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

The result was WP:CSD#G5. DMacks (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Pourhaji[edit]

Mohsen Pourhaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not seem to pass WP:NFOOTY as he has only played in the Iranian 2nd and 3rd division (according to the sources at hand). Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet our generally accepted inclusion criteria for footballers, as per above. The article was also created by a prolific vandal, in evasion of their ban. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Yorkshire Cricket Board List A players. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Proud[edit]

John Proud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Yorkshire Cricket Board List A players 3 LA cricket board matches, but I'm not seeing anything other than a couple of match reports, certainly nothing significant. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD, but this one should probably have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Yorkshire Cricket Board List A players as per Rugbyfan22 explaination. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Users felt that the coverage of the subject of the article playing first-class cricket in the County Championship demonstrated notability, along with the solitary List A match. (non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Atri[edit]

Vikram Atri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment DevaCat1, anything in Wisden about this guy? StickyWicket (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep 12 FC and 1 LA match of which some were in the County Championship. There's this profile from Notts which gives us a fair bit of information on the player, and there's a little bit here. There may well be more in Wisden or offline as suggested. No real suitable redirect if required though due to multiple teams played for. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the Trent Bridge article - it's quite possible it's technically a WP:PRIMARY source, but that's neither here nor there - is the sort of sourcing I'd expect a cricketer in this situation to receive. As I've commented in other AfDs, what's really strange is that if this sort of coverage exists, it doesn't show up online, even though he played during the "internet period." I found the same BBC article as RugbyFan22 did, but even though he gets billing in the headlines, the entire article is three sentences long, and a match report. The entire article at this moment is just links to Cricket Archive and CricInfo - CricInfo just has a two sentence blurb of coverage about him playing in a match report. However the Trent Bridge profile is better than I've seen at almost every AfD, so - assuming it qualifies and isn't club-written, and the fact I've scrolled through to the end of a couple online sources - is there anything else written about him?? SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Played for a first-class county in the County Championship. StickyWicket (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First-class cricket in the County Championship; debut innings of 98 against Test-class bowling rated coverage in news and in Wisden Cricketers' Almanack (both now cited in article). Johnlp (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep FC, LA Data is enough here.Sonofstar (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Economic History of Developing Regions. — The Earwig (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Economic History Society of Southern Africa[edit]

Economic History Society of Southern Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Taking this to AfD after 12 years in CAT:NN. It exists, it has a small amount of coverage/citations, but what evidence is there that it is notable? Or a suitable merge/redirect target? Boleyn (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have found a couple of passing mentions which of course don't satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. It's a pity, the organization has a long history, but it fails notability guidelines for now. Less Unless (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an academic society and publisher of an academic journal, ORGCRIT is not the appropriate criteria to judge notability here. First and foremost, consensus is that academia is generally the one exception to notability as established through the GNG (ie WP:NPROF). Second, as publisher of the journal Economic History of Developing Regions there are ways in which specific relevant criteria can be used (WP:NJOURNALS): it is indexed in SJR and ranked 92 out of 253 in development studies journals and 424 out of 1160 economics studies journals; the journal ranks higher on the development studies list than, for example, Central Asian Survey and Journal of Human Development and Capabilities. However, my recommendation would be that the page be renamed with the title of the journal and the content be merged to the new page (and redirects created from the journal's original name and this page). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Changing !vote in accordance with three other editors indicating support for redirection.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Courtesy pings to Ravenswing and Kvng who last year PROD-ed and de-PROD-ed, respectively. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of these many specialized and geographically localized societies are, unfortunately, not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and this one appears to be no exception: with no sourcing beyond a passing mention in the article's one footnote, we have no basis for writing a verifiable article that covers the topic in any depth. I tried searching but didn't find anything better. Additionally, although I believe this one is legitimate, without independent sourcing we have no basis for distinguishing legitimate societies of this type from the scammy and spammy ones made up by a small circle of academics to boost their curricula vitarum or fill their pockets with membership revenue. The argument above from NPROF and NJOURNALS doesn't convince me: first, societies are not professors, and most of the NPROF criteria involve verifiable recognition by other scholars or institutions. Some national-level scholarly societies do at least have a level of external recognition, as their country's representative society to a notable international umbrella organization, but we don't have evidence of that here. And second, NJOURNALS is an essay, not even accepted at the level of a guideline, describing specific forms of recognition that might be available to a journal, none of which seem to be met by this society or its journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Obviously I felt that the subject hadn't met notability standards last year, and further than twelve years in, no one gave a damn about improving it to the level that it might. While thanking Goldsztajn for his courtesy in pinging me, I disagree on both his main points. First off, NPROF is very specific in providing alternatives to the GNG to academics, it doesn't at all cover institutions or organizations. Secondly, while one of its publications might prove notable, WP:NOTINHERITED of course debars notability by association. That being said, should that be the case, I've no objection to a merger and redirect. Ravenswing 07:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the article on the (notable) journal, Economic History of Developing Regions, which I just created. The only interesting tidbit of info from the stub article being discussed here (the founding year), has been included. --Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Economic History of Developing Regions as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ballweg[edit]

Michael Ballweg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Creator deproded after several days, asked for AfD - well here we go: No signs of sufficient notability per WP:BIO and not sufficient per WP:GNG, this guy organizes only highly controversial demonstrations in Germany CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany, not notable outside of these protests. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 22:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ballweg ist the most known and most important protagonist of Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany. He organized several demonstrations with more than 30.000 in Berlin and other places. On-going media coveriage as well. --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Kusma; if Querdenken ever evolves into its own article, make that the target. Unless this person goes on to become some kind of Lutz Bachmann duplicate in terms of notoriety, that's likely all we'll ever have to do here. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany as per all. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany. Sonofstar (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany per above. Mukedits (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Batesville Casket Company[edit]

Batesville Casket Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

NCORP fail. Noah ^💬 21:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no notability: local interest only.Ingratis (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake: as below. I didn't take the time to check properly. Ingratis (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Batesville Casket Company is the largest casket manufacturer in the US, perhaps in the world, with revenues over $2B. "Local interest only?" --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per this article, Batesville and Matthews together control 80% of the US market. Indyguy (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Found quite a few articles specifically about Batesville Casket Company with a quick newspaper archive search, e.g.

• FROM HERE TO ETERNITY - NO GRAVE THOUGHTS AT CASKET FIRM, JUST PRIDE. June 27, 1996;The Commercial Appeal, The (Memphis, TN); John M. Hubbell Page: C1 (1346 Words)
• FUNERAL PRODUCTS CELEBRATE LIFE - Personalized touches change Batesville Casket's product; April 17, 2000; The Cincinnati Post (OH); Ken Stammen (785 Words)
• LARGER IN LIFE AND DEATH - THE FINAL RESTING PLACE CAN NOW BE MORE COMFORTABLE FOR THE OVERWEIGHT; December 9, 2004; The Cincinnati Post, The (OH) Greg Paeth, (669 Words)
• DEATH IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF SMALL INDIANA TOWN; September 6, 1998; The Journal Gazette, The (Fort Wayne, IN); Thomas P. Wyman/Associated Press (660 Words)

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added 3 book references which all meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. The article could do with some expanding but the company is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on above comments meets WP:GNG.Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apex University[edit]

Apex University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:ADMASQ with WP:REFBOMB and with similar versions queued up behind it in Draft, so please do not draftify. Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article is not supported by reliable sources. Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are two related questions in any deletion discussion:
  • • Do the article's sources establish notability?
    • Does the article as written establish notability so that a reader who reads only the encyclopedia and not the references can see the notability?
    • This draft fails the second test. No amount of reference-bombing can overcome a failure to make a notable case.

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG because sources cited are almost all primary sources, and the only secondary sources do not discuss the subject beyond passing mentions. While the text may have been appropriate for a catalog advertising program offerings, it does not meet notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As mentioned by others, clearly fails WP:GNG, with little to no secondary sources.defcon5 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A little more insights on required secondary sources will help me to improve article relevance as per WP guidelines. This university has made place in great place to study in 2019 which is a notable resource. In coming days, with guidance from you all experienced administrators, further improvement can be made in article relevance and notability. Thanks to all of you for your high value contribution. Hitesh Kakkar (talk)

Comment: Hiteshkakkar0912, under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. Thus, since Apex University is a private college, the article must meet both the general notability guideline and the guideline for commercial organizations, including WP:AUD, ...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

Primary sources in this instance include the website of Apex and any sources that are directories, as well as other sources publishing information provided by Apex, such as the Forbes India "Great Indian Institutes" piece, which is an example of "dependent coverage" explained in WP:ORG. It can't be used to establish notability. Forbes profiles are specifically identified in WP:SIRS as being neither independent nor reliable, in the table below the example in the box.

