIKE because they are confirmed sockpuppets of each other; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andisetia21. Mz7 (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there objection if, in the event this closes as a delete result, the article is instead sent to Draft: space for incubation? —C.Fred (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred, I object to this because I’m not sure I understand the essence of draftifying when the creator of the article has now been indef blocked for sock-puppetry. Coupled with the fact the subject of the article isn’t going to be notable anytime soon I don’t see a plausible reason for incubation. Celestina007 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Given the sockpuppetry issue, I don't object to your objection. (I was AGF'ing still with one of the editors now blocked as a sock and modeling how to request asking for draftification.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable Indonesian singer. Stvbastian (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tunde Varga-Atkins

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

It does not meet the requirements for WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Not notable. Kemalcan (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Citations on GS much too small to pass WP:Prof in high cited field. Far WP:Too soon. Try again in ten years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON she received her PhD in 2019, her citations are too low for NPROF and it is unclear what her unique contribution to the field would be. --hroest 05:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does seem like WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above delete votes. 2603:7000:2143:8500:40E5:C46D:4560:BA39 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - edited some explanation and citations to explain the public relevance of her work. It may be WP:TOOSOON however.Kaybeesquared (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions just add trivial bloat to an already bloated and almost content-free article. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. It was an bloated article. Now it is over-bloated. The article still does not show any significance to meet requirements for WP:GNG and WP:PROF however. --Kemalcan (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Godin

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

Fails WP:COMPOSER Noah ^💬 19:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 19:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 19:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:Composer. Yes he exists, and Martlandi has had a small coverage as it was included on Instruments of Happiness: The Happiness Handbook, but very little SIGCOV and I don't think enough to meet WP:Basic.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that he passes either WP:COMPOSER (which requires concrete and quantifiable achievements, not just technical verification of existence) or WP:GNG (which requires reliable source coverage in media, not just technical verification of existence). Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV I just don't see any coverage in good secondary sources. I found two (2) blogs online about this Scott Godin (a common name) and zero newspaper sources. I found his dissertation's abstract, but nothing else via Google or Facebook; a possible Twitter account is inactive and has about 100 followers. If you find more, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:COMPOSER; does not rise to the level of meeting GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icha Kavons

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

Lack of significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and not enough to establish notability in WP:MUSIC. The few sources in the article are only passing mentions. Crowell78 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been erroneously stated that the article was once nominated for deletion. It was actually one of his songs which was nominated for deletion (here), not this article. --Crowell78 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 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 March 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting our criteria for inclusion for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources discussing Kavons directly and in depth Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 04:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Township Schools

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

The district is miniscule. There are two teachers at the elementary level. This is not a major or significant institution. All the sourcing is to the organization's own website. There are not really adequate 3rd party sources that give us enough clear coverage of school district to justify having seperate articles on them in absolutely every case. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 11 March 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 March 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a public school district, which means there are a lot of state sources for information. The article is just a poor stub that has potential to be expanded. Just because the district has a low enrollment doesn't mean it isn't verifiable and locally notable. A state school district doesn't needs a certain number of students or be part of an urban area to make it more notable; see Bois Blanc Pines School District or a lot of the articles in Category:School districts in Michigan. I'd say give it a chance. —Notorious4life (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- You have failed to identify any other resources we could add to improve the article. Currently everything here comes from the district's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a school district that includes a grammar school and a high school (operating in a single building) and serving an area covering 258 square miles. The district once had > 500 students but has shrunk as much of the population moved elsewhere. The district includes a historic school building dating to the 1920s and a 1,300-acre school forest along Lake Superior, implemented a novel remote learning program in the 1980s to deal with its geographic remoteness, and has also served as a community library and recreational facility. I have added some additional sourcing such that this now passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to Cbl62's fine WP:HEY work, this article is now sourced well, meeting WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep When this was nominated it was a stub with only primary sourcing. It's now improved into a decent article thanks to Cbl62. However the sourcing is such that you can make notability arguments which go both ways - it's still reliant on primary sources, but there's a good article from Detroit and some local coverage as well. This is probably the most "neutrally" notable article I've ever come across (because it depends on whether you think some hyper local sources count towards WP:GNG), but given the topic should be completely non-controversial, I'm going to default to a weak keep. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Gliding Club

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

Non-notable student organization, sourced to its own website, lacks independent significant coverage Reywas92^Talk 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it takes a lot of sourcing to justify an article on a specific club at a specific university and we do not have that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Gliding Club

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

Non-notable student organization, sourced only to its own website and Oxford pages, lacks independent significant coverage Reywas92^Talk 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This two-glider club fails to meet any of our notability standards. 2603:7000:2143:8500:39D6:DE69:AE5D:177E (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nominator. Not notable. SunDawn (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some Oxford University societies are notable, but not all, and this one is not. --Bduke (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are hundreds of clubs at every uni, and very few of them are notable enough to have articles outside the main uni article. This subject does not warrant a separate article. --Kbabej (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Red Triangle Invitation League

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

I'm not seeing anything significant in my searches. The only decent result in an online search is this Yorkshire Evening Post article, however, it's literally just a collection of photos so cannot qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Searching through books and ProQuest doesn't yield any in-depth coverage either. As always, we find the most when searching British newspaper archives but even this is almost entirely just results listings in local papers. No sign of passing WP:GNG and, at level 14, the league is below the level that makes it inherently notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Local league football. Not notable. Nigej (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gruen

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

non-notable person, all the coverage (which is to say not much at all) is about TalentX and not Gruen. There are very few actual RS that have anything in depth and thus fails inclusion criteria. CUPIDICAE💕 19:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't know why we are even discussing this. Deb (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Because the creator continues to move it into mainspace without improvement. CUPIDICAE💕 19:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a rhetorical question. I'd have been happy to speedy it and protect the article so s/he can't recreate it. Deb (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear notable. They are not even trying... Miaminsurance (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am less than convinced the people who he talent manages for are notable, but he clearly is not notable as their talent manager.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet GNG in any form. A non-notable person who has a job. --Kbabej (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough news coverage. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete -Deb is most succinct. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:GNG, and WP:MILL. Managers are a dime a dozen. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AMSD

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

No evidence of notability. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment what about SAN 511 is that notable? If it is then probably the manufacturer is notable as well, otherwise we should also have AfD for SAN 511. --hroest 20:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already has a page Swiss Arms.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have created AMSD (disambiguation), which can be moved to this title if this article is deleted. There are a number of meanings referenced in articles in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 03:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good call to me. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—not a notable company. Also, to comment on SAN 511 and Swiss Arms which came up in the discussion: SAN 511 is a product (formerly manufactured by AMSD) and Swiss Arms is a separate company which took over as the manufacturer; neither has a direct bearing on whether to keep or delete here. Adumbrativus (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any significant coverage by independent reliable sources (WP:GNG and WP:NCORP). I might have suggested a redirect if it wasn't for the fact that AMSD (disambiguation) is more appropriate at AMSD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the argumetns presented. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Artsakh

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

The article material is a complete copy-paste from Artsakh, History of the Jews in Armenia and History of the Jews in Azerbaijan. There's nothing new the article adds to what it's already said in those articles and there's a serious concern over a possible copy vio. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added the relevant {{copied}} tag on the talk and notified the contributor. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of the entire text, the only bit relevant to the title is that one line mentioning that in 1897, there were four Jews living in Shusha. I do not believe that information calls for an article. Parishan (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because some initial concerns have been rectified since the start of this nomination. Since Republic of Artsakh is an obscure new country stitched together from former obscure territories, it is perfectly normal and acceptable and logical that its Jewish history is stitched together from those selfsame former territories as written up on Wikipedia itself as a WP:N and WP:RS. Having few Jews in Artsakh is not a punishable crime, even if a small group of Jews live/d in what is now Artsakh it is nevertheless part of Jewish history because Jews are inevitably always a small minority in whatever country they have found themselves. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If your argument is with respect to the country being new, then all the more reason for the article to be deleted since neither of the two censuses carried out there since its proclamation in 1991 mention any Jews. Parishan (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know the details of this geographic dispute, but if the Republic of Artsakh is an "obscure new country" (as stated above), the lede of the linked article should be rewritten to reflect this. Until that time, this gives the impression (wrongfully, perhaps) of a poorly sourced duplicate of existing articles. If there is content to merge that is reliably sourced we should prefer merge to deletion. Spudlace (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, this almost looks like a WP:POVFORK at the moment. Unless someone can add brand new information that pertains to Jewish history specifically related to the territory of the Republic of Artsakh, this should be deleted. Almost every sentence I'm looking at is unrelated to Jewish history in Artsakh/Karabakh. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect or merge. Artsakh is an unrecognised polity that arose from the break up of USSR, when ethic Armenians rebelled against Azerbaijan. The history of this area is that Russia conquered territory from Iran. Very little of the content of this article (or those on Armenia and Azerbaijan concerns the period after 1991. Accordingly, it would be much better to merge them all as History of the Jews in the Caucasus. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lotenberg

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

Nommed for AFD back in October with the rationale "The organizations he's led are notable, but I'm seeing no indication of his independent notability". No votes were cast. The sole comment was "possibly notable, but there's not a lot of sources out there" (emphasis mine). No indication the situation has changed, renominating-- still fails WP:GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not nearly enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply having the job doesn't make him notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the W Magazine is well known, he does not not have significant news covverage. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found this and this where he is mentioned, however these don't bring him closer to passing WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was surprised there isn't more in depth coverage considering he helmed W Magazine (which is well known). C'est la vie. Does not meet notability requirements. --Kbabej (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Negative-dimensional space

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

PROD contested by IP without explanation or improvement. The rationale, posted on 21 February 2021 by AlexShamov (talk · contribs), read:

The page is extremely misleading and lacks any coherent mathematical content. It refers to obscure (at best!) works by Maslov, of questionable notability (e.g. they're barely cited by anyone but the author himself), and conflates his notion with the completely unrelated notion of spectra.

This is corroborated by similar remarks on the talk page:

From Talk:Negative-dimensional space

Original synthesis?

This article appears to be "original synthesis", and doesn't (to me) seem to be encyclopaedic in nature. It appears to be based entirely on a single arxiv paper. See extensive discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Negative-dimensional_space for more. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it even make sense?

Can anybody at least add a reference? Maslov's works look rather suspicious, and one cannot rely just on one source, right? A nice funny idea, but if it's an opinion of just one individual, it probably does not make any sense at all, does it? I also looked into the first reference; it's just something artistic, new-age musings on elementary topology for kids. It's not math, I think.

In short, the article should be removed.

Vlad Patryshev (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference says, "to do this, we turn to holistic, pre-rational, and post-rational understandings". "Holistic" is one of those meaningless words that people say to impress, and mathematics is neither pre-rational nor post-rational. And I would also quibble with the word "understandings", as there is no indication in that paper that anyone understands anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR issues. I'm calling bullshit on this. The main source is an "art project". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Power~enwiki. We have never published original research, and after 20 years, everybody knows this. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pseudo-mathematics without reliable sources. Tercer (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited cricketers. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Aamer (cricketer, born 1995)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing in secondary sources. Störm (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played first-class cricket, so passes WP:NCRIC. At worst, redirect to List of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited cricketers. So much for your own comment at ANI of "I have decided to leave the WP:CRIC and will never AfD any cricket article in future nor I will participate in their discussion or close any AfD". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC match, but I could find no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, are deleted/redirected. I second Lugnuts' comments on the ANI, especially as there seem to be a number of AFD's here again, which was one of the concerns brought up at the ANI. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited cricketers. Unable to find any significant coverage (only wide-ranging databases consisting mainly of scorecard data) so this fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT; although searches are hampered by the existence of a Test cricket playing namesake, there really is no reason to assume any coverage exists due to lack of playing time at higher levels. Since ZBTL only played in the preliminary group stage of the QeA, not qualifying for the Super-Eight, it could also be argued that the match in which he appeared was not at the highest level so this does not pass NCRIC. Redirect is an accepted alternative to deletion, but the disambiguation here makes the usefulness of such a solution limited. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage. There aren't sufficient source to write a biography, nor will there ever be. WP:WHYN explains we require significant coverage"so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page..." ----Pontificalibus 16:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited cricketers per Rugbyfan Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage and notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sngs do not overrule a demonstrated gng fail Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Butt (cricketer, born 1975)

