< April 15	April 17 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Abbottabad cricketers. As the proposed WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Khan (cricketer, born 1985)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in sources, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Abbottabad cricketers A reasonable career, but as usual with Pakistani domestic cricketers we're struggling to find coverage. Sources may exist offline or in local language sources though. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD here though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Abbottabad cricketers as at present it lacks sources and fails GNG and NCRICKET. Purosinaloense T/K 09:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He does pass NCRICKET in its current form with 6 FC, 5 LA and 4 T20 appearances, but GNG is needed to support. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet any notability criteria as per above. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Pakistan Television cricketers as a preferred WP:ATD (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Malik[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in sources, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pakistan Television cricketers A few games, but as usual with Pakistani domestic cricketers we're struggling with sources. Sources may exist offline or in local language sources though. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pakistan Television cricketers as per Rugbyfan22. Purosinaloense T/K 10:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable cricketer Rondolinda (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage fails in passing GNG. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Altaf[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A reasonable playing career in Pakistan, but as usual when it comes to Pakistani domestic cricketers we struggle with sources. Sources may well exist offline or in local language sources. There's no real suitable redirect here as he played for multiple teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- With a redirect, that can be mentioned in the list. Peter James (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There could be potential 4 different lists this player could be linked too, which one do you link him to as he has no real main team. How would you know what the reader would likely to be looking for when searching for this player? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously it can be mentioned in List of Habib Bank Limited cricketers. The information the reader is looking for should already be there, even if only in a notes section, as it's useful to link these mentions together; also to avoid confusion with Mohammad Altaf (cricketer, born 1966) - the title should be disambiguated, for the same reason. Peter James (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - He played 1 match for that team, so why would you link him to that one instead of say Islamabad who he played a couple of more matches for. You can only redirect to one team. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        If a redirect is useful for a cricketer who has only played for one team, when they play for another team we shouldn't delete the redirect or disambiguation entry and make the information less easy to find. The obvious solution is an article, but if there is not an article the relevant information (including links to the other teams) can be included in the list entry. The list I mentioned is the only one that currently exists, but there are articles for the other teams. Peter James (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks indepth coverage to pass GNG and NCRICKET criteria. Purosinaloense T/K 10:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He passes NCRICKET in its current form comfortably with 10 FC, 5 LA and 5 T20 appearances, but GNG is needed to support. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reilly Heights, California[edit]

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

THIs is one of those cases where you have to wonder how well the GNIS guys were looking over their maps, because the label for this spot starts out as "Reilly Heights Guest Ranch", losing the "Guest" and then the "Ranch" over the years. I couldn't find any meaningful GHits on this, but in any case the area is now part of a large expanse of vineyards, and the GNIS coordinates land square on the farm buildings of one of these. Maybe a locale, but definitely not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another Carlos fake settlement, Fails GEOLAND.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 01:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good gravy. Fails WP:GEOLAND: no sign of legal recognition, and it falls miles short of the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good recognition and in-depth sources fails WP:GEOLAND. Purosinaloense T/K 10:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like Pepperwood Grove, California (AfD discussion) this is a pin on a map that is south of the here.com name, shown on the map beneath, at the likes of Bing Maps. Unlike Pepperwood Cove, there's no uncertainty about even the name. But I cannot find, having checked history books and other things, any historical in-depth documentation of this, or anything to support the statement of what this is in the 2-sentence article at hand. Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 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 speedy keep. The discussion has been withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) DasSoumik (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sabyasachi Chowdhury[edit]

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

Has acted only on one notable Television Series, Mahapeeth Tarapeeth, where he is in lead role. His other works are in non lead roles and also doesn't seem notable. So fails WP:NACTOR. Chirota (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator - Per the rationale provided by onel5969,Purosinaloense and TryingToDo, the actor appears to be having significant roles in multiple soaps. Chirota (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

KEEP I saw the article and read all those news coverage. And I noticed there maximum article is about Mahapeeth Tarapeeth, one article which is about his birthday there the article is about his birthday and his work Saat Bhai Champa, one article that is from Radio Bangla Net there is mentioned about Agnijal. And as per wikipedia's rule the actor is clearly passes WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TryingToDo (talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when I reviewed the article, I felt this was borderline, but did pass the bar of WP:NACTOR. He had one of the leads in a show which has 500 episodes. It's only a couple of years old, so I'm not sure how they did that, but still. He also had another significant role in Saat Bhai Champa, where he had a recurring part. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR for his significant roles in notable tv series. Purosinaloense T/K 18:17, 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. ✗plicit 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time variance[edit]