For example, these paragraphs on the Apex site appear almost verbatim on the Forbes India site, page 9:

"The multi disciplinary university offers career-oriented courses at all levels, i.e. Diploma, UG & PG and Doctoral programme and across diverse streams, including Engineering, Architecture, Planning, Fashion Design, Hospitality, Basic Life and Allied Sciences, Law, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Humanities and Arts, Nursing and Para-Medical Science, Veterinary Sciences, Health Sciences, Commerce & Management, Media, Journalism & Mass Communication, Physical Education, Catering & Food Technology, Yoga & Naturopathy, Skill Development, etc."

"The main campus of the University is spread over a sprawling 30 acres campus in an eco-friendly environment at Achrol on Jaipur-Delhi National Highway and is one of the best campuses in the region. AU has world class infrastructure, including state-of-the art research facilities and modern library. In line with Sanjay Shiksha Samiti's legacy of providing quality education, the university uses the latest and innovative methods and technology to impart education."

...from the Apex website:

"Our founder Chairman Dr. S.M. Juniwal, an educationist, philanthropist & a great visionary"

...from the Forbes piece:

"an educationist group established by Dr. S. M. Juniwal, an educationist, philanthropist and and a great visionary

We're looking for secondary, reliable sources that cover the subject in depth, not just a passing mention. Of the 21 citations currently in the article, 10 qualify as primary/dependent, 9 are secondary passing mentions, and the 2 UGC sites display Error 503 "service unavailable" messages. In short, this article has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Because it is a relatively new institution it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is getting ridiculous. I can honestly not remember a single instance where we have deleted a proper, accredited university established by legislation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Necrothesp, I, too, have argued on previous AfDs that approvals by national accreditation agencies constitute significant and substantial "reliable, independent, and verifiable secondary sources". Accreditation usually represents a rigorous process of ensuring quality of a school's programs, faculty, accountability, finances, and support for students' education, and written reports by experts from outside the university. That evidence, and inherent difficulties finding indexed publications for international sources, led me to the conclusion that Wikipedia should allow for the use of evidence a school is accredited and governmentally approved to fulfill the notability requirement. But Wikipedia does not accept sources on accreditation, or statutory authorizations, or affiliations with subject-specific professional agencies to fulfill WP:GNG. The changes brought about by the February 2017 RFC need to be re-addressed, IMHO, specifically on the issue of accreditation and governmental authorization as acceptable and defining evidence of notability. I'd like to see yet another a discussion among the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools community, Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education and the WP community at large, on these sources as valid WP:RS evidence for notability purposes. Given that last Rfc, it's bound to be equally contentious.

However, I do have specific concerns about the the Apex University claim, "Dr Sagar Mal Juniwal's APEX UNIVERSIty/ RECOGNIZED BY UGC". The University Grants Commission (UGC) site does list Apex University as a state private university, but indicates that an expert committee has not been constituted, and in the remarks section says Information called for inspection purpose, still awaited. Drilling down on the "More Info" link opens a table, Apex University showing no "University Contact Information". It is not clear that Apex has yet completed the required submissions and inspections for accreditation. But that is irrelevant to this current discussion, as accreditation does not at this time fulfill the GNG requirement. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Grand'mere Eugene, Thx for your observations. Addressing your specific concern about UGC approval status of the Apex University, whether it has completed the required submissions and inspections for accreditation. Below mentioned are the secondary sources (links) to support voiding your doubt. Also, there is multiple rounds of inspection happens. 1st round for approval to allow to establish a university, 2nd round after three of the establishment to gauge education quality where a questionnaire is being asked to fill by the university officials. "Information called for inspection purpose, still awaited belongs to this 2nd round which needs to be fulfilled once three years are completed" and and then further round to understand meeting compliances, etc.

For contact information, yes, I understand it is missing a section, but mandatory contact details are furnished completely. This is not a major cup to worry about, as it is not missed by the part of the University, needs to be updated by UGC officials only.

Link no. 1: http://www.bareactslive.com/Raj/rj1268.htm (Clearly depicts Apex University, Jaipur Act, 2018 (Act No. 27 of 2018). It is mentioned university has received the assent of the Governor on the 5th day of October 2018.

Link no. 2: https://www.ugc.ac.in/cro/privateuni.aspx (Has Apex University name on serial order 48, under Universities in Rajasthan TAB.) This is the official website of UGC for its “Central Regional Office” as established by the Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India. Name is always included in this list only when all inspections and accreditations are done and the university can officially start enrolling students for admissions.

I'm sure they must have received a letter too from UGC on the establishment. if required, the same can be asked to verify further. But as far as I know the Indian education system for the past 15 years, no disapproved university can make a name in the UGC list. In fact, UGC is having a separate list of fake universities too.

Link no. 3: https://www.casemine.com/act/in/5ed4fb00894ef23297d8b969 (contains an original pdf for RAJASTHAN ACT 27 OF 2018: THE APEX UNIVERSITY, JAIPUR ACT, 2018. THIS IS WRITTEN IN HINDI LANGUAGE, OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF RAJASTHAN STATE IN INDIA. "TRANSLATION OF LINE NO. 11,12 AND 13 IN ENGLISH STATES THAT GOVERNOR OF RAJASTHAN STATE PERMISSION RECEIVED ON 5TH OCT 2018 FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF THE APEX UNIVERSITY."

Link no. 4: https://rajassembly.nic.in/LegislationGovernmentBills.aspx (This is the National Informatics Center website of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly having a list of approved Government Bills. “On Sr. no 83, a link to a bill to notify the establishment of Apex University is mentioned having 17/2018 as bill no. and year, a bill passed on 6 Sept 2018 with act no 27/2018.

Link no. 5: https://hte.rajasthan.gov.in/private_univ.php row no 50 (This is a link to the Higher technical and Medical Education division of Govt of Rajasthan, India. This has Apex University on row no 50 with a link mentioning “Disciplines in which university shall take education and research”. Stamped by Principal secretary to the government and Government central press.

Hitesh Kakkar (talk)

*Keep. (Struck because each user may vote only once)

My Comment and Neutral Observation:

Thanks to everyone for contributing to accessing the relevance of this article for inclusion in Wikipedia. Being a new member of the Wikipedia community, I’ve tried to go through general guidelines for deletion, studied types of sources relevant to understand notability, etc, and also studied several university/college articles which fall under the same categories and location, as mentioned for Apex University. My intention in writing this explanation here is not to influence. I’ve just joined and still have a lot to learn and understand about this highly valued platform “Wikipedia” from your all.

My reasons for requesting admins to KEEP the article “Apex University”: 1. Like other universities in the same category and geography, Apex University is official approved by the legislative assembly and is part of government associations and bodies like AICTE, AIU, BCI, PCI, etc. 2. The parent organization “Sanjay Shiksha Samiti” is serving the nation for the past 54 years, run several institutions dedicated to bringing impact for the betterment of society. Apex University under this umbrella started in 2018, but the parent organization legacy is of 54 years now. 3. Apex University is currently helping students in rural and urban areas to build a great future through imparting relevant skills. 4. Currently, more than 3000 students are studying at the university. I belong to the same city where the campus is headquartered; I have seen it impacting lives and contributing to society through my own eyes. 5. While researching more about “Apex University”, I found coverage by newspapers of national reputation in India. Here, “Apex University” a. 100% Scholarships for the students who need financial assistance to gain access to higher education to build their careers. b. Ward of COVID-19 Warriors Scheme to give Upto 10 Million (1 Crore) Indian Rupees scholarships for the wards of COVID warriors. c. Blood Donation Camp to support no scarcity of basic life support systems during COVID-19 pandemic. d. Contribution to Chief Minister Relief Fund by faculties and management of Apex University to extend financial support by donating salary.