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

Nothing in coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played five first-class matches and in List A cricket, so passes WP:NCRIC. So much for your own comment at ANI of "I have decided to leave the WP:CRIC and will never AfD any cricket article in future nor I will participate in their discussion or close any AfD". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has made 5 FC appearances and 1 List-A appearance, passing him for WP:NCRIC. I second Lugnuts' comments on the ANI, especially as there seem to be a number of AFD's here again, which was one of the concerns brought up at the ANI. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Gujranwala cricket team is a suitable WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not meet GNG. We need more than a listing in some directory somewhere to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, while carrying out the WP:BEFORE process, which non-English sources were consulted? Hack (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those creating these very poor quality stubs would do well not to insinuate about others making inadequate searches for sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article subject clearly meets the subject-specific notability guideline. The nominator is claiming there are no in depth sources. I'm asking how they determined that. Hack (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NCRIC. Mottezen (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT and every other notability standard due to lack of any significant coverage – only sources found are wide-ranging databases consisting almost entirely of scorecard data. This failure trumps the trivial pass of NCRIC, which is by consensus one of the weakest/most permissive SNGs, gained by virtue of playing one season for one of the smallest regional associations, which was soon absorbed by a larger neighbour. Consensus has also long established that sports SNGs do not supercede GNG. Redirecting to List of Gujranwala cricketers (or similar) would be an accepted WP:ATD, but no such target exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note. If kept, this should be moved to Khalid Butt, currently a disambiguation page where this is the only entry. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage. There aren't sufficient source to write a biography, nor will there ever be. WP:WHYN explains we require significant coverage "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page..." ----Pontificalibus 16:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage and notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: easily passes WP:NCRIC by dint of having played first class and List A cricket. I strongly disagree with a number of the comments above favouring deletion; in particular, NCRIC is considerably more restrictive than, for example WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NFOOTY. The article clearly needs improvement, but that is trivial to do with a little time, and I'm astonished that so many favour deleting articles which obviously pass notability guidelines over improving them. I'd also note that User:Störm seems to be up to his/ her tricks again, in breach of a commitment made in ANI. DevaCat1 (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No suitable target for a redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Iqbal (cricketer, born 1990)

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played List A cricket, so passes WP:NCRIC. So much for your own comment at ANI of "I have decided to leave the WP:CRIC and will never AfD any cricket article in future nor I will participate in their discussion or close any AfD". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Lahore Eagles cricketers or similar Has played 2 List-A matches but I can't find any coverage, using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has one or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. I second Lugnuts' comments on the ANI, especially as there seem to be a number of AFD's here again, which was one of the concerns brought up at the ANI. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any significant coverage (only wide-ranging databases consisting mainly of scorecard data) so this fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. A trivial pass of NCRIC does not trump the lack of coverage. No suitable redirect/merge target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is not even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage and notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sara Azari. Nobody except ~~the creator~~one editor wants to keep this, and I'm inclined to give particular weight to DGG's professional view here. That said, there's no overwhelming delete consensus, making a redirect appropriate. Sandstein 22:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unprecedented: A Simple Guide to the Crimes of the Trump Campaign and Presidency

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

I only found two relatively short reviews, the Kirkus one and the Shepherd Express one-- neither are particularly in-depth or particularly indicative of significance. The project muse entry is not a review. This article feels a lot like an excuse to extensively criticize the Trump administration by providing an in-depth synopsis. I'd normally be inclined to accept two reviews as meeting WP:NBOOK, but considering that this book dates to Feb 2020 it's extremely unlikely there is coverage that isn't online (and I found no more coverage). If that's all the coverage that exists (Kirkus reviews 10,000 books a year according to our article on them, and the Shepherd Express is not particularly major) I find it hard to treat that as establishing notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and comment to nominator: meets book notability with the two reviews already cited in the article that the nominator seeks to discount. Dear nominator, whether you like it or not, the Kirkus review, which is a long paragraph and has analysis, counts towards notability. Kirkus is a nearly 100-year-old trade publication. Don't complain that it does its job too well. It reviews a small fraction of the books out there. Shepherd Express is an alternative newsweekly; its review is also not short and it counts towards notability as well. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, believe it or not I'm well aware of how NBOOK is written. I am by no means the only one who feels that a contemporary book barely meeting the 'letter of the law' with two reviews (one of which is a PW/Kirkus type-publication) should not necessarily be considered notable. We often request three sources for GNG, why should the bar be lower for books? You are welcome to have a different opinion, what you should recognize is that other people's opinions can be valid even if they don't line up with yours. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Different opinions are one thing, but when you nominate an article that fulfills notability because your dislike of book publications is so strong that you want to discount them... that's not a legitimate reason to nominate. The reviews were not bought, but happened legitimately. 'The letter of the law' to which you refer is the policy on book notability; ignoring that to nominate articles will sometimes be met with people pointing to definitions when your rationales are found to be problematic. Cheers! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kirkus is a legitimate reviewer that gets placed on aggregates sites like Bookmarks and is very trusted in the industry. It definitely qualifies for NBOOK and trying to dismiss them will not get you anywhere here. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 21:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of the references in the article should be moved to footnotes or another section as they are not real references to another publication. ~~In addition, I feel that this article may violate WP:TOOSOON.~~ Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 21:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it too soon, Swordman97? The book is published. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a redirect (to the author) seems preferable to a delete. The book seems under-reported on, and IIRC some Kirkus reviews today are paid placement. Yet I haven't done enough research to support a delete (well, redirect) vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: The paid ones are the Kirkus Indie reviews - this one isn't marked as such. However Kirkus isn't really the best and I've heard enough about it via DGG to where I don't consider Kirkus to be reliable myself. I would consider the Shepherd Express to be usable, however the Project Muse isn't actually a review. It's the publisher's book blurb, as can be seen here in the official description on the Amazon page for the book, the publisher's site, and the Barnes and Noble link for the book. It can be easy sometimes to mistake this sometimes, so it's important to make sure to verify anything that isn't labeled as a review and looks to be a database listing.

That said, I do think that this is worth covering to some degree on Wikipedia. The book has been briefly mentioned from time to time in relation to its author and I think it could be covered in a few paragraphs on her article. It just hasn't gotten enough coverage to where I really think that it's worth having a second article. We could argue that technically there are two sources and this passes notability guidelines, as there are reviews from Kirkus and the SE, but I just don't know that it's really warranted at this point in time. If more sourcing becomes available then it can always be restored. To be honest, I'm a little surprised that this didn't get more notice from the academic and scholarly sphere. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ReaderofthePack: as you've dissed it without explanation, I'm going to ask you to elaborate on the perceived "lack of reliability" of Kirkus? What, are they getting plot summaries wrong? How are book reviews not reliable? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete; I'm not even sure a redirect to the author is warrented. The reviews are insufficient.: if there's nothing better than Kirkus and a free local distribution paper, the book is insignificant. This is confirmed by the reviews, which are essentially trivial--just read them. If a book put out by the popular division of even a minor university press can't do better, the book isn't worth covering. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would be funny to me to see both a trade publication and a local paper disregarded in this AfD... if it weren't alarming. I don't decide whether a book is worthy by our own personal standards. Book notability asks for: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]" Well, it has that. You don't have to love the reviews. They just have to be independent, published, legit. Regarding the dislike for Kirkus: that's a personal preference. The reviews of Kirkus, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist are one of the ways bookstores and libraries make selection choices. Plenty of Wikipedians are fine with Kirkus. Some of the votes here acknowledge the reviews but still seek to dismiss the book. The anti-Kirkus argument is reminiscent of WP:JDL until the day that policy is changed and only newspaper book reviews or Levar Burton's are accepted. Reader of the Pack writes: "It just hasn't gotten enough coverage to where I really think that it's worth having a second article." (Emphasis mine.) That's 'I just don't like it.' "We could argue that technically there are two sources and this passes notability guidelines, as there are reviews from Kirkus and the SE, but "I just don't know that it's really warranted at this point in time." That is also a case of 'just don't like it'. This view is problematic--'the article passes, but I personally don't think the world needs to know about it here'. That's not an argument for deletion, that's a topic for an essay. Some degree of objectivity is needed in AfD. Most of the books that pass notability no one needs to know about. That isn't the issue. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't want to come back here since it's clear you aren't hearing what's being said and responding only reinforces your belief that you're somehow better than the rest of us and your interpretation of notability is the only correct one, yet in a single comment, you have accused myself, ReaderofthePack and DGG (and maybe Power~enwiki) of being intentionally biased, somehow, against this book and at the same time clearly admitted your bias towards it (you feel people "need to know about" it). You don't know the slightest thing about who I am or where I'm coming from. So I'd suggest you take a step back and quit attacking people for the crime of disagreeing with you. (still) best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First: If someone writes in a statement that they don't think or feel a book is notable, though they admit it passes the book criticism guideline, welp, yeah, there may be a rebuttal. That's AfD.
Second: I never accused anyone of being biased against the book. I wrote about whether adequate (book criticism) sourcing exists to warrant an article. That's the whole issue here--not the book itself. The only person I named was Reader of the Pack and I did that because they showed the math for keep and yet went... merge ::shrug::. I may express my concern for the disregard for reliable secondary sources. I've seen it in other AfDs and I call it out when it's a source with which I'm familiar. This is done for the benefit of the discussion--it's not about who made that statement, but about the discourse--other people may participate in the discussion and a closer will at one point close it.
Third: Loaded language is employed in your writing when you accuse me of "attacking people for the crime of disagreeing with you". This is beyond hyperbolic--it is untrue. I have attacked no person and it isn't about whether they agree with me, but the standards.
Fourth: "[A]t the same time clearly admitted your bias towards it (you feel people "need to know about" it)": I never said that or anything close to that. This is some mixture of false dichotomy and jumping to conclusions. One doesn't have to be (and perhaps shouldn't be) for or against the book. I could (and do) believe in information, Wikipedia, policies and standards, metadata, objectivity, and any number of other ideas at play here.
I respectfully request that you strike any of the following: "(you feel people "need to know about" it)", "clearly admitted your bias towards it", "you have accused myself, ReaderofthePack and DGG (and maybe Power~enwiki) of being intentionally biased", or "attacking people for the crime of disagreeing with you" if you care about either civility or rhetoric. The tone is not minimized with the "(still) best wishes" in your signature. And here I offer mine. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand being disappointed. A few of my first articles and other tries at things here were not accepted. But I found places where I was tolerated, and some where I was actually welcomed. Before I joined WP, I was a librarian and a teacher of librarianship, and I taught book selection at two library schools. I taught people how to read book reviews, and what they were good for --and what they were not good far. Kirkus at the time was even worse than now, basically a pay-to-review arrangement, though some parts of it are a little better now. PW is essentially what it always was, a place for publishers announcements. They don't show value, they don't show that the public wil be interested. . In this case, read the newspaper review-- one thing I really advise at WP is to actually read the sources. The review doesn't talk about the book. It talks a little about the Trump Presidency, and basically says the book is nothing special.