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

A search does not come up with any sources that use this term with this meaning. A few sources are available that use "time variance" as an accounting term, but that is not what this article is about. Rusf10 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strange unsourced essay abandoned since 2006, no hint of notability. Tercer (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The concept is is Data warehouse. That article mentions the "time variant" concept and is sourced by Data Warehousing Fundamentals (See p.22). The subject might be obscure as it's specifically related to data management (which I honestly have no clue), but it might be notable within that realm. the book calls it "Time Variant Data", so a move might help. Likewise it doesn't seem related enough to other articles using similar sounding names (Like Time-variant system) for a merge. Estheim (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, not enough sources as per all. 08:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Master[edit]

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

No sources to support this as a widespread term. Rusf10 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that there is any such thing, let alone anything notable that is different from a technical director. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks indepth trival coverage fails GNG. Purosinaloense T/K 10:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cites no sources, and no sources seem to exist. bop34 • talk • contribs 12:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From searching, most cases apply this term as a high praise of someone's technical skill, but it's never a proper title. A lot of hits also use it to describe sportsmen or physicians. Sometimes searches comes up as something like "Technical Master Class", but it's still not an official designation unlike other theatrical positions. Estheim (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manoa Pikula[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Unable to find any significant coverage outside of this article. Has not played professionally outside of a minor league. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, After his non notable college years, though he was signed by Green Bay Packers, he didn't play a single match for them and was released in the same year 2016. Fails the criteria per nom. Chirota (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My searches also failed to turn up SIGCOV beyond what the nom found. Further, his college stats from BYU (here) show a max of 29 solo tackles per year at LB and are relatively unimpressive. Cbl62 (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources fail GNG and BASIC. Purosinaloense T/K 10:03, 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. ✗plicit 23:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Louise Vanherk[edit]

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

Had been DE-PRODed, doesn't pass WP:GNG. None of the current sources are significant in-depth coverage. WP:BEFORE not turning up good sources. Zero hits in Google News. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the one that prodded it. My WP:BEFORE did not turn up WP:GNG passing sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ambassadors aren't presumptively notable, and I'm not finding any coverage on this one aside from scattered trivial coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indepth coverage is not available. Fails GNG. Purosinaloense T/K 10:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Diplomats are not automatically handed an "inherent" notability freebie just because they exist — to be notable enough for inclusion, a diplomat has to be able to clear WP:GNG on her sourceability. But that's not what's on offer here: five of the six footnotes are primary sources (government press releases, a photograph) that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that actually represents journalistic reportage isn't about her, it just namechecks her existence as a spokesperson for somebody else. These aren't the kind of sources we're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 20 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 Witch-hunt. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Witch-hunts Around the World[edit]