6. With NO intentions to compare, I have actually noticed a good number of articles having existence under the same category and location with either fewer or Not solid secondary sources, lesser associations with regulatory bodies, etc. Considering their existence, I who belong to the same location where “Apex University” and other privileged universities/colleges (have published article) exists and is very active in understanding the Indian Education system and contributors. I believe, like others “Apex University” deserves a chance now to be part of the esteemed “Wikipedia Family”.

In short, a university set up as per laws and legislation, contributing notably for the betterment of the society through education, supporting society during pandemic deserves support from Wikipedia admins and fair a chance to be part of Wikipedia Family.

I again request you all not to take it as my personal request, but when I look like an outsider with a neutral approach. Apex University article doesn’t deserve to be deleted.

REST IS YOUR JUDGEMENT, YOU GUYS ARE MORE EXPERIENCED THAN ME. I’LL HONOR YOUR DECISION IN EACH CASE. INCOMING TIMES, THIS ARTICLE NOTABILITY, AND RELEVANCE MAY SURELY BE IMPROVED.Hitesh Kakkar (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Hitesh Kakkar (talk) Hitesh Kakkar (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. The article is poorly referenced, but since the author is active here, let's draftify if for them. Maybe over the years better sources (news/media coverage, even academic studies about this institituin) will appear, and if they are still interested in this topic, they can rewrite it into something publishable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Piotrus There is already a draft version Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 09:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Timtrent, Then that's where this should stay. Not good enough for public space.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Piotrus which is, with precision, why this version requires deletion. The creating editor should work on Draft:Apex University which is present in Draft already. There is no point in draftifying what is already in draft Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Timtrent Fair enough, delete makes sense then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Not fair. May pls have a look at these links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaipur_National_University Hitesh Kakkar (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagan_Nath_University,_Jaipur and confirm how these articles stands better in terms of notability, references and meeting GNG. These are published articles.[reply]

Your feedback with comparison will help to understand where Apex University article lacks meeting GNG and notability. Accordingly will rewrite, if deleted.

I have gone through GNG, other similar articles, etc and whatever I have understood doesn't seems like this deserves deletion.If any improvement required in content etc, pls tell same will expedite.Hitesh Kakkar (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Added a few more relevant details for 1st initiatives taken, academics, and faculties in an attempt to make it better enough for public space. Who so ever take the final decision on the fate of this article is humbly requested to read all conversations here entirely & patiently, read the article, compare if necessary, and then decide on its fate judicially, keeping (delete) as the last option if this doesn't complement the Wikipedia requirements, at all. Your decision will be honored. Hitesh Kakkar (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Approvals by national accreditation agencies do not constitute significant and substantial "reliable, independent, and verifiable secondary sources" because these are a primary source. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Policy of 3[edit]

Policy of 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources used are primary source Ebullition Records and unacceptable source Discogs. Search on Google brings up equally questionable sources like bandcamp.com Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Might I add that none of the three interwiki links cite any reliable sources. All of them rely on the site of their record label and discogs. I also did a search. Searching with their name returns a lot of unrelated stuff, so I searched with some of their albums and I couldn't find anything other than the standard unreliable sites. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBAND. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don’t know how this managed to stay here for that long. WP:NBAND not met -Xclusivzik (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:BAND. The Discogs sources are not RS per WP:RSPSOURCES, and the Ebullition Records sources are not independent, as Ebullition Records marketed them. That's all the sources on the article. A BEFORE didn't yield anything substantial. There's a piece from university station WXPN here, but per WP:BAND, that doesn't add toward notability since it's from a school. There's an interview here in Loud! Fast! Philly!, but interviews are not independent. So in the end, it just doesn't meet notability requirements. --Kbabej (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Austin-East High School. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austin-East Magnet High School shooting[edit]