WP publishes articles not about things the public ought to know about, but about what they will want to know about, and that's the point of significant coverage. If a book about Trump is something that people want to know about--to know the quality and the bias and the background, it will get really substantial reviews and discussions in essentially every major news source. We probably do ned to adjust the wording of NBOOKS to make it clearer. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Evanoff

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

Despite the very long article, she is not remotely notable, fails GNG. This is a retired elementary school teacher/principal who has some credits in short films ( IMDB), and scant reliable source coverage. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What an astonishing article, almost like a hoax or something, although I guess it's just an overinflated vanity piece... Can't see anything to suggest notability. None of the so-called sources are even close to RS (and clearly for a reason). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I don't suspect this is a hoax, though it may be more than a bit embellished. She probably did do drama in high school. She probably did have a teaching career. And she probably appeared in the listed credits. However none of it is particularly significant GNG wise.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the filmography credits for "background" on a half dozen films (that's where you get paid to stand in the background of the shot) sort of says it all. GNG fail.--- Possibly (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This also resembles paid editing; the article creator's 11th edit was Bryant Lazaro; Anne Evanoff was their 12th edit. --- Possibly (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR criteria. It does seem like either UPE or some other type of COI based on the intricate details (some of which have now been removed.) I don't think it's a hoax, but she is not notable. Netherzone (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources; also per WP:NACTOR, there is no indication of significant roles in multiple notable productions or other critera. Beccaynr (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NACTOR and has no RS coverage. Heave-ho! --Kbabej (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone voted "delete". 2001:569:74D2:A800:F48D:35ED:C52C:B178 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With typical unsourced sentences like "Evanoff graduated from Timmins High and Vocational School as an Ontario Scholar and was considered an outstanding student by her teachers", this is so homeopathically diluted with nothingness that no trace of notability can be seen, if ever there was one. I found this through the academic deletion list and certainly her highest academic accomplishment (serving as an elementary school principal) is not enough for notability barring exceptional sourcing, not present here. There may be more on the acting side but if so it is far from obvious. And the pattern of topics in the article creator's first edits is definitely concerning, enough to cast doubt on their other edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She almost seems notable as a provincial curriculum creator/educational functionary in the government. The article doesn't really focus on that part of it and is so poorly sourced...Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G11. Oh my word. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a vanity page, not notable. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. She lacks multiple significant roles. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak & Non notable person. Fail GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 11:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OTWGBEATS

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. None of the cited sources are reliable (sites like Soundcloud and Audiomack) and I can't find anything resembling significant coverage. There's no other indication of notability; while he has apparently worked with a few notable performers, he is not mentioned in their articles or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Lennart97 (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person in the music business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondolinda (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester, Richmond County, Virginia

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

This one is a bit of a weird case. First, this article is an error. The coordinates in the GNIS entry point to a place near the city of Richmond, Virginia, which is not close to Richmond County, Virginia. It's either a duplicate of Manchester, Richmond, Virginia or Manchester, Chesterfield County, Virginia, but I'm not entirely for sure which (although I have a suspiscion it may be the former). Given that this claimed location is not in Richmond County (or particularly close to Richmond County), this should be deleted, as the entire one-sentence article content is false, and a redirect would not be appropriate, as "Richmond County" would be incorrect for either of the correct places. Hog Farm _Talk 16:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Topos show coords for a rail location in the Manchester neighborhood. Plainly bogus. Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's possible this was created in good faith as the City of Richmond appears on various lists of counties due to being a county-equivalent and the situation can be very confusing for an outsider, but this is clearly not a real place. Smartyllama (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oval Office (NASCAR)

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

Poorly referenced, out of date article of a subject that fails WP:GNG. [3] This article doesn't even mention the term "Oval Office", simply "NASCAR hauler", while a google search of "NASCAR hauler" brings up more hits about employment as a truck driver for a race team. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, I think the term has fallen out of usage, aside from a few mentions on television coverage. I think deletion is probably in order. Realkyhick (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found this nickname mentioned anywhere (apart from Reddit which doesn't pass the IRS). Fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nazanin Karimi

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

I failed to find any significant reliable coverage online about her. Fails GNG and other relevant subjective notability criteria, she played on several unimportant movies in Iran. Mardetanha (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence she has been in even one notable production, let alone multiple ones with significant roles, which is the bare minimum for actress notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notably, TEDx is not the same as TED. TEDx events are licensed events that use the TED branding, but anyone can put one on if they can pay the fee. Speaking at a TEDx event is much different than being invited to give a TED Talk. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Schwartz

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

An outrageously promotional article and likely a COI creation. The article does not contain a single independent source, and a BEFORE search shows that he has been quoted and interviewed in a number of outlets, but does not turn up sufficient biographical coverage to justify an article. Hence delete. Blablubbs|talk 15:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 15:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 15:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know what you recommend or suggest instead of deleting this. Mel is a highly successful psychotherapist and speaker who is helping thousands of people overcome mental health challenges, which is critical at this time during a global pandemic. He has spent a lot of time on his work and writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.38.51 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by "we"? Blablubbs|talk 16:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Scholar and JSTOR don't have anything about him. A Google News search turns up a few Salon interviews and one in a local/regional paper about him. Semi-notable... Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that interviews aren't really independent coverage – they can't be used to verify anything aside from the fact that the subject has said something, and hence don't really help establish notability. Blablubbs|talk 16:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^This is spurious reasoning. There are obviously barriers to being interviewed and/or quoted on a topic by mainstream media outlets, like those below, such as an established track record in your field of expertise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:b001:183e:816:2b7c:8d9a:c620 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need actual 3rd party coverage of him, not interviews with him, to actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^This is spurious reasoning. There are obviously barriers to being interviewed and/or quoted on a topic by mainstream media outlets, like those below, such as an established track record in your field of expertise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:b001:183e:816:2b7c:8d9a:c620 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not spurious reasoning. Notability and prominence aren't the same thing; we need in-depth coverage of him in independent, reliable sources. Can I also ask you to please sign your comments, not copy-paste the same comment at two people and to not bludgeon discussions? Thanks --Blablubbs|talk 15:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for responding to two similar comments with the same response. Though, I do disagree with you, and I do believe it is spurious reasoning. These are not self-published works or tweets that are being cited to establish authority; they are reliable, third-party sources. In your opinion, at what point does notability become prominence? Is one article from Salon as insufficient as six? Are TV, radio, and podcast interviews of him invalidated because they are spoken word interactions as opposed to antiquated written profiles? These strike me as dubious, subjective arguments and standards for an encyclopedia that is expansive enough to have entries on every single Pokemon character to ever exist. I appreciate your point about the need for independent, reliable sources. That's why I have included the sundry list below. Mr. Schwartz is the preeminent thinker in the emerging field of Quantum Psychology. While the field itself may just be gaining traction, Mr. Schwartz is the go-to individual for media contacts on the matter. Big fish, little sea? Perhaps. But his Wikipedia entry absolutely meets the general inclusion threshold as set forth by Wikipedia. The subject is notable enough - there is no mention of "prominence," by the way - for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about him that has been published in a reliable source. I encourage you to follow the links below for further evidence. And if you feel the entry is "outrageously promotional," I'd further encourage you to edit it to Wikipedia's standards instead of promoting it for deletion, as I do not believe it is worthy of that ignominious consideration. - Yours in Humble Service, Sisyphean Lament— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:b001:183e:7cbb:e34d:d21a:7898 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, it says nothing about prominence; that was the point I was making above. Even if he gets quoted a lot, and is an important thinker (and might hence be considered "prominent" or "famous") that doesn't make him notable: We define notability as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources provided thus far do not establish that he meets this standard. Yes, some of the sources are reliable, but they mostly quote him, which is not independent coverage. Articles about non-notable entities are not an argument for this one to not be deleted either. On a different note, do you have any connection to Schwartz? And again, please sign your comments. Instructions for doing so are linked above. --Blablubbs|talk 18:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mr. Schwartz is a noted speaker with not one but two TED Talks,^[1]^[2] which have garnered hundreds of thousands of views; he has an established track record of contributing to the field of modern psychology as cited by noteworthy, reliable, mainstream sources, ranging from ABC TV^[3] to CNBC^[4] to Forbes^[5]^[6] to ABC News^[7] to Salon^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14] to The Boston Globe^[15] to Crain's^[16] to National Public Radio^[17] to Columbia University^[18] to Psychology Today^[19] to Men's Health^[20] and other print magazines features^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]; and he is an author whose work and last book received editorial reviews and has been cited by four other individuals with Wikipedia pages.^[25]^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:B001:183E:816:2B7C:8D9A:C620 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm happy to go through the sourcing here.

Source analysis

ted1 – Talk by him, hence basically SPS, not usable (and not reliable either)
ted2 – dito
Forbes1 – council post, unreliable per WP:FORBESCON
Forbes2 – dito
ABC – Quote, namedrop, not coverage
Salon1 – Interview, not independent
Salon2 – dito
Salon3 – dito
Salon4 – dito
Salon4 – dito
Salon5 – dito
Salon6 – dito
boston.com – dito
Crainsnewyork – dito
rnz – Interview, hence not independent
clumbia – Profile in an alumni blog, not really a significant publication, mostly based on quotes
psychologytoday – not independent
amazon – SPS, unusable.

I don't believe any of those are suitable to establish notability. Blablubbs|talk 15:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also dubious of TED talks, they seem to hand them out like cookies now, to just about anyone they can sign up. It's not as high class as it once was. TEDx especially. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV - there are zero reliable and secondary sources, so there is no significant coverage. TEDx talks are a sign of possible notability, but is not automatic. FWIW, I like reading Salon, but it's not a reliable source. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Sheikh (entrepreneur)

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

Weakly-sourced promo piece (basically, a CV) of a non-notable business person, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interesting guy who has started a bunch of companies but no notable accomplishments beyond that. Can't tell if any of his companies became going concerns. No reliable citations. Miaminsurance (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JackPack; also I want to stress that there are zero reliable sources in this BLP. For example, Times of Islamabad does not have an article, and the rest are blogs or not independent. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devoke water 11:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Operation: Doomsday. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Bent / Gas Drawls / Hey!

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Gets some mentions, but nothing to pass WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Operation: Doomsday. After MF Doom's recent death, there were some retrospective articles about his early works in which this three-part single was mentioned briefly, along with all his other early works. Those are just minor mentions, so this song article can be redirected to the parent album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Dipankar (spiritual leader)

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

Does not appear notable. The references provided are not in English and hence cannot verify. The page appears like an advertisement. The page creator appears to be a single purpose account. Vikram Vincent 13:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of this moment, 9/13 of the references are not in English making it difficult to verify whether the subject passes WP:GNG. Vikram Vincent 18:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English sources evaluation table:

Source	Evaluation
Saanch ko aanch nahi, Asaram's cryptic defence in the rape case	A single statement by the subject about a rape convict
Catch news	404 error
Why Meditation is good for your mental health	An article on meditation by the subject
"Tirade of a Saint against Noise Pollution"	website not accessible (maybe temporaily offline?)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Vincentvikram is randomly nominating articles without any solid statement. I noticed, he provided almost same reason (Notability and non Reliable Sources) for all articles nominated for deletion. It seems like his edits are not constructive on Wikipedia. DMySon 17:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The links in references talk about him. But unreferenced sections in the article can be trimmed. - AppuduPappudu (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi AppuduPappudu Would you be able to point out specific links that would satisfy WP:THREE so that I can withdraw my nomination.. Thanks Vikram Vincent 10:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except for a passing mention in "The Print" and not much information available elsewhere, I agree with you and take back my Keep.-AppuduPappudu (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject does not seems notable as per the findings by nom. But Vincentvikram, I suggest you not to use arguments such as The references provided are not in English and hence cannot verify in AFD. Our guidelines does not says that the sources used must be in English. If relible and independent, anyone can use sources from any other languages. Since you are the nominator here, its your responsibility to translate these sources into English (we have better translators now a days) and find whether it is relible and have any sigcov. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I analysed the Hindi sources and they are covering about some contreversies in which this person was involved. No significant coverage and fails GNG. Some of the sources even dont mention about this subject. Like the nom said, this might be just written for promotional purpose. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (EDIT CONFLICT) Thanks Kashmorwiki. While I can read the sources, I am not an expert and prefer an expert to state what is in them. My intention is to improve an article through greater scrutiny than deleting them. Vikram Vincent 17:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swan Man

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

Seems to be a textbook case of WP:BIO1E. Zero in-depth coverage about this person outside of the friendship with the swan. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't even know if this is a "one event" kind of thing, or just the feel-good story a few places picked up for their daily animal story that makes you smile. The guy isn't notable and also no source refers to him as "Swan Man." If this in unaccountably kept it should be moved to Recep Mirzan or to 1984 Turkish swan rescue because it's not about the man, it's about the rescue of the swan. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A human interest story, but nothing notable about it. I think they just made up a nickname for him for the interview. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The present amount of sources is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to turn slow news day human interest stories into something with permanent notice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But its a swan! That hangs out with a man! Won't people in 100 years want to read about that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rowan Atkinson. Any content worth merging can be done from the page history. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Just a Pretty Face (Rowan Atkinson album)

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

Although it's by a very notable artist, this comedy album itself appears to fail WP:GNG. I have not been able to find anything close to significant coverage to establish notability. (A search for this album also brings up some results for a 1992 album which is occasionally called the same, but more often called Rowan Atkinson Live!; that does seem to be a different album altogether.) Lennart97 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rowan Atkinson. I found some coverage in the British Newspaper Archive - a review of the album from the Ealing Leader and a couple of articles about the tour of the same name. Given that neither the tour nor the album are currently mentioned in the Rowan Atkinson article, I would suggest that a merge there would be appropriate, along with the addition of a discography given his two live albums, live video, compilation albums, singles and appearances on other releases. --Michig (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I can't remember why I created the article and will likely never expand it. Adding the info to Rowan Atkinson and creating a discography (or adding it to his filmography) seems like a good idea. MClay1 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rowan Atkinson: Barely found anything about the album. Nothing to merge. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rowan Atkinson. I have a feeling that this album may well have been reviewed in the UK music press at the time... albums by what were seen as "alternative comedians" during the 1980s often received a fair bit of attention. However, there's no chance I'm going to be able to check any of this in the foreseeable future, so a merge is the best course of action for now, and if I do find something substantial one day, this can always be recreated... it's not like there's much information here being lost. Richard3120 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: there's an 8 out of 10 review of this album in the issue of Smash Hits dated December 2 – 15, 1987. Richard3120 (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quy Technology

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and a WP:BEFORE search shows me links to user generated unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It looks like to me a spam piece without any reliable sources.