Austin-East Magnet High School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Relatively minor criminal act, should be a section of the main Austin-East High School page –DMartin 21:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –DMartin 21:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Way too early to nominate for deletion, details are still emerging. Multiple victims including a police officer, it's a top news story right now in the UK and getting international coverage. Inexpiable (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The details are now in, and it's just one dead and one injured. Not particularly notable for a school shooting. Love of Corey (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is not the job of Wikipedia to report on shootings as they happen. KidAd • SPEAK 22:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It just happened, school shootings are not minor criminal acts. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Austin-East High School per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If the merged section becomes too big, it can be split out into a new article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. The details are unclear at the moment, but this incident did happen at a school and it involved a fatality. That's fairly unusual, even for the U.S. There is a reasonable likelihood that the event will receive sustained coverage. The matter can be revisited in a few months to see if the coverage has ceased or not. Nsk92 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have a number of incidents at schools that left only one fatality and no articles for it. Love of Corey(talk) 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Millard South High School shooting comes to mind. –DMartin 00:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it is a crying shame that we still don't have a separate article about that one, given that "the shooting was the deadliest school shooting in Nebraska's history". Nsk92 (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were shootings in Nebraska that were way deadlier than that one, e.g. Westroads Mall shooting and the Charles Starkweather crime spree. "Deadliest school shooting" may be an interesting tidbit, but that alone isn't enough sufficient basis for notability. Love of Corey (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the cited article, there was only one other school shooting in Nebraska's recorded history, and that one involved one injury and no fatalities. So while saying "the shooting was the deadliest school shooting in Nebraska's history" is literally true, it doesn't help make your case here. Note that I am not making light of shootings of anyone in any setting; all gun violence is tragic as far as I'm concerned. This is strictly about establishing what is and isn't notable enough to have a standalone article in this encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a myriad of notable topics for which we don't have articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a good argument for deleting something, notability should be the deciding consideration. If there are school shootings that have received significant coverage and which satisfy WP:EVENT, then any editors who have the relevant information should feel free and in fact encouraged to create articles about those events. Plus in this case the fatality is a kid. [1]. Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see List of school shootings in the United States. We have had so many school shootings with little to no fatalities and/or injuries at this point. Unless you're saying we should have articles for those as well. Love of Corey (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know without looking more closely and doing various searches to see what kind of coverage those events received. I suspect that there are quite a few entries on that list that satisfy WP:EVENT but currently do not have articles. Nsk92 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also List of school shootings in the United States (before 2000) to consider. My point is that school shootings are just as frequent in the U.S. as mass shootings in general, and it'd be a mistake to create an article for each and every one of them without considering policies such as WP:NOTNEWS. Love of Corey (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Love of Corey (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Austin-East High School as per nom, since the school itself has an article.Ingratis (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Austin-East High School. Tragic but sadly, given the large number of school shootings with multiple victims in the U.S., not notable enough for a separate encyclopedia article. Funcrunch (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The latest police press conference indicates this incident was an officer-involved shooting rather than a school shooting. If this article is somehow kept (which I strongly doubt), it may need a rename per similar articles on officer-involved shootings. Love of Corey (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And when I say a "school shooting" here, I mean the archetypal definition of a student targeting at least one other student and/or teacher. Love of Corey (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Austin-East High School or Delete. This is a massive case of WP:TOSOON. As it just occurred and there's zero evidence there will be sustained coverage of it at all. Let alone enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Wikipedia isn't a news outlet and articles are not supposed to be on single, transient events that are only talked about in the news for a few days and then never come up again. Which is how most of these school shootings turn out. There was over 45 school shootings in America in 2019 and I doubt all or most of them have articles (or deserve to). Also, I'm not solid on a merge compared to delete, because it's not worth merging things that are not worthy of being in Wikipedia in the first place. It's better just to get rid of content that shouldn't be contained in articles. Although, I'm not going to be that bothered if it closes as merge. I just don't think it's the best outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to article on the high school and get under control. This was a shoot out where an armed student opened fire on police responding to the fact that he was in the school armed, and the police returned fire which resulted in the student dieing. Wikipedia is not news, and we need to stop creating news articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable article about armed student hiding in a bathroom and resisting arrest. More coverage sure to emerge as the policemen's body cam video is released and as internal affairs comes out with its conclusion. You don't even need a crystal ball to know this. XavierItzm (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between "more coverage" and "sustained coverage." Wikipedia requires the latter, not the former. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far the coverage has shown no sign of disappearing, including continued national coverage, such as NYT[2], CNN[3], WaPo[4], AjC[5], NBCNews[6], etc. The local media in Knoxville certainly treats this as a high profile event and not just another neighborhood shooting. The recent surprising developments in the case make it much less likely that the media will drop the story quickly. The original police/TBI account of the shooting turned out to be incorrect, and now it comes out that it wasn't the student who shot the responding police officer. Now that the student's identity has been made public, it is known that he was a black teenager, while at least one of the responding police officers was white. The school itself, where this black teenager was killed by the police, has 87% minority student enrollment, with 77% black student enrollment.[7]. The prosecutors are refusing to release the police body camera footage and there have already been community protests. Given what is happening in the U.S. right now (Daunte Wright protests, Derek Chauvin's trial), the police response here will be scrutinized much more closely. It is unlikely that a story like this one will be buried and disappear quietly into the sunset even though it happened in a southern state. XavierItzm is correct, one does not need to have a crystal ball here to know that WP:SUSTAINED is likely to be met. Nsk92 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles you cited are from yesterday. Which is still only 2 days after the shooting and not sustained coverage. Sustained coverage has to be over a certain period of time. Hence why it's called "sustained" and I'm pretty sure two days worth of coverage doesn't count. Even if it's a lot of coverage, because again, the amount doesn't matter here. It's not like the article can't be recreated in a couple of weeks or a month when there actually is sustained coverage, if there is, but until 100% CRYSTALL to say two worth of news coverage on anything constitutes or shows there will be sustained coverage. It's also 100% CRYSTAL to use the particulars of the case or other ones to argue this will still be a thing in a couple of months. Since it's purely speculation that it will be. Again though, it doesn't matter if it is still an article in 2 months, just recreate the article when it actually is. Until then, Wikipedia isn't a news outlet and having an article full of nothing but breaking news from yesterday or the day before is totally treating it like it is one. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the sources I cited are from yesterday. I don't have a time machine. There will be more sources today and I'll add them. But when a significant event happens, we don't wait two months before creating a Wikipedia article about it. We exercise good judgement based on the indicators available. That's what I am trying to do here. At the moment there is continuing significant coverage, both locally and nationally and there are (very) good reasons to believe that it will continue. Under these circumstances the correct thing is to keep the article now and, in the, unlikely in my view, case that the coverage will disappear in 2-3 months, nominate it for deletion then. Nsk92 (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Wikipedia article about a mass shooting at a Wal-Mart distribution center in Red Bluff, California last year. That shooting had national coverage for the first couple of weeks after. Which people used to justify keeping the article when it was eventually AfDed for the same reasons as this one. There was a lot of the same things said about why the article should be kept as your saying, "this will be a big story", "delete it in two months if there's no coverage anymore", "we're just trying to improve Wikipedia" Etc. Etc. You know what happened there? The article was deleted and rightfully so because after about 3 weeks it was never a thing again. Even though it had been covered in CNN, The New York Times, Etc. Etc. If the article had of been kept, it would have just been a waste of everyone's time to do another AfD for it later when the news dropped the story once the sensationalism died down. I can almost guarantee the same thing will happen here. Past precedence with what happened to similar articles sent to AfD matters also in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the High School's page. A crime scene with one deceased who was the suspect, one injury which may not have even come from the suspect. We are WP:NOTNEWS Continued coverage can be indicated in section at High School page, but the suspect is dead, so there won't be a trial, suspect was armed, so don't expect some kind of charges against the police officer. At best an Internal Affair investigation to see how officer was shot if not by the suspect's gun. Event got national coverage, but any sustained coverage will probably be local. Either way article was made WP:TOOSOON. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The event is still getting some national coverage (present tense). Regarding its future impact, there are other indicators to consider apart from the trial. As I mentioned above, the racial aspect of the situation makes protests of some kind fairly likely and in fact some have happened already. The dead student's family has already hired an attorney[8] after learning that it was not him who shot the responding officer. And even if the sustained coverage does turn out to be just local, that still would still qualify under WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Nsk92 (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the arguments that you've already made why it should not be deleted, what's particularly wrong with it being merged to the article about the school? Merging it seems like a good compromise to me consider it has some coverage as an event, but probably won't get enough to a separate article, and none of the keep "voters" have yet to say why they think merging it wouldn't be an acceptable option. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The event is still developing, and there are significant new ongoing developments that are being extensively covered by the media. E.g. there was a big BLM protest, a suit filed by the city administration seeking to override the DA's order that prevents the bodycam footage from being released, growing controversy about the bodycam footage, etc. Trying to squeeze this info into the parent article about the school would immediately present WP:DUEWEIGHT problems. There is already enough material for a standalone article here and there will be more as things develop further. Nsk92 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Austin-East High School It doesn't make sense to have a separate article about a minor event. KnaveBear (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply labeling an event "minor" without any reference to how it is covered by WP:RS is a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The local media in Knoxville continues to cover it as a high profile event, with new developments still unfolding. There are even continuing stories about the event in the national media from today and yesterday, e.g. [9],[10][11]. Nsk92 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In case anyone cares to pay attention to what's actually happening in the case and to which sources and how continue to cover it, today's (April 19) story in Huffington Post about the case reports that Ben Crump, a national civil rights lawyer representing the families of George Floyd and Daunte Wright, announced that his office will be representing Anthony Thompson’s family. Crump released a statement denouncing the speed with which the police resorted to the use of force against a person of color in Anthony Thompson's case. [12] Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - keep votes are all based on "it's too soon to delete this" - that's the opposite of what our policy WP:NOTNEWS says (explained by WP:RECENTISM) - which says we don't have a deadline to have an article about something and it can always be created later if it proves to be independently notable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the same logic we should delete the article about every recent event from the last several days, including, say Indianapolis FedEx shooting, and wait several months before creating it. We do not wait to create an article where continued significant coverage is available and all reasonable indications are that such coverage will continue. That is exactly the case here. That's not at all what WP:NOTNEWS requires. It is always easier to delete an article than to create it. Where the indicators are that the event is likely to be notable, the standard course of action is to create an article now and renominate it for deletion later, in case the coverage disappears a few months from now, not the other way around. Given what is happening with 2020–2021 United States racial unrest right now and in light of the involvement of George Floyd and Daunte Wright's lawyer in this case, as noted above, it is extremely unlikely that the media will suddenly drop this story or that the Knoxville community itself will stop treating it as a high profile matter. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nsk92, this flies in the face of our "no deadline" guidance. There is no deadline to have an article on something, and this push to be a breaking news source that has the most up to date information on things is not in line with being an encyclopedia. This is exactly what the GNG is designed to prevent - articles about recent events (which are the definition of "routine news coverage") being used to justify notability of something that does not have true notability beyond the timeframe. Notability isn't temporary, but routine, local, or temporal news coverage does not contribute much at all to notability. Wikipedia also should not attempt to judge "inidcators" that an event "is likely to be notable" - we wait to see if it is beforehand. There's a ton of WP:acronyms that your comment here flies in the face of - some of which are beyond a consensus formed at an AfD discussion such as the pillars and what Wikipedia is not. If you truly believe that Wikipedia should be a breaking news site and not an encyclopedia, I wish you the best of luck in attempting to obtain a larger consensus (project-wide) for that - but until you do, I'll point out when !votes fly in the face of that project wide consensus against such "breaking news" things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL guidance. Like I said, according to your logic, articles like Indianapolis FedEx shooting would have to be deleted on exactly the same grounds you are advancing now. That's not what we do. We look at the available coverage and other indicators of likely notability and make a common sense decision about how to proceed. That's what always happens in practice with new events (not just crimes, but new events of any kind). I am arguing my case based on the sources and the kind of coverage they actually provide here. You are not. Nsk92 (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least for me its a common sense decision about how to proceed based on how the guidelines fit this particular instance. You can't treat AfDs like its one or the other though like you are. I assume everyone else who voted merge is doing a similar calculation about it to me. Yet your arguing with everyone that disagrees with you. Despite the fact that we are following your standards. Just coming to different conclusions. That said nowhere does someone simply saying "do it my way because common sense brah" ever lead to anything besides pointless bickering. Adamant1 (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our standards do not exists in a vacuum and cannot be applied as some kind of abstract ideological principles devoid of context. So far nobody who argued for merge or delete undertook any substantive analysis of available coverage. The TOOSOON arguments presented so far basically really boil down to IDONTLIKEIT kind of arguments. Nsk92 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter what coverage is available now - virtually no coverage of "current events" can be described as anything other than routine - which by definition means that none of it counts for notability. Wikipedia is not breaking news - this is a core principle of what Wikipedia is/isn't - and your attempts at morphing other policies/guidelines to "override" this by finding some way to finagle an article in to fit your idea that Wikipedia should be breaking news do not override the fact we simply aren't. There is an argument to be had about events that can be presumed notable before coverage exists - that's a key point of our subject notability guidelines, after all. A mass shooting by a former employee that resulted in 8 deaths is certainly much closer to that presumption than a shooting that resulted in no deaths (aside from the perpetrator) and only one injury. Your comment below also suggests that you're arguing for this to be kept because you think that "the racial justice aspect of this" should be considered by editors - and that in and of itself is inappropriate and you should reconsider commenting if that's your basis for commenting on these sorts of AfD discussions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsk92: Indianapolis FedEx shooting is not really the best example to bring up for your argument. As the one who created it, I noticed the article wasn't up on Wikipedia while the breaking news coverage was minutes to an hour old. I created it once I learned of the death toll in that shooting, and I suspect that if the numbers were considerably lower than what we tragically got, we wouldn't have a Wikipedia article on that incident at all. I made the argument over at another AfD discussion that articles about mass shootings (which this article started out as) should not be created until we learn official casualty numbers from law enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love of Corey (talk • contribs)