No 1 source is a profile.
No 2 source is a press release.
No 3 source is a press release.
No 4 source is a press release.
No 5 source is a credible INC source but only the company name is mentioned nothing in depth. [Companies like Microsoft, Consagous, Quytech, RealWorld One, Chetu, Gramercy Tech, Scanta, IndiaNIC, Groove Jones, etc.]
No 6 source is a profile.

Overall nothing here which shows significant importance for this company. My vote goes to speedy delete. Grailcombs (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After the new findings by Grailcombs Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 18:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SRAVANA T N

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

Has not starred in multiple notable productions nor does she meet any other criteria under WP:NACTOR. When searching, the best sources that I could find were this blog post and this tiny Sify article so I'm not seeing WP:GNG either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not meet the criteria of WP:NACTOR. SunDawn (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not credible sources which meets WP:NACTOR. Grailcombs (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to gather Reliable sources for her. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only acted in one movie so far and could not find any reliable sources. Fails GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete it: she acted leading role in that film and article cited news paper mathrubhumi leading news papaer in kerala. There is few upcoming movies. GNG guest^{[[User talk:|guest]] ^|Discuss]] 11:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.99.206.180 (talk)}[reply]

You need to have multiple notable roles to have a stand-alone article as per WP:NACTOR Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Alliance. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Goh

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is not inherited from holding the position of CEO for an airline trade group. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Alliance then, which has the information that he is the CEO. —Kusma (t·c) 12:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Alliance. Not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Alliance, as suggested by all. Grailcombs (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Alliance, not enough news coverage to have its own page. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that sources here demonstrate notability exists. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C. Unniraja

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

A non notable politician. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We already have source in The Hindu, but I think I found more sources.Just look on this other Wikipedia for more sources. One of the sources is no longer in existence, but to me this seems clear that many other sources exist considering he is a leader of a mainstream party in India. I might be willing to change my vote if this isn't enough though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only English RS present on the mlwiki is already present in enwiki. Unless somebody is going to translate the other sources we cannot use them here. Vikram Vincent 10:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me a long time to get back to you. I'm a bit confused by your comment. The fact that the sources are not in English does not mean that they do not help determine notability. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for lack of notability. Vikram Vincent 10:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC) CHanging !vote to Keep per Soman and Goldsztajn. Vikram Vincent 16:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - considering that this person died in 1995, sourcing is a bit difficult but there is material to indicate notability: "C.Unniraja , veteran communist leader"^[2], "C . Unniraja converged on the scene . Among them Unniraja later emerged as a prominent leader of the Communist Party of India ( CPI )"^[3], "As early as in March , the Government of India directed the provincial government to segregate the " unmarked " party members from important Communists . The prominent Communists from Malabar segregated in Vellurcentral jail , were K . Damodaran , K . P . R . Gopalan , K . P . Gopalan , Sadhu P . Ahamad Kutty , A . K . Gopalan , C . Unniraja..."^[4], his life is covered in detail in works like this https://www.indulekha.com/charitram-rachicha-charitrasakshi-biography-c-unniraja --Soman (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Thattumpurath_Achuthan
^ Amity. Indo-Soviet Cultural Society. 1991. p. 10.
^ K. Ramachandran Nair (2006). The History of Trade Union Movement in Kerala. Kerala Institute of Labour and Employment. p. 18. ISBN 978-81-7827-138-5.
^ K. K. N. Kurup (1989). Agrarian Struggles in Kerala. CBH Publications. p. 83. ISBN 978-81-85381-01-5.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep prominent historical CP member from Kerala. Per sources mentioned by Soman and, FWIW, the CIA considered him noteworthy, too; three mentions in the agency's 1962 survey of the Indian left, including as a factional leader in Kerala.--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Goldsztajn if the CIA is looking at you then you definitely are noteworthy :D Vikram Vincent 04:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Internal Communication

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

Fails WP:ORGCRITE. KidAd • SPEAK 08:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I first marked this as PROD. Fails WP:NORG. Rogermx (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It's unclear what this group even does. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kareen Wynter

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

Run-of-the-mill local TV journalist fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST KidAd • SPEAK 08:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like her CV, she's literally done everything I'd expect any other random Joe in her job description. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After doing a Google search, I haven't saw anything significant which could be worthy for passing WP:GNG. The two sources which caught my attention are a video on Yahoo and CNN profle https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/video/2-elderly-women-killed-crash-232025240.html? and https://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/wynter.kareen.html. These sources doesn't seem to be enough to make him pass WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean she.

KidAd • SPEAK 17:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A local TV journo, of which there are (presumably) a few thousand. The subject does not rise to the level of meeting notability requirements. --Kbabej (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - she's in a major market and has appeared on CNN. She has about 5,600 followers on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Edwards (politician)

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

County-level politician, fails WP:NPOL. References consist largely of close sources (person's own website and LinkedIn profile), election candidacy/results announcements, and the like. With what's left, I cannot see this meeting WP:GNG notability. (And that's before even broaching the subject of likely COI editing.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County commission is not a level of office that guarantees automatic inclusion rights under WP:NPOL — to be notable for this, she would have to show reliable source coverage in real media, of a volume and depth and geographic range that clearly marked her out as significantly more notable than most other county councillors. It's not enough to just show a couple of WP:MILL hits in her own county's local media — and the overwhelming majority of the sources here are bad ones that are not support for notability at all, such as blogs and her own campaign website and her own social networking profiles and her staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers and raw tables of election results. And no, "first [insert underrepresented minority group here] to do this not inherently notable thing in her own county" is not an instant notability freebie, either — if being elected to a county council had made her the first black woman officeholder in the entire history of the entire United States, then she would probably have a case for inclusion as a historic first, but if her firstness is limited to her own county, then that doesn't fulfill the "significantly more notable than most other county councillors" test in and of itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much, much better than this.
Also worth noting that the creator previously tried to make this happen through the AFC process at Draft:Violet Edwards, and then after the second rejection at AFC they just bypassed that process and directly created this in articlespace instead of attempting to improve and resubmit the AFC draft any further — which, needless to say, is not how the AFC process works. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat's well reasoned argument on why county commissioners are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is built on Linkedin (which is both unreliable and does not help notability) and routine local election reports. WP:BEFORE turns up more local news reports. Fails WP:NPOL. This is maybe the best source we have, but it's basically an alumni interview. The attempt to circumvent the AfC process is displeasing and should not be encouraged. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Sabater Sr.

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

Deceased United States Marine Corps Colonel with no significant awards or decorations. Played a minor role in the Bougainville campaign and Battle of Guam (1944). Lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage lacking as per nom statement. I also note that cites [1] and [2] do not support the relevant content. Zawed (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sabater commanded the 1st Battalion 9th Marines during the Bougainville amphibious operations in World War that is not a minor role. He also served as a military liaison in Argentina. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show he's risen above what another person in his position would have done. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough coverage to support GNG. Intothat darkness 15:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the nomination statement that the topic lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG in this artice. ——Serial 16:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough coverage, hence fails WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 1st Battalion, 9th Marines, selectively. There is (some) reliably sourced content here about the battalion's role in WWII that could be merged reasonably there, delete-- not seeing his independent notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did some cleanup work on the 1/9 Marines article. There's a very small amount of information in this article that could go there, but not much IMO. Intothat darkness 16:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hence a selective merge. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the 1/9 Marines article already links to the Bougainville campaign and Guam, I don't know how much the paragraph of general overview from this article (which honestly doesn't talk about 1/9 at all) would add. I should add I'm not opposed to such a merge per se. Intothat darkness 17:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah on second thought, I'm not sure how much benefit a merger would have. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as above Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 11:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) SportingFlyer T·C 14:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shimao Cross-Strait Plaza

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

No indication why the topic meets WP:BUILD or WP:GNG. List of tallest buildings in Xiamen ranks this as the second tallest building in Xiamen but this does not hold encyclopedic value. Hitro talk 06:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true that English-language coverage is sparse – with a quick search I only found two substantive sources in English:

But there's plenty of Chinese-language coverage:

More sources are available online, but I think this sample is enough to pass GNG. It may be worth mentioning that at one time these were the tallest buildings in Xiamen (pop. 4 million). —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look that those. Pizza0614 (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found some alternative English names, which led me to two more English-language sources about the complex. I've added them to the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Until the completion of the Xiamen International Centre, it was the tallest building in Xiaman, a city of over 4 million. Oakshade (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Massive landmark in a large city.----Pontificalibus 12:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've expanded the article substantially with more sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - In the wake of current expansion of the article & introduction of multiple sources, I withdraw my nomination. Gratitude to the participants. Hitro talk 06:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 18:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Facilitators

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

Fails WP:NORG. The sources provided are either trivial or self-published, and a WP:BEFORE search finds only the occasional mention in routine coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2012-12 Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal no consensus

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Sunger (news anchor)

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

WP:BLP of a single-market local television journalist and actress, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion standards for journalists or actresses. As always, neither journalists nor actresses are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they exist -- they have to have much stronger evidence that their work has been externally validated as significant, and they have to have real media coverage about them to properly support an article with. However, her notability claim as a journalist is that she won a minor journalism award that is sourced solely to her staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer, rather than any evidence of media coverage about the award presentation to establish its significance -- and her notability claim as an actress is that she's had roles, which IMDb predictably confirms as occasional unnamed bit parts as "reporter", "newscaster" or "news anchor" rather than significant leading roles for the purposes of WP:NACTOR.
And the sourcing absolutely isn't cutting it for a WP:GNG pass either: there's her own staff profile (twice), her own self-published website about herself, her IMDb page, a profile on a celebrity gossip blog, and a transcript of an interview in which she's the questioner and not the subject being discussed, on the self-published website of the organization whose executive director was the interviewee -- none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. And for actual media coverage, there's just one light promotional puff piece in a limited circulation special interest magazine, which is not enough coverage to get her over the notability bar all by itself if it's the strongest source in play. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better references than this. Bearcat (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a few more sources have been added since I first nominated this, but they still aren't good or notability-building ones. There are two pieces from her own employer about her participation in a local charity fundraiser, one of which she wrote herself and neither of which make her notable for that because they come from her own employer; one briefly mentions her name in the process of being coverage of somebody else; one isn't a news article about her but just a collection of photographs that happen to have her in them; and one is just a short blurb in a listicle from a non-notable and unreliable food blog in which random people were asked to name their favourite movie scenes. None of these are notability-bolstering sources: we're not looking for just any web page we can find that happens to have her name in it to verify that she exists, we're looking for coverage about her to verify that her career achievements warrant the attention of an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's basically had bit parts in movies as "generic reporter person". Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have seen Coffee and Kareem. I have to point out the film is unrealistic because the supposedly inner-city Detroit kid Kareem somehow has white kids in his school class. This does not happen in inner city Detroit schools. The makers do not understand how racially segregated Detroit public schools are. Now, if they had set him as having just moved out of Detroit to Roseville or some place like that the film would have been fully believable, but the supposedly inner city school did not compute. Maybe one white kid in the class, but not the unrealiztic balance they showed. I know Detroit schools and that was not what it would have been like. I just needed to get that off my chest. This article is functionally a hoax because Sunger did not "star" in Coffee and Kareem. In fact I am still not sure what her role was, becasue she is not on our cast list or mentioned in the plot summary, but if she did have a part it was extremely minor, not on the level of a significant role. Sunger is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going off on a bit of a tangent there; the question of whether Coffee and Kareem was realistic or not has nothing to do with it. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanathi Srinivasan

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

I would like to reopen the deletion discussion as I clearly believes this article does not pass WP:GNG. One of the two users IphisOfCrete who opposed deletion in previous AFD is now blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The subject has never won any assembly or national elections, neither held any major public post to merit an individual article. The citations given in the articles is just a clear case of WP:REFBOMB. None of the sources are also not covering about her in depth. Its primary coverage is about the events that the subject was involved. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I may not like her politics but she is clearly notable at the national-level as a lawyer and politically. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as per second point of WP:Politician. - AppuduPappudu (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The actions of other editors are irrelevant in determining notability; fruit of the poison tree has no status here. Nationally-renown far-right ideologue, president of the BJP women's front. Passes WP:NPOL and the GNG.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was certainly no consensus to delete, WP:HEY applies due to the cleanup. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temples of Taichung

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

Bad "list" article filled with WP:OR with no good revision and very far from being complete. Every notable temple on this list now has its own individual article. A "List of temples in Taichung" may be created later, but at its current state would be very short (see Category:Temples in Taichung). ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there not temples in Taichung? Seems fixable. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, use {{main}} to link to subarticles. Could be reformatted more as a list, but I don't see a good argument that deleting the present content helps. —Kusma (t·c) 13:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperbolick and Kusma: I don't think I made my argument very clear in the beginning, but after writing individual articles for six of the temples here (Lin Family Ancestral Shrine, Zhang Family Temple, Zhang Liao Family Temple, Yuanbao Temple, Lecheng Temple, Wanhe Temple), I am not exaggerating when I say that there is absolutely nothing worth keeping here. This page is literally someone's observations after visiting some temples in the city. It literally has less sources than temples mentioned, and is riddled with tiny factual errors. My favorite part are the two last entries: that's not a Shinto Shrine since it has incense in front of it, and Chishan Gate (article at Jishan Gatehouse) is not even a temple at all. I also find it amazing that Jenn Lann Temple, arguably the most significant temple in Taichung, is not even listed. You ask me to try to salvage this when it is a prime example of WP:JUNK, where something is beyond repair and starting over will make the few editors still around writing about Taiwan's lives easier. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ganbaruby, I have no objection to this article being started over from scratch, but I don't see why we have to hide the page history from non-admins. There is something that could be savaged: Some of the content about the Confucius temple could be merged to Taichung Confucian Temple, for example. Of course the content about non-temples or any wrong content should be deleted, and the article should link to all of the nice articles about temples that you recently wrote. —Kusma (t·c) 16:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: I can work on Taichung Confucian Temple to at least a start class. However, I really think there's no way to salvage this article. What would the end product even look like? Best I can do is listifying it like List of churches in London. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ganbaruby, I wouldn't object to a list like that. I'm also happy with the idea of combining the article with Taichung#Temples, and if redirecting there for a while helps you with the cleanup, that's ok for me (good WP:ATD). If you don't think you can salvage the content (I hope my typo "savage" above wasn't Freudian) then others could still do that in the future. —Kusma (t·c) 10:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. Looking at the content of the article, I don't know if that should be a C-class article or a list-class article. It is really in between. Before we come into that, let's "clean up" the article first. But please pardon me if I don't follow exactly 100% on the Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I shall just speak it up based on my humble observation.
- Any empty heading title should be deleted first (Wen Chang Temple, Chenghuang Temple, Wanchun Temple). That's not the way how you should write any Wikipedia article.
- Please add reference to each of that non-referenced temples (Lin Family Ancestral Temple, Chang-Liao Family Shrine, Bao Jue Buddhist Temple, Tzu-shan Buddhist Temple, Wen Chang Temple, Yuanbao Temple, Nantian Temple, Japanese Shrine at the Bao Jue Buddhist Temple, Chishan Gate). If not, then delete them.
- Most of the photos in the article do not have name/description caption. I can't see which photo belongs to which temple.
- Among 5 given references, in the order of sequence, 1 is an archived, 3 are dead link & 1 is too general (about Taichung City overview). So basically the article is left with only 1 proper (archived) reference, in which I believe that one can easily trigger AfD tagging.
- Looking at all of these not-up-to-standard, I have to say this should never be a list-class article. It has to be deleted or (in a 'nicer words') redirected to its respective article. Those with enough references (e.g. Taichung Confucian Temple) should have its own article and those without references should be completely deleted. After this 'purge', then I can imagine the article will be left with very minimum information, in which it can always be redirected to the Temple section of Taichung article.
- That's my honest opinion here. Cheers Chongkian (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like the idea of redirecting to Taichung#Temples. I can condense this into a section with a paragraph for each religious sect. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't much to preserve here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Be aware that this is a WP:ARGUMENTTOAVOID.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Such argument shall not be used for AfD discussion per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC Chongkian (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, needs to some especially with sourcing but this a very valid topic about rich architectural and cultural history. Passed WP:NLIST as many of the entries has their own article, as can be more clearly seen in Category:Temples in Taichung--Prisencolin (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Prisencolin: I really have no idea how to clean this up, which is why I'm at AfD. What would the end product look like? What would due weight even look like here, and how would you decide which temples are most prominent. Best I can do is listifying it like List of churches in London. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I don't think the article looks too bad as it is, it just needs more sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable topic - whether it's turned into a navigational list linking to individual temple articles or otherwise improved is something that can be discussed on the article's talk page.----Pontificalibus 11:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been renamed List of temples in Taichung. So that solves the problem, since its clearly a list article. Dream Focus 12:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- From my perspective, if we were to create (or maintain) a List of temples in Taichung article, then firstly we need to have the List of temples in Taiwan article. Once that List of temples in Taiwan article is too long, then only we shall break it down by temple types or temple location (which suits the List of temples in Taichung article). But not straight away to create List of temples in Taichung without having the List of temples in Taiwan article. You get what I mean? Chongkian (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't matter. This list is long enough to stand on its own, so wouldn't likely be merged with the other if it was ever created. You can't destroy a perfectly valid article because you hope a different one you like better will somehow appear. Category:Temples in Taiwan exist, so you can see how many different types of temples there are. You could easily make additional lists from that. Dream Focus 02:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Chongkian: Your concern is a fairly valid point about WP:UNDUE representation of less notable topics over others. As such I have created that list article which you requested.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chongkian, Prisencolin, and Kusma: Taichung#Temples is now done. I'll work on that red link in the near future, but that section currently has a link to every temple in the category. I'm still in favor of redirecting the list to the section unless we can figure out if a list article is really necessary given individual articles exist, and if it is, what due weight and inclusion criteria would look like. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sticks and Stones Tour

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

No proof of notability for tours: needs in-depth secondary sourcing that discuss the tour AS A TOUR--not a couple of show reviews and set lists. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR. There are four sources in the article: two are typical date announcements and two are typical support act date announcements (with the Cosmopolitan source no longer working). Aspects (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snare Books

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a small independent publishing house, not properly referenced as passing WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, every company is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because its own self-published website technically verifies that it exists -- the notability test hinges on the degree to which it has or hasn't been the subject of media coverage about it to establish its significance. But the ten footnotes here are almost entirely to primary sources (e.g. the cofounder's own website) or WordPress and Blogspot blogs which aren't support for notability at all. Of the just two footnotes that actually come from real media, one is a university student newspaper rather than a commercial daily -- and even that one isn't about this company, but just glancingly mentions its existence a single time in an article about its founder writing a poetry book. So there's only one footnote here that's actually both reliable and about the company, but one source is not enough all by itself -- and even on a search for better sourcing, all I can find is more glancing namechecks of its existence in sources that aren't about it. And for added bonus the company's defunct, so there's no prospect of improved sourcing emerging in the future. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very nice little self-promotion piece, which included two three short biography coatracks for associated parties (now removed). Tiny presses like this are rarely notable. Someone with more literary chops might be able to say if the The Robert Kroetsch Award for Innovative Poetry list of winners could be broken out into its own article. --- Possibly (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting as well that Possibly's trim job (which I agree with, and had been sorely tempted to do myself before even bringing it to AFD...but I decided to be lazy) also eliminated half of the footnotes I enumerated above, since they were sitting on that biographical content instead of anything about the actual company. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear WP:PROMO piece. They can save it for their Wordpress website. KidAd • SPEAK 07:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources to be enough for WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads Community Cathedral

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

Not finding anything notable or historically significant about this church. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage, just the normal obits mentioning the church and upcoming activities at the church. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possble keep -- If this church really has been responsible for planting 100 other churches it ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Uhlinger, Dan (2007-07-05). "Church expands to better serve a growing fold". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2021-03-14. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  The article notes, "From its beginnings as a storefront church, Crossroads Community Cathedral has grown from a handful of members in 1951 to more than 2,500 members today. As more people have turned to it for spiritual guidance and meaning in life, the Silver Lane church, formerly known as the First Assembly of God, has prospered to the extent that today it owns two buildings on more than 30 acres straddling the Manchester line."
  The article notes, "The church has become known for its seasonal dramas on religious occasions such as Easter and Three Kings Day. The church produced the Easter Passion Play for the 18th consecutive year in April. A 400-member cast depicted the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The play featured live animals, a fully costumed multicultural cast, a 48-person choir and an orchestra."
2. Kanaris, Anastasios (2007-03-31). "Crossroads Cathedral to stage annual megaproduction of Passion Play". Journal Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2021-03-14. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  The article discusses Crossroads Community Cathedral's 15th consecutive annual production of Easter Passion Play. On a yearly basis, people purchased 3,000 tickets for the show. The article notes that "The play features a 400-member, multicultural cast, and features live animals" and has a choir with 48 people and a live orchestra.
3. "News". Journal Inquirer. 2004-04-03. Archived from the original on 2021-03-14. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  The article notes, "Crossroads Community Cathedral's annual Easter Passion Play is no ordinary church pageant. The production, premiering April 4, Palm Sunday, will feature live animals, high-tech lighting and sound, and a cast of hundreds of singers and actors."
4. Renner, Gerald. (1998-04-12). "Segregated Sunday" (pages 1 and 2). Hartford Courant. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2021-03-14 Retrieved 2021-03-14 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article discusses the First Assembly of God Church on Silver Lane in East Hartford. The article has analysis about the church: "First Assembly presents Pentecostalism 'lite,' packaging its fundamentalist, Bible-centered message in a form acceptable to a conservative, stolidly middle-class membership, many of whom are former Roman Catholics." The article discusses the pastor, Terry Wiles, 51, his wife, Nita, and notes they have two children.
5. Renner, Gerald (1987-03-26). "Followers told to judge TV preachers by Bible". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2021-03-14. Retrieved 2021-03-14 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article discusses the congregation of the First Assembly of God Church in East Hartford.
6. Walsh, Andrew (2004). "Conservative Protestants: Propsering on the Margins". In Walsh, Andrew; Silk, Mark (eds.). Religion and Public Life in New England: Steady Habits, Changing Slowly. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press. p. 112. ISBN 0-7591-0628-2. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  The book notes, "For example, the First Assemblies of God Church in East Hartford, Connecticut, a large, successful, and multi-cultural congregation recently changed its name to Crossroads Community Cathedral."
7. Summers, Stephanie (2008-03-17). "Passion Rock - Church Musical Has Cast of 180, Plus Arabian Horses". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2021-03-14. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  The article discusses Brent Grosvenor's inaugural showing of his rock musical, The Passion of the King. The article mentions "the just-opened, 900-seat sanctuary of Crossroads Community Cathedral in East Hartford".
8. McWilliams, Kathleen (2016-04-27). "Fresh Grounded Faith Conference In East Hartford Hopes To Connect Women With God". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2016-04-29. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Crossroads Community Cathedral to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that show in total enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG. That the church organisation has begun 100 new churches is also a strong indicator that the article should be kept. Any promotionalism can be edited out for a more neutral tone, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above presentation of sources by User:Cunard, and it seems to me significant as a megachurch itself and having wide impact through expansion to so many other locations. The Wikipedia article List of megachurches in the United States defines itself as covering the largest megachurches having 2,500+ attending each week, while this is limited to 900 seats, but still it is significant IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benito, California

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

The only variety afforded by this otherwise routine rail-spot-not-a-settlement is that, for some time, there was a drive-in theater in the sector east of the RR crossing now occupied by house and outbuildings. I could not find anything out about the theater, and I don't think adding that and two agri-industrial concerns (which is why there was a siding there) constitute a settlement. Searching is problematic but the only direct reference to the spot specifically called it a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing seems to indicate this was an actual notable settlement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing there on the 1923 Firebaugh topo map. I searched for evidence of an earlier settlement associated with Firebaugh while excluding mention of San Benito County but didn't find anything.----Pontificalibus 08:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that this should be deleted. Multiple editors have voted delete knowing there is a potential merge target and any merges material needs sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC). To expand my explanation, any willingness to merge was clearly a reluctant second choice and the merge argument was championed by a user who chose to point fingers and cast aspertions rather than argue policy therefore getting little weight in the close. That left only DGG arguing credibly against delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies

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

Talk page discussion about notability suggests that most editors who analyzed this conclude this article does not meet WP:GNG/WP:NJOURNAL. Merger to its publisher, Assyrian Academic Society, ~~is not going to work as it is likely about to be deleted too~~ can be considered but note it is also subject to an ongoing AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assyrian Academic Society). Ping editors who participated in the talk page discussion: User:Randykitty, User:Buidhe, User:Sorabino. At best, maybe this could be transwiki to a site like the https://humanitiesjournals.fandom.com/wiki/Humanities_Journals_Wiki _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet GNG or NJOURNALS. Not indexed anywhere selective. Either delete or possibly a very selective merge to Assyriology. (t · c) buidhe 02:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Piotrus: Would you consider a temporary hold on this deletion proposal, on two accounts:

Discussions on the talk page of that article is still going on, involving several users.
Discussion on the proposed deletion of the article Assyrian Academic Society is not yet concluded, and possible solutions for the content of JAAS article are directly dependent on the outcome of that process. Sorabino (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorabino, I can't 'put this AfD hold', there is no such system I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, maybe you could withdraw the proposal as a nominator, just for few days, until the question of the article Assyrian Academic Society is resolved? Sorabino (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorabino, I don't think this is needed, it is likely this AfD won't close until the other one does first anyway (since the other one is older). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Piotrus, discussion on the AAS article will continue for several days, and the proposal might be relisted, thus prolonging the discussion. Is it practical to have two parallel processes? Sorabino (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorabino, Since they are about different entities, they are not parallel IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Piotrus, formally those are two separate articles, but they are closely related, since JAAS was launched as a publication under the auspices of AAS. Sorabino (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some useful search results, including those on the previous title:

It seems to me that these results are showing quite clearly that the journal in question is widely quoted in scholarly literature and thus notable enough to have an article. I do not see any justification for the proposed deletion. Sorabino (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabino, No, what you have are lowset denomination WP:GOOGLEHITS. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This journal does not meet either GNG or NJournals. That articles from it have received a smattering of citations (see the links directly above) is to be expected and nothing out of the ordinary. If you look at the GScholar hits, the amount of citations would not even be enough to render a single academic notable, let alone a whole journal. MIAR indicates that this journal is not indexed anywhere. I also note that it appears to be moribund as it website is dead. Merging to the society (if that article is kept) is perhaps not appropriate either: given that the Journal of the Assyrian Academic Society continued publishing for several years in parallel with this one indicates that it is a new journal, independent of the society, rather than a continuation off the society journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, can you confirm here that you were directly invited by present nominator to get involved in the initial assessment of this article, with both of you having no previous editorial contributions to Assyrian-related themes? You are an administrator, who is not familiar with the field in question, and never used this journal or its articles, but still you accepted the invitation and decided to pass strict judgement with obvious disregard for the factual notability of this article. Sorabino (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Experts from the Center for the Study of Christianity, within the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, decided to enlist 83 (eighty three) articles from this journal into their "Comprehensive Bibliography on Syriac Christianity" as can be seen clearly from their publicly available bibliographical base. That is the position of scholars on this journal, and a clear acknowledgment of its notability. On the other hand, users who are advocating deletion are (for some reason) ignoring such data. In any case, we should also keep in mind that this journal had special significance tor modern Assyrian community, and it was their main academic publication. World renowned experts like Richard N. Frye, Sebastian P. Brock, Simo Parpola, Robert D. Biggs, Geoffrey Khan, Yona Sabar, Estiphan Panoussi and John B. Joseph have been publishing their articles in this journal. But, it seems that some users here, who have no editorial contributions to main field-related articles, such as Assyria and Assyrian people, think differently. Sorabino (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on selective invitations. It might be interesting to record here that nominator Piotrus directly invited users Randykitty and buidhe to join discussions on notability of this article. The journal in question contains articles on Assyrian themes, and that is well known to editors who contributed to articles from that field, but editorial histories of main field-related articles (Assyria and Assyrian people) clearly show the lack of any contributions from those editors! And yet, after mutual invitations, they are now proposing or supporting deletions of articles on Assyrian Academic Society and the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. It seems that until these recent developments, there was no interest among those users to edit articles from the primary field that is covered by works published in this journal. Lack of true interest or knowledge is reflected in their erroneous assessments of this journal. Sorabino (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not going into detail into your aspersions. Simply this: since many years I specialize in academic journals in many different fields, from humanities to high-energy physics (see my user page for a large list of related resources)). Several editors know this and from time to time they ask my opinion. Piotrus has done this quite regularly and we have not always agreed, so his invitation to comment was certainly not an attempt to get a like-minded supporter. As for this AfD, I would have come here even if I hadn't been pinged, because I follow all journal-related AfDs, speedy deletions, PROD, drafts, etc (see here). --Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, please respond to my arguments, stated above against deletion. You did not respond to single one of them, because your hasty assessment of this journal is in odds with the actual notability of this journal within the field. Maybe names of prominent authors such as Richard N. Frye, Sebastian P. Brock, Simo Parpola, Robert D. Biggs, Geoffrey Khan, Yona Sabar, Estiphan Panoussi and John B. Joseph do not mean anything to you, as well as the decision of experts from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to enlist 83 (eighty three) articles from this journal into their "Comprehensive Bibliography on Syriac Christianity". Why are you ignoring those arguments? Sorabino (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments indicate a basic misunderstanding of notability. If you have reliable sources that discuss in-depth how the authors that you mention were important for the journal or the other way around, then please provide those. If all that happened was that these people cited an article from this journal in one of their own articles, then that is purely routine. As for the Comprehensive Bibliography, as the title says, that bibliography aims to be comprehensive, hence it is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals. To be as clear as I can be: you have provided not a single argument that makes me change my mind. --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, this is now a defdinite prof that you are just trying to mask the fact that your assessment of this journal is wrong. Did you even look at the nature of that bibliography? It is not a simple listing of all articles that are published in various journals, but a comprehensive bibliography of scholarly articles that are relevant to the field. And regarding those prominent authors, their names are very well known within in the field, no artificial justification is needed there. I am very surprised that anyone would publicly claim to be capable of making honest assessments of journals outside their field. A frightening thought: have you been assessing medical journals too? Sorabino (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The operational word here is "comprehensive" (and yes, of course I had a look at that database, very valuable I guess for people in that field, but no contribution to notability). I don't understand what medical journals have to do with the discussion here. I have created articles on medical journals and taken quite a few to AfD, too. Can we now stop discussing my incompetence and concentrate on the issue at hand? --Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, you are the one who started the narrative on your expertise in the field of journal assessments. I do not know what your field of study is, but it seems to me that it is not archeology or any of the other discipline related to history. The very fact that you are publicly demonstrating disregard for the work of experts who created that bibliography speaks volumes. You have no arguments against simple facts: 1.) Those experts recognized this journal as relevant, 2.) They selected 83 articles for the comprehensive bibliography of the defined field, 3.) Those two facts are clear recognition of notability of this journal. But it seems that you simply do not want to acknowledge any relevance to those facts. Haw can you, in all honesty, still claim that this journal is below the standards of notability? Not to mention cultural and social importance of that journal for the Assyrian community. This entire discussion is quite an unfortunate embarrassment. Sorabino (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to explain what makes a journal notable as best as I can. Assessing journals my specialty, like it or not. And now I formally ask you to stop your personal attacks and concentrate on the matter at hand. If you have problems with my incompetence, feel free to take this to WP:ANI or any other noticeboard. I for one am done with your refusal to understand my arguments and incessant accusations. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, so we have come to that point? When lacking arguments, the "personal attack" card is pulled. And you are an administrator! You have two choices now, since you accused me publicly on making "personal attacks" against you: If you realy mean that, it would be your duty to report me. If you do not report me, than you are the one making accusations here. Where do we go from here is up to you. Sorabino (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the nominator. Piotrus, for the sake of clarity, can you disclose how did you came to be involved in the assessment of this article, while having no previous editorial contributions to Assyrian-related articles? In the fields of your interest, as defined by your user page and your editorial history, there are several articles with no references or just with some singular references to self-published sources, but you somehow missed such articles. Here are some examples: Polish American Catholic Heritage Committee, or majority of articles in the category Category:Polish-language newspapers published in the United States, that have just one self-published source. For the sake of consistency, would you nominate such articles for deletion? Sorabino (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorabino, I would, if the review showed they are not notable. Anyway, you should really lay it off, I am all for engaging AfD participants in discussions, but you are starting to come off to me as WP:BADGERING. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I can not make you to disclose the nature of those direct invitations to other users, but I have the right to ask, and that is not "badgering". We are dealing with very simple facts here: you have zero editorial contributions to main articles on Assyrian themes, but suddenly, after recent contacts with user buidhe, you became ardently engaged in the proposed deletions of articles Assyrian Academic Society and the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. So, pardon me for asking. I guess you will also ignore the inclusion of this journal into Hebrew University of Jerusalem bibliographical database, that is mentioned above? Sorabino (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Piotrus often participates in AfD and makes an effort to delete non-notable topics from Wikipedia. (t · c) buidhe 04:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe, what about direct invitations to join discussions on these issues? Did that happened or not? Sorabino (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel there's WP:CANVASSING going on (there isn't), please take it up with an uninvolved admin rather than continuing to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe, this entire deletion endeavor is already on the edge of integrity, not to mention the fact that neither you or user Piotrus still haven′t said a word about clear confirmation of this journal′s notability by data presented above. The very fact that all of you are still advocating the most radical solution (complete deletion) is hard to understand. Sorabino (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with Sorabino that canvassing is taking place... --Randykitty (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, are you really accusing me of "caanvassing" for putting general notices on talk pages of main articles on Assyrian themes, pointing to the need to improve the contents of articles that are proposed for deletion? If that is "canvasing" please report me. Sorabino (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Asking editors on Assyrian subjects to come save notable articles that are threatened by ignorant editors is not canvassing, but asking a specialist on academic journals for their opinion (pro or con), now that is canvassing. And disagreeing with your assertion that this journal is notable suggests an integrity issue. Got it, thanks for educating me. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And thus we have reached the highlight of this discussion ... Back to the reality: the claim that this journal is notable enough to have an article is backed by evidence presented above, from numerous quotations in scholarly works, to inclusion into scientific bibliographies, created by academic institutions. On the other hand, the claim that content on this journal should be deleted is based on what? Someones personal ad hoc assessment that all of those previously mentioned data somehow does not count. Sorabino (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct information on indexing: Several claims, stated above by some users in relation to this journal, are not factually correct:

1. User Randykitty stated that "this journal is not indexed anywhere", but data shows that complete indexing was done by researches of the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz (Germany), as presented within their well-known bibliographical project "Regesta Imperii", where it is stated for this journal: "Status of Indexing: Completely Indexed".
2. User Buidhe stated, referring to this journal: "Not indexed anywhere selective" but that statement is also incorrect, as shown earlier by pointing to selection of articles (83) from this journal, ad their inclusion in bibliographical database "Comprehensive Bibliography on Syriac Christianity", that was created by researchers of the Center for the Study of Christianity, within the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
3. In order to improve the article, I added some new contents, including data on OCLC identifier (644298677) and LCCN identifier (98647085) for this journal. I also added some referenced data on the nature and significance of this journal.
Having all that in mind, I would ask all involved editors to take another look at the article, and other relevant data, that might incline them to reconsider their current positions. Sorabino (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look. Ad 1/ Not a selective index in the sense of NJournals. Ad 2/ As explained several times above, "comprehensive" means "not selective". Ad 3/ OCLC and LCC numbers are routine and do not add anything to notability, nor are the other sources added substantial. Adding a list of notable authors is discouraged by our journal article writing guide and in the absence of sources documenting how these authors were important for the journal or how this journal was important for these authors, that list is just so much names dropping, does not contribute to notability, and if ever the article is kept should be deleted. In short: I see no reason to change my !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, claim on the lack of any indexing has been proven wrong, but it is up to every individual user to accept that fact, or not. Somehow, you are misrepresenting (again) the nature of that bibliography on Syriac Christianity. It is comprehensive only in terms of its subject: the Syriac Christianity. But in relation to this journal and every other academic source used to create it, that bibliography is selective, because it contains selected articles on themes related to Syriac Christianity. That is not hard to understand, and present properly. Can you see some other posiblle solution for the content of this article, except the most radical one (deletion)? Sorabino (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress (Washington) has included this journal in their bibliographical list, titled "Assyrian Display Bibliography" (2016) placing the journal among 29 selected titles that are relevant for research in the fields of Aramaic and Syriac language and literature. Also, the Princeton University Library is listing this journal among those that are relevant to the Near Eastern Studies (Near East Collections at Princeton University Library). It seems that examples like these are showing that those institutions are recognising this journal as relevant. Sorabino (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of the University and Research Systems (ANVUR) has classified this journal (under both titles) among selected scientific journals in their annual reporting, since the very beginning of evaluations, up to the newest listings (January 2021). Sorabino (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabino, Are you familiar with the expression "grasping for straws"? ANVUR is not a significant citation index. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, are you still proposing complete deletion of content related to this journal? Sorabino (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the closer. This journal was published by the Assyrian Academic Society. Discussion on that article was today relisted, with three votes to keep and two to delete. Since one of possible solutions for the content of the article on this journal is to merge it with the article on the Assyrian Academic Society, it would seem fair to relist this discussion too, particularly in light of data presented above, related to full indexing and notability. Sorabino (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, more independent participation is needed, since both users who are supporting deletion were directly invited by the present nominator to join the initial discussion on the notability of this journal, and therefore it would be preferable if some additional time is granted here, by relisting this discussion, until the similar AfD process on Assyrian Academic Society is completed. Sorabino (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabino: once more: comment on the issues, not the editors. I was not canvassed to come here to support someone's position (unlike your own -unsuccessful- requests for like-minded editors to come save this article). Your continuous bludgeoning and posting of walls of text, not to mention your continuous assertions that "notability has been proven" (it hasn't, that's what we are discussing here) are counterproductive and you should not be surprised if other editors (including the closing admin) are going to ignore your unproductive badgering, aspersions, and arguing. --Randykitty (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty: that is 100% not true, I did not invite a single user to discuss this article, whether on talk page or here, while you were invited directly by the present nominator. And regarding this discussion, your initial assessment that "this journal is not indexed anywhere" has been proven as factually incorrect (above), but you still did not respond to that! So, you were invited directly, and your statement on indexing is wrong, not to mention other issues on notability, addressed above, but you are still advocating complete deletion of all content related to this notable Assyrian-minority journal? Sorabino (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Significance as a minority journal: Since this journal had double significance, both as academic (English sections) and minority (native literature sections) journal, here is a quote from the USA based Assyrian Arts Institute, on the importance of this publication as a minority journal: "Through journals such as Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Assyrian writers and poets have the opportunity to channel their voice and share their thoughts and achievements with the world" (see: Assyrian Art Institute: Who are the Assyrians?). Sorabino (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. Could be merge at Assyrian Academic Society if that one is kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, merge would be a good solution, but that would depend on the outcome of AfD for the Assyrian Academic Society, that will be known in few days, but this AfD (on the journal) might closed today, if it is not relisted. Please, could you clarify what would be your preferable choice for content on the journal: complete deletion, or merge to Assyrian Academic Society? Sorabino (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered language: This journal was a bilingual publication, with double significance, both as academic journal (English sections) and a literary journal (native sections, with linguistic and literary contents published in various forms of Aramaic/Syriac). Since Assyrian Neo-Aramaic language, as well as other Neo-Aramaic languages are considered as endangered languages, under UNESCO classification (see: List of endangered languages in Asia), it would be improper to disregard the significance of this journal for preservation of those languages. Sorabino (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

potential merge--postpone deletion because thearticle on the society look like it will at worst be a non-consensus. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern European people

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

Similar to the Northwestern European people article that has been deleted, this similarly written article also have similar issue. Lots of WP:REFBOMBED issue where the article just reference random article with "Eastern European" phrase in it. Also WP:SYNTH. SunDawn (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the other "x European people" articles created by this user, the article is just a grab bag of uses of the phrase "Eastern European" in scholarly literature, without any coherent structure. Zero reason for this article to exist separately from Eastern Europe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject’s identity is based on editor’s WP:SYNTHESIS. —Michael Z. 15:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. Every random, online mention of "eastern European" or "east European" seems to be dumped here. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Spaces Institute

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

No reliable sources available to support notability. No hits under Google News, Scholar or Books. The given citations to Denver Post do not refer to this organization. Sauzer (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sauzer (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Sauzer (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Sauzer (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any coverage, fails WP:GNG. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable think tank.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The delete arguments are weak and did not seem to consider possible sources, so when compared with other arguments, delete should not be the outcome.

Between keeping and merging, the keep !votes are slightly more convincing as their elaboration is more complete (i.e. not simply stating the !vote only) and more of the keep !votes considered the additional sources that had been presented. Considering the discussion has already been relisted twice, there is no need to prolong it further.

However, there is no prejudice against merging if a consensus of merging is achieved in a merger discussion later. As AFD is not intended for deciding between keeping and merging, the arguments for merging presented here may be apparently weaker. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Review

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

Despite a nearly 20 year existence, can not find reliable sources that show it to be notable. Slywriter (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Worldcat says that this literary review is held by 16 libraries. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This needs in-depth coverage in reliable sources, not evident. I think its publisher, Red Hen Press, is notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or alternatively, merge to Red Hen Press. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The official site's Alexa global ranking stands at almost #2,000,000 (which is very low). Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 09:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The publication sounds intriguing, but its lack of notability makes it better suited for a literary magazine Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Manderfield, Katherine (2011-02-15). "LA Might Not Have The New Yorker, But At Least We're Not Pretentious: Spotlight on Local Lit Mags". LAist. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
  Katherine Manderfield is an LAist contributor who has written numerous pieces for them. The article notes that The Los Angeles Review (LAR) has the motto Divergent, West Coast Literature and has the masthead "something disturbing, something alive, something of the possibility of what it could be to be human in the 21stcentury". LAR is edited by Red Hen Press founder Kate Gale. It publishes pieces on "poetry, fiction, nonfiction, book reviews, and translations". Pablo Neruda, Lydia Davis, Amy Gerstler, and Barry Yourgrau have contributed to LAR. The journal devotes every issue to a writer based on the west coast of the United States. The most recent issue was dedicated to Ishmael Reed. The journal has two issues every year. It can be read online and can be purchased for $15 from Red Hen Press.
2. Reynolds, Susan Salter (2004-06-13). "Discoveries". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
  The article notes, "The Los Angeles Review embodies our dowdy earnest side. There are pieces by Benjamin Saltman, Patricia Hampl, Deena Metzger on one hand, but there also is a burst of new Angeleno voices with Apache/Comanche, Filipino, Argentine, African backgrounds. They aren’t as polished as the voices in Black Clock, but they bring their own charge. Ryan Tranquilla’s “On Getting a Second Tattoo at the Tenth Anniversary of My First” or “Zilchy-Poo” by Anonymous reveal a process more than a finished product."
3. George, Lynell (2004-07-06). "A local boom in lit mags". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
  The article notes, "Of all three journals, the Los Angeles Review (a subscription for the annual publication is $14), feels the most sprung out of L.A.'s city/desert terrain. Anyone who has been on the L.A. literary scene for any length of time will recognize some of the stalwarts -- Molly Bendall, Greg Goldin, Suzanne Lummis, Deena Metzger, David St. John. Gale, who had been publishing political nonfiction, fiction, poetry and memoir under the Red Hen imprint, wanted to do something special to mark the organization’s 10th year." The article provides five paragraphs about the Los Angeles Review (including quotes from Gale).
4. Kurowski, Travis (May–June 2012). "Los Angeles Review". Poets & Writers Magazine. Vol. 40, no. 3. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27 – via Gale.
  The article notes that the Los Angeles Review was founded eight years ago, was founded and is edited by Kate Gale, the managing editor of Red Hen Press. The journal is published semiannually. It devotes every issue to a writer based in the area. The journal's Spring 2012 issue was dedicated to John Rechy, a Los Angeles novelist. The article notes, "given the plethora of cultures flourishing within the city, the magazine's vision naturally extends beyond Southern California".
5. Werris, Wendy (2011-01-31). "Red Hen Press Works to Keep Poetry Relevant". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
  The article mentions the Los Angeles Review in one sentence. The article notes, "In addition, its biannual Los Angeles Review has become one of the most widely read literary anthologies on the West Coast."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Los Angeles Review to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough material to support a standalone article. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
These sources cover the Los Angeles Review "directly and in detail" even though they are on the shorter side. If editors do not consider the sourcing to be significant enough to establish notability, Los Angeles Review should be merged to Red Hen Press per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
Pinging Slywriter (talk · contribs), Eastmain (talk · contribs), David Eppstein (talk · contribs), Headbomb (talk · contribs), History DMZ (talk · contribs), and TH1980 (talk · contribs) to consider the sources.
Cunard (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Modified to insert "not". Cunard (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk · contribs) Clarification and procedural question. One, I assume your sentence is "...do NOT consider..." Two, I haven't reviewed sources yet but if they do indeed establish notability, presumably I can NOT "withdraw, add the sources as references and stub template" unless all other viewpoints are also moved to keep aka no super vote for keep as nominator. Obviously nothing precludes improving the article during the process. Slywriter (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slywriter (talk · contribs), thank you for the correction. I've revised my comment.

My hope is that you (and the other AfD participants) review the AfD sources I have listed:

If you think the sources provide enough coverage to establish notability, I hope you will withdraw your nomination and support keeping. Based on my reading of the first item in Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability, you can withdraw (but not necessarily close) your AfD nomination at any time, even when other editors have supported deletion. The withdrawn AfD cannot be closed if, as is the case here, editors "other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected". If you withdraw the AfD, the AfD will remain open until all editors have supported retention or until an admin closes the AfD after seven days have passed.
If you do not think the sources provide enough coverage to establish notability, I hope you will support a merge to Red Hen Press per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I think a merge would improve Wikipedia.

Cunard (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge to Red Hen Press as an alternative to deletion.TH1980 (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting a merge as an alternative to deletion. I hope AfD participants can comment on the sources I found and whether they are enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The sources address Los Angeles Review "directly and in detail" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline's definition of "significant coverage") but they are on the shorter side. Cunard (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I considered a withdraw thanks to the persuassive words of Cunard and his dilligence in finding sources, but think a merge to Red Hen Press makes the most sense. The sources do establish notability, but the issue remains that the article will be brief and likely sit in an indefinite stub state. Policy may lean towards the stub but I question whether it is in the interests of a reader. In short, anything but delete is the proper course Slywriter (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow further discussion of sources presented by Cunard
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Red Hen Press. -KH-1 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:SIGCOV and other relevant guidelines. versacespace talk to me 03:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. It clearly has notability to stand on its own, and readers can access Red Hen Press easily enough through a wikilink from the article. Just because an article will be short is not a reason to delete it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by Cunard (talk · contribs). Clearly notable and can stand on its own, will pass WP:GNG.SunDawn (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Cunard found good coverage that suffices to GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Southern European people

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

This article like the now deleted Northwestern European people, is a colossal synth mish mash of sources that don't substantiate the central claim of the article, that "Southern Europeans" have been recognised as a pan-ethnic group. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern European people for previous discussions on a similar article by the same user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same as my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern European people. Just random article salad that have "Southern European people" in it, without any regards to the existence of the pan-ethnic group. SunDawn (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is one giant WP:OR minefield, even the lead essentially admits that this is a made up concept. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. Every random, online mention of "southern European" or "south European" seems to be dumped here. I would not oppose a very selective merge to Mediterranean people. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator has already been notified of the problems with this nomination here. However, the problems are unlikely to affect the outcome considering the weight of arguments.

Some delete !votes are based on WP:BLP1E, but most seem to only address the first point of the policy, while the other two are mostly ignored. Failing any point in the policy means WP:BLP1E does not apply. Subsequently, less weight are given.

There is a consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E is not applicable.

WP:BIODEL is not eligible here as the subject has not requested deletion along with other unsatisfied criteria. However, editors should be careful with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV when editing the article. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That Vegan Teacher

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

As per the {{Notability}} tag added by LightningComplexFire, I am starting a deletion discussion. This is a procedural nomination, so for now I personally will not be making an argument. I have no prejudice against this discussion being closed as speedy keep if such a consensus arises. Linguist111^talk 10:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Very few subs, only went famous because of her vegan extremism on TikTok, getting her banned. Didn't even hear of this woman until I discovered Rotten Websites Wiki. Delete. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not up to us to determine which reasons for going famous are valid enough for a wikipedia article. That's the whole point of using secondary sources. Given that she went viral more than once for inflammatory statements, she does pass WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E while we're at it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The only coverage in reliable sources relates directly to being banned from TikTok. No significant coverage or indication of lasting significance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish One of the sources was mistyped to be a duplicate– i changed it. There are sources not directly talking about the ban from WP:RS now.