Responding since I was pinged. The number of fatalities in a particular incident is a totally arbitrary parameter and the incident does not have to be a mass shooting to be notable. Plenty of events with a single fatality are notable, e.g., to take a recent example, Killing of Daunte Wright. What matters for notability is the coverage the event receives in WP:RS. Daunte Wright was just one black 20-year-old black young man killed by the police under controversial circumstances, and Anthony Thompson Jr was just one 17-year-old back young man killed by the police under controversial circumstances. Of course, the Daunte Wright case received more and higher profile coverage, but an event does not need to be ITN worthy to merit an article. The Anthony Thompson Jr case continues to receive significant coverage, including from national media, and the events there are still unfolding. Nsk92 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For those arguing for merge or delete, I'd like you to take another look at what happened in this case so far and how it is actually being covered by WP:RS. A black teenager was killed at school during an armed confrontation with the police. The original police account of the shooting turned out to be crucially incorrect. There is a bodycam video that the DA is refusing the release, despite a mounting community pressure to do so and a court suit by the city itself seeking to release the video. There have been escalating local racial justice protests over the shooting. The dead student's family hired the highest profile lawyer for these types of cases, Ben Crump, to represent them. The national media continues to cover the case in-depth. Just from earlier today we have AP[13], Newsweek[14], Huffington Post[15], and even international media [16]. Today's NYT story[17] says that the Anthony Thompson case was mentioned at the Minnesota racial justice protest on Monday. Plus the local media in Knoxville continues to give the case high profile coverage. Calling this case "minor" completely disregards how the WP:RS have been covering it. The racial justice aspect of this case makes it different from many other school shootings and makes it highly improbable that in today's U.S. political, societal and media climate the story will quietly disappear. Nsk92 (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the high school's article or Delete. NOTNEWS, TOOSOON, etc. Shearonink (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Austin-East High School. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the high school's article; two people dying is a tragedy, but it is not ipso facto a notable event. My grandparents, while dearly missed, don't have an article about their death. The September 11th attacks were tragic, yet do not justify the creation of 1,500 articles (one for every two people who died). Et cetera... jp×g 04:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: As it happens, it was one person dying in this event, not two. One black teenage student killed by a police officer. But as I noted above, the number of fatalities has nothing to do with notability of a particular criminal event. What counts is the coverage of an event by WP:RS. The killing of Daunte Wright was a single fatality event, and yet we have two articles about it, Killing of Daunte Wright and Daunte Wright protests. Just like in the Daunte Wright case, the notability of the death of Anthony Thompson Jr comes mainly from the racial justice aspect, not from the high number of fatalities. Nsk92 (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you have responded to almost every single "delete" or "merge" !vote with nearly identical lengthy go-offs, or why you ((collapse))d the previous thread where someone pointed out that this was WP:BLUDGEONing. Regardless, I will again make reference to WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. jp×g 09:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed a portion of a discussion that was getting heated after another editor who participated in that discussion agreed that collapsing would be a good idea but said that they didn't know how to make a collapse box themselves[18]. Regarding Michelle Obama's arms, we are not talking about somebody's arms here, we are talking about a young black man who was killed by the police in a country that is gripped by a racial unrest. Nsk92 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 was the person you were arguing with; Love of Corey (the person who said they didn't know how to collapse the discussion) had not posted in it previously. jp×g 17:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have. See the third post from the top within the collapse box content. Nsk92 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was heated anyway. At least not anymore then a lot of these conversations get that aren't subsequently collapsing because of it. IMO the more important thing then "tone policing" is the clear WP:BLUDGEONing by Nsk92 that collapsing the discussion only serves to obscure. No one would be offended by anything in that discussion to the point where it needs to be hidden from view though. Otherwise, 90% of AfD discussions would be collapsed. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There is clearly significant coverage, including from national outlets, regarding this event. And the coverage is ongoing/sustained, which is perhaps unsurprising given the current racial and political climate in the United States. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From what I can tell there was like 2 articles in national outlets in the last week about how the officer won't be charged in the shooting. There's been zero about any kind of protests over it though. Let any ongoing ones or anything else indicating this will be an ongoing thing as a notable incident. A few outlets have even pivoted to articles about "Shootings at the school" in general instead of this specific one. Which really makes me think it's not going to be as notable story on it's own long-term. At least not enough to warrant a separate article or not just merging it into the schools article. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect on both counts. There have been way more than 2 articles in national outlets covering that none of the officers will be charged. E.g. CNN[19], WaPo[20], NYT[21], NBC News[22], AjC[23], USA Today [24], NY Post[25]. There have been at least two subsequent national news stories specifically about the follow-up protests: Fox News, [26] and NBC News[27]. Nsk92 (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the thing, the protests where two days ago, going by the dates of the news articles about them they were only for 2 days and pretty insignificant, and they seem to have ended after the police wasn't charged. That's the problem with going with breaking news for every freaken metric of what's notable or not like your doing. Plus, "protests" is a mush brained, meaningless word that has no bearing on something being notable anyway. No one is going to argue that the article should be kept if 15 angry kids from the school march around in front of it for a few days even if it is a "protest." Otherwise, they just passed a law in Florida that anytime more then two people are gathered in one place it's a riot. So, I guess your standard there would be that literally everything involving more then two people in Florida that has a couple of news stories about it within a week of each other is notable "because riots."

Not to mention most things these days that are in the news involves some kind of legitimate protest. You think "protests" are enough for something to be notable, cool. Start an RfC about it then and see if you can get the notability guidelines changed over it. Until then though, there still needs to be sustained coverage of the event and it just hasn't been long enough since it happened to say there has been or is going to be continued coverage. In the meantime, even the Fox News article you linked to discusses the 5 shootings that have happened at the school and isn't focused on the single shooting that this article is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protests involving hundreds of people are not "insignificant". And the protests have not ended. There was a smaller protest on Saturday[28], and it remains to be seen what will happen today. The city administration and the KPD are preparing for more[29]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did anything you've linked to say the protests involved "hundreds of people? From the video it like 20 or 30 students from the school at best. Also, is the fact that the protests have been smaller an indication that this story is picking up steam or dying down? The answer to that should be pretty obvious. Adamant1 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I cited above don't mention the size of the protests, but the sources cited in the article do. Here is another regional news source, from Nashville, about the Thursday protest:Hundreds protest in Knoxville after DA says no charges for officers in shooting at school. The protest yesterday was indeed smaller but we don't know what will happen today or tomorrow. However we do know that the media in Knoxville has not dropped the story or pushed it away. The top front page headline in Knox News today[30] is about the fact that only one of the police body cameras in the incident worked properly, and the next top one concerns an internal KPD investigation of the incident[31]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Still though, there's nothing in the notability guidelines that says things that have protests around them are inherently more notable then things that don't. There's also nothing that makes a "school shooting" any more notable then any other type of shooting. In the meantime for criminal acts there's WP:VICTIM that makes it clear "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person" and we have the schools article as a perfectly good place for the information. WP:INVALIDBIO also makes it clear that having a relationship to something that is notable isn't enough for that thing to be notable. It's also clear that we should "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics."

And those things are are all your basing your keep arguments on. While you can base your keep arguments on whatever you want, it's still on you in these discussions to provide a guideline based rational for them and I haven't seen you do that. Whereas, there's plenty of guideline based reasons for the merge counter arguments. If you have a good dispute point for why merging is bad, cool. Then provide it. I've asked several times though and you've just repeated the same old talking points of protests and people involved while not actually giving one or citing a guideline. I'll also add that criminal acts by their nature inherently get news coverage. Especially shootings and ones involving cops. So there has to be more then that to separate the notable ones from the non-notable ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to How I Unleashed World War II. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Franek Dolas[edit]

Franek Dolas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Character biography can easily be included in the plot for the movie he appears in - How I Unleashed World War II - which is currently lacking. Rinbro (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Keep Could perhaps redirect to the movie he appears in but the character fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC) PS. I started a deletion discussion on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:04:05:Franek Dolas, but it seems it will be kept there. Editors there are arguing he is well known and the article will almost certainly be kept there, but the sourcing found is still poor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC) PPS. He appears in the name of one academic paper [32] but I don't have access to it, and I cannot conclude he is discussed in depth in the paper (I can only access the first two pages, and he is not mentioned on those). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC) PPPS. Changing to keep. I got access to the academic paper above, and it contains some analysis of the character (I'll try to expand the article shortly). In addition to the SIGCOV in this one academic article, it also cites some works - Polish movie reviews from the communist era? - not digitized, but some mention him in the name and may contain further coverage (some are quoted). Ping User:Rinbro, User:Rorshacma (note I expanded the article with the content of the academic source in question). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect to How I Unleashed World War II - There is nothing to indicate that the character is sufficiently independently notable from the single film he appeared in that a WP:SPLIT is needed. Redirecting to the article on the film would be fine, but as there is no sourced content, there is nothing that can be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after it has been expanded already - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 21:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Currently nothing overly substantial has been provided for the character. Even if more sources do exist, the main article is severely lacking in content, so all content on the character belongs there until such a time that the weight on the topic requires a split. TTN (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to How I Unleashed World War II: No notability independent of the film. Clearly fails GNG. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neemat Daud Abdulrahim[edit]

Neemat Daud Abdulrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

De-prodded. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. First three sources in the article are self-published websites so not reliable, fourth source is a passing mention so not significant coverage, fifth source is the homepage of a website with no linked article, sixth source is a normal self-published website so not reliable. WP:BEFORE not turning up additional sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject does not pass GNG Sources used are either primary or user generated. The secondary source only quoted her. A BEFORE search does not come up with much either. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 11:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete highly promotional article about a non notable subject, does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. --hroest 13:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources could be observed. Celestina007 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - more reliable sources will be cited. Printed sources Currently not within reach, and will be added ASAP! Atibrarian (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added two reliable references (books), more to be added once available/within reach. The Sokks The Subject does pass WP:GNG It's unfortunate more of the published books aren't online.Atibrarian (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)^[1][reply]

Comment - @Atibrarian, The sources you've added quite unfortunately do not contribute towards the subject's notability. A subject is considered notable if they have been discussed in detail in multiple sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. This does not include a passing mention or a list where the subject is mentioned. Kindly see The Golden Rule and WP:THREE. Thank you and I hope this helps. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 17:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rareș Ilie[edit]

Rareș Ilie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found a match report that praised his performance in a friendly match and a routine announcement about testing positive for COVID-19 but nothing that could be considered as WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no WP:SIGCOV, none of the WP:NFOOTBALL criteria met. Less Unless (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG, no no WP:SIGCOV. Sonofstar (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ștefan Pănoiu[edit]

Ștefan Pănoiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no WP:SIGCOV, none of the WP:NFOOTBALL criteria met. Less Unless (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Jorza[edit]

Amir Jorza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ASEAN Federation of Accountants[edit]

ASEAN Federation of Accountants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NORG. Only one reference and that's self-published. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NORG and can't be easily expanded with outside coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't pass WP:NORG in its current state; my searches didn't turn up any useful third-party sources. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aboubacar Langone[edit]

Aboubacar Langone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. he has not played in a FPL yet. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Non-notable. Kemalcan (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC) I am withdrawing my nomination. --Kemalcan (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, has played in Serie C, a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry maybe i missed that information. Which team was that? Nehme1499 --Kemalcan (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only one appeareance in Serie C? --Kemalcan (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Soccerway, he has played one game in 19/20. Now, obviously this means that he only narrowly passes WP:NFOOTY. However, I would still keep him as a 20 y/o currently playing in the Serie D will very likely play again in the Serie C in a couple of years, and get more appearances. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nehme, young player with ongoing career who meets NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 10:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am withdrawing my nom. GiantSnowman--Kemalcan (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Selkoe[edit]

Greg Selkoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previously deleted page. Possible paid spam. Citterz (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tibor Fülöp[edit]

Tibor Fülöp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

His 8 mins of professional football allowed his article to be created as he technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL. When it comes to WP:GNG, which ultimately Fülöp must be able to pass, I couldn't find any reasonable coverage. A Hungarian search was made difficult as his name is so common in Hungary. Working with his profiles on HLSZ and MLSZ, I found an exhaustive list of the clubs that he has played for. I then performed searches in conjunction with these clubs to narrow down the results.

My conclusion is that the best sources about him are an extremely brief injury announcement, a match report and appearing in a list of players released by a club. This is not significant coverage, therefore, I propose that we delete the article from Wikipedia for failing our notability standards for biographies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as the nominator is a confirmed blocked sockpuppet.(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Omoraro[edit]

George Omoraro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A non notable entrepreneur. Citterz (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. The nominator is a confirmed blocked sockpuppet (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maile Meyer[edit]

Maile Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't see any reliable coverage for this entrepreneur. Citterz (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. The nominator is a confirmed blocked sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norah Alawadhi[edit]

Norah Alawadhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

News coverage is not enough to pass GNG. It looks like that just for a viral photo he got some coverage which is not sufficient for GNG Citterz (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Left-Handed v Right-Handed. No consensus that this subject meets any of our notability guidelines; but the rough consensus of the participating editors seems to indicate this WP:ATD is the preferred outcome. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Knill[edit]

J. Knill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Redirect to Left-Handed v Right-Handed A search brought about no real results, but if there is any results they will likely be offline due to the matches being played in the 1800s. I don't have access to newspaper archives so I'm redirect for now, but will check back if anybody else does some digging. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Happy for Rugbyfan22's suggestion, but would be nice to find his name out at the very least. StickyWicket (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he's the father of Sir Stuart Knill, 1st Baronet but only tentative links so far. StickyWicket (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HILTON[edit]

HILTON (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

i fail to see how this guy meets WP:NMUSIC, there is no meaningful coverage, afaict no charting songs and everything is based on interviews w/ blogs and blackhat SEO and a press release. TAXIDICAE💰 17:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find significant coverage for this person. Current article reads like a promotional piece. --Nemov (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources, I’m unable to see how they satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cited refs don't establish notability and I was unable to find any other sources. ~Kvng (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't search sources. Sonofstar (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Just way, way, way TOOSOON. --Kbabej (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wearside Combination Football League[edit]

Wearside Combination Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This league, which was believed to be at level 13 of the English football league system, although was not officially part of the system, does not meet WP:FOOTYN criteria for presumed notability. Its notability has to be based purely on coverage. The only decent coverage this league ever seemed to get was when it closed down; see Sunderland Echo.