Keep. Full disclosure: I wrote the article and moved it into the article space. this essay pretty clearly spells out that if there's more than one event worth mentioning, no matter the size, than the article is worth keeping. We have multiple reliable sources, at different times, showing that the things she says and does were notable before she was banned. I do realize one of the citations was an incorrect duplicate, that otherwise would have shown this, so my apologies. Going back to what BLP1E is not, since we have reliable sources (a few of which are listed here) for multiple different events, even if the most notable part of her career was the ban, this conclusively does not disqualify her page. As precedent for this, i'd like to point out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CallMeCarson (2nd nomination) (another article that i wrote), where the consensus was that WP:BLP1E is not meant to delete articles for content creators who have one event that's more notable than most others. This article passes WP:GNG. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the three criteria in WP:BLP1E (keeping in mind that all three must be failed to delete the article under BLP1E):

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. We have more than one event covered by the reliable sources, in different contexts.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. I highly doubt that ThatVeganTeacher is going anywhere, any time soon. She'll have to rebuild a platform, but the stupid things she says are designed to go viral and cause outrage, as the coverage shows.
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. This one doesn't really apply anymore, but i'll say that given the amount of context in the sources around the ban, that this counts as substantially well documented. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron, And I was going to say, no, we don't have more than one event covered by sources. She was banned by TikTok was the sole event covered. See WP:NOTNEWS 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LightningComplexFire, I made a mistake in drafting the article– one of the sources got duplicated over another. I corrected the mistake, showing that she was covered in perennially reliable sources at more than one point in time for her inflammatory statements. We can find other sources, too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure a response got deleted because of an edit conflict– could someone please restore that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron, I deleted it because I couldn't explain what I meant well. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LightningComplexFire, no problem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron, Lemme re-word it. I was going to say, that in CallMeCarson's case, the article was kept because he was convicted of a crime, even if it's his only thing to fame. But in this case, being homophobic and racist isn't exactly a crime in Canada, but it's against the rules in TikTok, making her not convicted of a crime. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LightningComplexFire, I disagree with that characterization. The explanation AviationFreak laid out was that "Carson's coverage occurred because of his prior notability and status. If an "average joe" had been accused of sexual misconduct involving a minor, it would cause a small and local media blip." At its core, the argument was that Carson was notable for multiple events, even though one far overshadowed the rest. The other argument was "based on WP:IAR. Any subject who has millions of people actively interested in and aware of them is notable in my mind, regardless of their coverage in secondary reliable sources. I would say this of any subject with a following of millions, which is why I stated above that there should be a guideline dealing with internet notability." theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron, Also, I know sub count isn't a criteria of deletion, but many big YouTubers had their page deleted even if their sub count is in the millions, like SML. ~40K subs is WAY too small to warrant an article. But again, sub count isn't a deletion reason, WP:BLP1E is. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but she had millions of subscribers prior to her TikTok ban. We'll cut off this subthread here, anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another social media personality with no sign of actual notability. Known for the one event of controversial videos and getting banned for them. Reywas92^Talk 18:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 The controversial videos and the resulting ban are two separate events– they may tie into the same person, or be a part of the same storyline, but they are distinct events. I don't understand how the reliable sources provided preclude notability, either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This is just a person on social media that only went famous because she was wanting everyone to be vegan seems a little like promotion to me. SoyokoAnis 00:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoyokoAnis you're welcome to edit the article if you don't believe it provides a neutral point of view. I don't think writing about someone notable should be avoided because we don't want to platform them– we're not giving her ideas any kind of undue traction. Does the article not pass WP:GNG? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron I don't really know much about her except for what's in the article. SoyokoAnis 03:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search brings up plenty of sources, and as theleekycauldron has pointed out, her ban got so much attention because of her immense popularity and infamy, if it was just an average joe it would not be receiving so much press. Pladica (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then this AfD would be removed. It's useless to have an AfD on this topic if there are notable sources on it. SoyokoAnis 03:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's where my head's been for quite a while– we do have reliable sources, quite a few listed at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I really haven't seen a solid argument for removal yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, crystal clear WP:GNG pass, just from an extremely brief search, I found this and this in The Daily Dot, this in Insider, and this in Paper. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons and sources indicated above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another "social media influencer" without any substantial notability; see WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. If she continues to be notable, then the article can be recreated, as it is, it is lacking in sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources provided by previous commentors (or a basic google news search) indicate passing GNG. WP:BLP1E does not apply because I have found several sources (ie. [4] and [5]) that demonstrate media coverage surrounding controversy over comments she made about organ donation. Samsmachado (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a draft - I recommend that we move this article to a draft for people to contribute to, including adding more reliable sources. Also, she was born on September 24, 1964. I know this because she was doxxed due to her actions, but I don’t know if Doxbin.org is a reliable source. Thanks in advance. 2600:1002:B106:6335:AD77:3F41:98AD:363F (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would imagine that unverified websites used to harass people are not a reliable source for anything, and though I don't know the US law that Wikipedia must abide by, there's no way a mainstream news website would source information in that way. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I wouldn't call this a core article or anything, but we have between September last year and now a spate of headlines about this woman's content, including two days ago. When people look for attention by being provocative it becomes very hard to write a balanced article while still being truthful, so I'm not exactly sure what the policy is on that matter. If all sources are negative, does that fail our WP:BLP responsibility to write fairly? Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That Vegan Teacher made the news again since this AfD began, in the Daily Dot. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though her article obviously won't be of top importance or anything like that, as pointed out, she has made headlines recently for yet another controversy. Plus, her infamy on various social media platforms and eventually being banned from TikTok garnered a lot of attention. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given all the notable media coverage. --hroest 22:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of media attention and recognition. This seems like a keeper. Stuhunter83 (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111^talk 00:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this needs to be relisted, consensus seems pretty unanimous for keep. Pladica (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pladica, What is relisting anyways? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - LightningComplexFire, it's a term for reposting an AFD discussion so it receives more attention and input. Pladica (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. versacespace talk to me 03:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough Vader13289 (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This woman only got popular only due to her being racist on her YouTube channel and promoting people to be vegan and force to quit their religion. No need for a Wikipedia article if this woman only got mass attention from other TikTokers hating on her. This is just like writing an entire book on someone because they said something down the street. Nsolm (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsolm: I've been responding to a lot of people on this AfD, and clearly I have a bias here, but I feel very strongly that it's not up to us to decide what reasons for popularity are valid. This article passes WP:GNG, and it therefore should be kept. Maybe this'll never be a featured article, but deleting it just because she got popular on a platform of hate isn't wikipedia's policy.theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am That Vegan Teacher. I just wanted to let you know that there are mistakes on this site. For example, I was born in Montreal, not Hamilton. I also want to make it clear that I am in NO WAY racist or homophobic and that it hurts me very much to have these rumours circulating. I also want you to know that the world has not seen the end of my activism. The only reason that you don't hear more from me is because of censorship, which is absolutely horrible. I also want you to know that I did not break a single law here in Canada and that it is horrible that people have spread so many lies about me. The original petition, for example, that 20,000 people signed, is filled with things that are not true. If anyone writing this wants to know more about my work history, feel free to ask me. I worked as a Registered Nurse for many years. I worked at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in NDG (Montreal), at Lakeshore General in Pointe-Claire, and also at Mc Master University hospital in Hamilton. For awhile I also worked at the VON in Beaconsfield. In case it is of interest to you, I got my gold level in Toastmasters International and I got kicked out of the club for speaking out against circumcision and carnism. The club did not want us to talk about "anything controvertial".In 2019, I became a grandmother. I am presently (March 11, 2021) on TikTok with another account called misskadieishere and still receiving death threats on a regular basis. We are considering moving because of them. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for considering veganism as a way to reduce so much animal suffering. Kadie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen Elizabeth Diekmeyer (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Karen Elizabeth Diekmeyer: Hello there, That Vegan Teacher. I wrote the first draft of your article, and while anyone can edit Wikipedia, we do have some rules about how you can edit pages about yourself or people you're close to, which you can read about here. If you have primary sources, such as your website, that can verify things like name, date of birth, and city of birth, those would help us correct the record.
Second, the article doesn't say that you are racist or homophobic: it says that your comments have been characterized by other sources as racist and homophobic. I'm sure you'd agree with that statement, even if you disagree on whether the sources are accurate.
Third, the thing I think is most important about Wikipedia is that the barrier for inclusion is not truth. Rather, we add what can be verified by reliable, secondary sources. And for controversial articles like yours, we tend to attribute the source inline. You can read more about that here.
Fourth, we aren't discussing the general content of the article here. You can do that on the article's talk page. Here is where we discuss whether or not this article should be included in Wikipedia at all. If you have objections you'd like to raise, I or another editor would be happy to field them there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please move content discussion to the talk page, but I agree since this is a WP:BLP we have to careful when characterizing people or comments as racist/homophobic. --hroest 18:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment (vote is up top) this article needs a cleanup according to WP:BLP. --hroest 18:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep She seems notable. Most news seems to be of the TikTok ban, but her prior incident about donating organs got some coverage and there are a few other articles cited. I did not know about her until a few weeks ago, but doing a google search limited to stories before Decemeber 31, 2020 has a few reliable sources that might be enough to be notable even then. By now, she is clearly notable.20:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep There seems to be enough media coverage for a well-referenced article, though I second others' comments about the article needing a cleanup. Julius177 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius177: Although I agree that not much of a cleanup is needed, we should probably reword a few things in the article. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD should get closed by now... 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed @Linguist111? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's been seven days since I relisted it. Linguist111^talk 08:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.ted.com/talks/mel_schwartz_overcome_anxiety_in_7_minutes?language=en

[2] ttps://www.ted.com/talks/mel_schwartz_word_hacking_8_words_that_disrupt_your_relationships

[3] ttps://katu.com/amnw/am-northwest-books-authors/embrace-the-unexpected

[4] ttps://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/amazon-billionaire-jeff-bezos-explains-why-the-smartest-people-change-their-minds-often.html

[5] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2020/06/26/embracing-uncertainty-with-values-based-leadership/?sh=28fc21bb36be

[6] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/williamarruda/2014/10/26/8-common-habits-that-destroy-your-success/?sh=74acd544606a

[7] ttps://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_MindBodyResource/kiss-stress-goodbye-natural-ways-beat-fear-anxiety/story?id=14883870

[8] ttps://www.salon.com/2020/10/07/feeling-guilty-about-wishing-trump-ill-therapists-say-its-a-normal-reaction-to-being-disempowered/

[9] ttps://www.salon.com/2020/11/05/farmworkers-immigrants-undocumented-empathy/

[10] ttps://www.salon.com/2020/01/01/why-a-mental-health-resolution-might-be-superior-to-a-diet-resolution/

[11] ttps://www.salon.com/2018/06/23/americas-isolated-culture-may-explain-popularity-of-dna-testing/

[12] ttps://www.salon.com/2019/10/21/mental-health-sick-day-students-florida-bill/

[13] ttps://www.salon.com/2018/05/28/millennials-are-helping-to-end-depressions-stigma/

[14] ttps://www.salon.com/2018/06/03/as-social-media-culture-becomes-normalized-setting-goals-becomes-psychologically-distressing/

[15] ttps://realestate.boston.com/ask-the-expert/2019/07/10/relationship-advice-pack-move/

[16] ttps://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20090405/SUB/304059993/cpas-spouses-cope-with-crushing-workload

[17] ttps://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018679927/mel-schwartz-free-your-mind-by-leaning-in-to-uncertainty

[18] ttps://thelowdown.alumni.columbia.edu/mel_schwartz_alumni_profile

[19] ttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shift-mind/202003/making-better-decisions-and-staying-safe-in-the-pandemic

[20] ttps://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a19544329/avoid-silent-dinners/

[21] ttps://www.consciouslifestylemag.com/

[22] ttps://melschwartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/opening-in-infinite-possibility-melschwartz.pdf

[23] ttps://www.firstforwomen.com/

[24] ttps://melschwartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/women-magazine-sos.pdf

[25] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Krippner

[26] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Dossey

[27] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Loy

[28] ttps://archive.is/20130628015919/http://usf.usfca.edu/pac_rim/new/research/pacrimreport/pacrimreport25.html

[29] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Myss

[30] ttps://www.amazon.com/Possibility-Principle-Quantum-Physics-Improve-ebook/dp/B073XBY88R#:~:text=With%20The%20Possibility%20Principle%2C%20psychotherapist,living%20the%20life%20we%20choose.&text=In%20this%20groundbreaking%20book%2C%20Schwartz,and%20open%20to%20infinite%20possibilities.

[31] Thattumpurath_Achuthan

[32] Amity. Indo-Soviet Cultural Society. 1991. p. 10.

[Nair2006-33] K. Ramachandran Nair (2006). The History of Trade Union Movement in Kerala. Kerala Institute of Labour and Employment. p. 18. ISBN 978-81-7827-138-5.

[Kurup1989-34] K. K. N. Kurup (1989). Agrarian Struggles in Kerala. CBH Publications. p. 83. ISBN 978-81-85381-01-5.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]