In my searches, I only found one completely trivial book mention, a listing of results in Chronicle Live and a passing mention in the same paper. Searching the British newspaper archive for Wearside Combination League only yielded results listings, league tables and fixture listings, all of which are far from WP:SIGCOV. I also note that only the Sunderland Echo ever seemed to even mention this league. Searching its full name returned even less. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 20:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sonofstar (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Will add an unnecessary disambiguation given that there is already a draft at the base name. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madhagaja[edit]

Madhagaja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreleased film, which does not satisfy film notability or general notability. Has been created in both draft space and article space, so the question is which space it belongs in.

Film notability guidelines are confusing, but there are essentially three classes of films:

• 1. Films that have been released. Notability of these depends primarily on reception. They are usually notable.
• 2. Films that have begun production (principal photography or animation) and are reported by a reliable source to have at least begun production, but have not been released. They are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability because it has received significant coverage. There is a myth that a passing mention of production qualifies a film for notability.
• 3. Films that have not begun production. These are usually redirected.

Since the purpose of an article is to provide information to the reader, the article should speak for itself, rather than requiring a search by the reader or the reviewer. As written, the article says nothing about production, so it is in class 3, and should be deleted or redirected (and the draft can be kept). A naïve Google search for Madhagaja shows that the film is heavily pre-advertised in India. We would have guessed that.

This article can be deleted from article space, unless it can be expanded within seven days to pass a Heymann test. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Unreleased films must meet WP:NFF, and this one fails. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: as mentioned by Donaldd23, fails WP:NFF defcon5 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: Fails WP:NFF. Sonofstar (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayşe Önal (footballer)[edit]

Ayşe Önal (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A very similar case to Büşra Demirörs. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL per TFF, which has no appearances for the senior national team or in a league listed at WP:FPL. She was last recorded playing football in 2019 in the third tier, so no credible chance of ever meeting the SNG.

In terms of WP:GNG, the article uses 8 stats database references, one passing mention and an article that has one very small paragraph on her; this covers her as a 12 year old playing at a training camp. As per WP:YOUNGATH, this sort of coverage is not enough.

My own WP:BEFORE search yielded only 3 trivial mentions in squad lists: Yanki, Haberler and Maras Gundem. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, fails WP:GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What kind of statement is "so no credible chance of ever meeting the SNG"? You must have an WP:ESSAY for it, right? Since the majority of TOP women's leagues are excluded from WP:NFOOTBALL, shouldn't you also add the second and third division leagues for all countries to that essay? Hmlarson (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, who cares WP:GNG takes precedence. Hmlarson (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If she were on the verge of, say, playing for the national team or was playing at a high level and had an active career then maybe this could be draftified but, since this is clearly not the case with Önal, I see little point in draftifying the article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Lévy Themans[edit]

Albert Lévy Themans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

If he had played in the Olympics, he'd qualify. However, searches turned up very little on this bobsledder, not enough in-depth to show that they pass WP:GNG. Right now the only two sources are brief mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". As several newspapers wrote sections of an article about him, and one article was about his withdrawal and reasing, thatç clearly more then trivial mentions. Besides of that that, it not fair using Google search as primary identification means for pre-internet people. In many cases, tehre will be offline or foreign language sources. And there would be as he is described as a successful athlete winning several competitions. Also, he is notable enough, that we almost 100 years later writing about him, for example here in 2014 and here in 2019. He was the first Dutch athlete in history that was replaced at the Winter Olympics. SportsOlympic (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nine references in the article and there will be more. Sufficient WP:SIGCOV for the WP:GNG. No WP:BLP concern. gidonb (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the post-nom expansion work. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the original two-sentence stub inspired no confidence int he subject's notability. However gidonb did a spectacular job on bringing the article to its current state. There is no question now that the sourcing supports GNG.--- Possibly (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Gazetted Officers' Union[edit]

Kerala Gazetted Officers' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can find no evidence that this is a notable union. While English sourcing isn't necessary, there's no Malayam article to draw from and a BEFORE doesn't indicate notable activities. StarM 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Just a non notable organisations which fails NORG as well as GNG. I got some sources from Malayalam. But none of them are giving sigcov and hence not useful. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Can't find sources. Sonofstar (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See also the precedent set by recent deletions of "List of artists influenced by X": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists influenced by Beyoncé contains a list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people influenced by Ayn Rand[edit]

List of people influenced by Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Do we really need a list of A-Z people who were "influenced" by this person? What do we mean by "influenced" anyway? Any qualitative/quantitative analysis? To what extent? Whoever claimed they were "influenced" by this person can be mentioned in-depth at that person's article without this arbitrary list. HĐ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the policies cited and arguments expressed by nominator. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am in resounding agreement by the nominator and their reasons. Timmccloud (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above. If such a list is needed it can be added to her page. Athel cb (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless there is a better argument for deletion. This list meets all the WP:LISTPEOPLE criteria. There are sources that discuss the topic of the list; several are in the Works Cited section of the article's references. It is not at all indiscriminate: the inclusion criteria are explicitly defined at the top of the list and every entry is sourced in support of one or more of those criteria. It also ought to be obvious that stuffing a 34Kb list into a biographical article (that is already over 90Kb) is a bad idea. --RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me the definition of "influenced by" at the top of the list comes off as WP:OR--that is a subjective opinion on what it means by "influenced by", and that is not NPOV. To note, I do not recommend merging all these names into the "Ayn Rand" article. What is the purpose of this list anyways... to prove that Mrs. Rand had such a huge so-called influence? Why isn't there an exhaustive collective of lists of people influenced by [insert name here], who have had even more reputation and recognition than Mrs. Rand (to note--this is the first time I have ever heard of her)? HĐ (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list criteria ask for the listed person's self-identification. I'm not sure how that is POV, but in any case it is hardly WP:INDISCRIMINATE as you originally alleged. There are other "influenced by" lists (as you well know, having nominated several recently). The examples that originally inspired this one were List of writers influenced by Aristotle and List of thinkers influenced by deconstruction. I did not mention these because it would have drawn the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFF retort. There are other similar non-people lists, such as Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien. I assume many of those exist for the same reason this one does: as WP:Subarticles to prevent large lists from being a nuisance in the main article. There are thousands of lists that are split out of biographical articles for similar reasons, such as the contents of Category:Actor filmographies, Category:Discographies, Category:Bibliographies of people, etc. That there are not so many influence lists is probably due to the relative ability to source the content. --RL0919 (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above. As long as the list is well sourced it should stay.--Nemov (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A completely arbitrary list. "People"? Come on, what's next? List of people influenced by Jesus or List of people influenced by Muhammad? The editors probably have to create a prose article detailing how he inspired people, instead of this trivial list of names (WP:LISTCRUFT). Anyway, Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien is a prose article. Bluesatellite (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As I've already voted I won't vote again. I'll just comment that I fully agree with what Bluesatellite says immediately above (apart from noting that referring to Ayn Rand as"he" doesn't suggest a deep knowledge of her writing). As it stands the list is very unsatisfactory in another way, that it provides no evidence that the people listed were actually influenced by Ayn Rand. I haven't followed all the links, and maybe I was unlucky, but four out of the six I checked make no mention of Ayn Rand in the linked articles. Athel cb (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list attempts to put forth criteria for inclusion, which is generally a good thing, but here it ends up being synthesis. Three different things are being called "influence"; the list is essentially putting forth a conclusion that they are equivalent. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bluesatellite and WP:SOAP. Come on, this is run of the mill. We don't even have a List of people influenced by Bertrand Russell. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kutni Island Resort[edit]

Kutni Island Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

notability fail. CSD and prod declined. --- Possibly (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No independent sources to establish GNG and possibly written for promotional purpose. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pretty clear cut case. Additionally, the article creator has been indefed and the page has a very shady editing activity going on. --JBchrch (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NCORP; the only independent source provides nothing more than a name-check. Most ten-room hotels are anything but notable, and my searches don't show this one to be an exception. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No independent sources. Sonofstar (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Idunnox3 (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. Created by sockpuppet of ArmanAfifeh. Closure is simply because the page was deleted under G5 and does not prevent a creation of a redirect. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morteza Andy[edit]

Morteza Andy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The references make no mention of the player and there is nothing coming up in a WP:BEFORE search. I would expect a player playing at his level since 2010 to receive quite a lot of coverage but I'm getting nothing. Either a hoax or just a non-notable footballer that fails WP:GNG. I can't read Chinese so I am relying on translations. Please let me know if there is some good coverage in Chinese that I'm not picking up. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not available on Soccerway, Global Sports Archive, or National Football Teams. Very likely a hoax (as a player in the Chinese 1st division or Belgian 2nd division would easily have player profiles available). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as A10 (with a mangled name and details) of Morteza Pouraliganji who is the same player. Alternatively if this is not an honest application of a nickname (+many identical personal details), then G3.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Morteza_Pouraliganji: reason: It its the nickname of Morteza_Pouraliganji CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @CommanderWaterford: do you have a source that "Andy" is a nick name here? It is obvious they are the same, but Morteza Pouraliganji has no mention of "Andy" and I found nothing for "Andy" searching (in Latin characters). It is unlikely to be a Farsi nickname. Maybe Mandarin or Cantonese, which is beyond my searching abilities.. Anyway, if you find a source I will support redirection.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Devokewater 09:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Baldwin Jr.[edit]

Patrick Baldwin Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promising high school player, with the type of routine coverage such prospects. Being a McDonald's All-American is not an auto notability category. Does not meet WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Passes WP:GNG with non-routine coverage in the Chicago Tribune, Lexington Herald-Leader, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, The Athletic and FanSided. Sportzeditz (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sportzeditz. While I personally feel that articles on minors shouldn't really be allowed, I am not aware of any policy preventing them, assuming the minor meets GNG, ofcourse. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG per sources provided by Sportzeditz. Alvaldi (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clemta[edit]

Clemta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - no comment on notability but this reads like an advert Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, small company that does not pass GNG let alone NCORP. It does read close to an advert, to the point that my copyviodar is up.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, maybe even speedy as advert on a non-notable startup. The first two sources are RS, but don't even mention the company name. The rest are non-RS, so don't count. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Vidyanikethan International School, Tirupati[edit]

Sree Vidyanikethan International School, Tirupati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are no reliable sources giving in depth coverage to this school. Did a WP:Before and found nothing. It seems the article is written for promotional purpose when looking at its tone. Also see Sree Vidyanikethan International School. This is also about the same school.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the references in the article from what I can tell are primary and a lot are dead links. I couldn't find anything in a BEFORE except a name drop in a random article. There's nothing out there that is independent and (or) in-depth though. So, this clearly fails the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG. Clearly written for promotional purposes. No independent coverage as mentioned by Adamant1. defcon5 (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: I also request the closing admin to have a look Sree Vidyanikethan International School. Both are same school. I dont know the procedures to be followed in such situations. I hope this article will be also deleted. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — The Earwig (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pál Pelbart[edit]

Peter Pál Pelbart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails currently WP:NACADEMIC, given sources do only refer to him as a guest, no signs of professorship at the University in Brazil found CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A h-index of 23 is respectable for a low-citation field such as philosophy, plausibly meeting SCHOLAR#1. Furthermore, many of his top cited works (e.g. O tempo não-reconciliado: imagens de tempo em Deleuze cited by 524, Da clausura do fora ao fora da clausura cited by 367, filosofía de la deserción cited by 75) are books that given the amount of citations have been surely reviewed, so it is very likely he meets WP:NAUTHOR.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per Eostrix, for this field the amount of citations is quite strong and he would pass WP:NPROF just on that and quite possibly WP:NAUTHOR on top of it. --hroest 21:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pass WP:NPROF. Sonofstar (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Arvin[edit]

Reed Arvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, had been BLP deprodded because of his homepage, Google does not give any independent, significant coverage of himself, only listing his books CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, number of library holdings reflects that works are "well-known" (Blood of Angels, over 350 libraries), (The Wind in the Wheat, over 150 libraries), (The Will, over 300 libraries), (The Last Goodbye, over 500 libraries), plenty of reviews (some wikinotable enough for own wikiarticles) ie. for Blood of Angels: Kirkus (here), The New York Times (NYT) ((needs subscription) here), PW (here), The Denver Post (here), Booklist (here); The Last Goodbye: NYT (here), PW (here), Kirkus (here), Booklist (here), Library Journal (here); The Will: Library Journal, PW, Booklist (reviews here), Kirkus (here); The Wind in the Wheat: Booklist (here). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Coolabahapple. Eccekevin (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added some of the listed above sources onto the article because we do not want an article sitting sourced only to the subject's own website. There is a lot more work that needs to be done in improving the article, but Arvin does meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Coolabahapple and Johnpacklambert. I've also found a cite for the claim about Gene Simmons optioning one of his books and made its wording a little more encyclopedic. Vaticidalprophet 09:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR. Sonofstar (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of the University of Notre Dame. Could also be merged elsewhere if appropriate/desired. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic at the University of Notre Dame[edit]

COVID-19 pandemic at the University of Notre Dame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I do not think this topic is notable enough to deserve an encyclopedic entry. Does every large instution in the world during this pandemic need a COVID-19 impact related article? The content should instead be copied and published in the local town's newspaper or this university's newsletter and this article deleted. Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with University of Notre Dame. If anything this may deserve a subsection in the overall article, in case this institution has done anything special. If that is not the case, delete -- Microhierax (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Microhierax: The institution has received national press coverage for the various decisions it has made during the pandemic, as well as for the effects that the pandemic has had on the institution. There was unusually detailed reporting from national outlets on the activities of the University, including reporting from The Wall Street Journal on Notre Dame's COVID-19 protocols, a comparative analysis written in the Washington Post that contrasted Notre Dame's COVID-19 approach and that of Princeton University, an in-depth piece from the Chicago Tribune on the topic of Notre Dame's early struggles, CNN covering the decision to bring students back early, and many, many more. Do you believe that the topic has not received in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources in its own right? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article's topic has in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. The topic has been the subject of coverage in its own right from many national news sources, as evidenced by the sources present and the coverage provided therefrom. These sources include CNN, The New York Times, The Associated Press, The Chicago Tribune, ABC News, The Indianapolis Star, among other reliable sources. This article obviously meets WP:GNG in its own right.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge to History of the University of Notre Dame/COVID-19 pandemic in Indiana. Every university has been impacted by the virus, and so much of this is routine local news covering the goings-on like any other academic institution, for which the same can be found about the school I went to. I find it silly that it would be considered encyclopedic to include content like "Students noted that the quality of meals improved as the fall semester progressed" sourced to the student newspaper. The coverage about the president at the white house is a bit tangential and this is generally overly specific. A bit like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic in Door County, Wisconsin, we shouldn't have a separate article giving the minutiae of how they mixed in-person and online classes, something many other universities had to deal with and which were likewise covered in local and sometimes regional and national news. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Reywas92: Objections to specific content does not merit deletion; if you believe that the specific content is not properly sourced, then remove it. The question for deletion is whether or not the article topic is notable. The coverage of the outbreak at Notre Dame has also been the subject of peer-reviewed academic research published by the CDC, as well as coverage by national papers (for its impact on Notre Dame's academics, student life, and its athletics).— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is way too presentist. The scope is too narrow. At most a paragraph in the article on the University of Notre Dame is merited. Not an indepdent article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you believe that the topic of the article has or has not received in-depth coverage from significant reliable sources? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the consideration here. Not every thing that happens at a university that receives indepth coverage from reliable sources needs to be covered in a seperate article. Beyond this, I think all coverage of this subject per se fails the not news criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Reywas92. I found this article about a week ago and felt inclined to nominate it for deletion, but decided against it at the time because my initial (admittedly fleeting) reading of the article's content convinced me that the university botched the response horribly. But a closer reading of the article per Reywas92's explanation now has me convinced that the article is way too specific on a topic that would normally take one, maybe two paragraphs to explain. Any relevant content can be merged to History of the University of Notre Dame and/or COVID-19 pandemic in Indiana if it's deemed notable enough. Love of Corey (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with University of Notre Dame. Unless the procedures taken are so fundamentally unique as to warrant independent notability (beyond what every other university has garnered for their standardized responses), an entire page is not needed. Deku link (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Indiana & History of the University of Notre Dame. This is just way too detailed and full of trivial information. --Rusf10 (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Selective Merge to History of the University of Notre Dame. While there is clearly abundance of sources, you do not see articles for every University dealing with the COVID-19 situation. A selective merging of the more important information to the History of the University of Notre Dame page would be a better alternative. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]