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

This article has been recently created as a part of a larger project of university students writing on equality & related topics: [1]. Unfortunately, a few of them have been redundant, see Women in the Workforce AfD. This article overlaps with a few others already, including Violence against women, Witch-hunt and Witch trials in the early modern period. As such, I think that this article should be redirected to the witch-hunt article, merged or deleted outright. AnandaBliss (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Witch-hunt, Agreeing with the nominator. The Witch-hunt article is pretty sufficient and thorough. Chirota (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to witch-hunts. In this case it is a basic policy issue that is not effected by content. We should not have any "around the world" articles. That worked in the 1960s World Book that treated the US as normative and everything else as deviation. It also works as a pedagogical method for expanding children's knowledge, so you give 3rd graders assignments to study "Christmas around the world" for example. We are a world-wide encyclopedia published in English. We have uneven cover and flaws and even Dedhamania, but we strive to write articles that cover topics in a broad worldwide way. So Witch-hunts will cover the topic globally. Then if the level of sourcing justifies in we can created Witch-hunts in the Holy Roman Empire (which is where at least in Euro-American cultural space the vast majority happened, comparatively the broad expanse of British controlled North America had virtually none). I am not aware of how prevalent witch guy hunts were in other cultures like the Qing Empire of Songhay, so I will not say on a truly world-wide scale that was the biggest point of witch hunts. The point is witch-hunts treats the topic world-wide across time, and then if needed we have more specific articles. The only way to treat the matter differently is to assume some place as normative which does not work in an encyclopedia that aims to be global. I know enough to know we are not as global as we wish, we probably have more articles connected to Dedham, Massachusetts than Shanghai. There is no logical system that explains that oddity. Some other disparities are a result of source availability differences, both just existing, linguistic issues and accessibility of the information, but the one I mention is maybe a little driven by those but has a deeper issue. I know we will not ever be quite as global as we dream, just as I know full objectivity is not possible for a historian. However as one of my professors said on the subject "just because you know you cannot kill all bacteria by washing does not mean you let your children play in an open sewer." We can at least try to build an expectation of global reach in our coverage, and the first step to this is to not have any article with "around the world" in its title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there was at least one European country where over 90% of those accused of witch-craft were males, and many where clear majorities were. So this is really not a sub-set of violence against women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the witch-hunt article is far better than I expected although it could use some work. The section of witch hunts on the African continent I would argue could use some clearer breakdown on location. I also think the treatment of events 90 years ago as if they are contemporary is questionable. The section on India could use a clearer name. Also the fact that we are using 11 year old data seems to indicate a search for more recent sources would be helpful. Still on the whole it is a solid article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said redirect. Do not merge. This article unlike the other one is atrocious. It is unencyclopedic in tone, and does not try to take a neutral point of view. The one article mainly is specific on where witch hunting it references is, although it fails to say which Congo is the location of one event, and some of the discussion on southern Africa would help from a review if it meets current guidelines on what makes to use for certain groups. This article does not even acknowledge there are countries in Africa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to witch-hunts. The article needs work, at the moment a somewhat confusing, but could become a good addition to the existing article. Edmund Patrick – confer 06:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the prior arguments. The name is worth having, I suppose, but this is a really weak article with nothing encyclopedic to speak of. I've seen more than a few problems come out of the narrow field of "educational groups writing about witchcraft" -- I once had to move an article on that topic that was at the name of a completely different person to its subject. (And the subject might not have existed...) It's odd that this specifically seems to cause so many problems. Vaticidalprophet 10:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to witch-hunts as per all. Purosinaloense T/K 18:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Both a fork and a stub that uses poor sources. Dimadick (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Witch-hunts, as they are similar articles. –Cupper52^Discuss! 09:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Witch-hunt: Witch-hunt already contains info on witch hunts around the world. No reason for a second article. bop34 • talk • contribs 12:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article appears to be a commentary/discussion on a number of wikiarticles, that would be appropriate for their talkpages and/or discussions for article improvements on relevant wikiproject talkpages, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. not sure that a "redirect" is the way to go (how many other "around the world" redirects would need to be made for these sort of generic global subjects). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for reasons listed above, and because the content of the article itself is so poorly written (introduces no real new information, consists basically of a several-paragraph student opinion essay). jp×g 00:50, 22 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Sánchez (baseball)[edit]

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

Not sure if he is notable enough for an article. Wikipedia is not a memorial and he did not meet WP:NBASE before his untimely death. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 21:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article could be moved to "Death of Víctor Sánchez" if the subject meets WP:GNG. Otherwise, if it fails, it probably should be deleted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple reliable sources for this article, many of which are directly cited by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partofthemachine (talk • contribs) 2021-04-16T22:45:27 (UTC)
Delete There are some reports in reliable sources, but they're WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL coverage about a sporting person's career (some other sources are blogs, unsuitable for establishing notability). Information about his untimely death would make this WP:BLP1E; and the death itself doesn't appear to have had any significant impact or sustained coverage so is not a notable event either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ignoring his death, (addressed by Canadian) the only other notable thing going for Sánchez's notability is his no-hitter at the Class A level, which while an impressive feat, is four levels down from the MLB level. Otherwise, coverage of him was routine for a minor league player. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 23:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RandomCanadian addresses many of the idea but essentially there is not the kind of sourcing available that suggests notability clearly failing both NBASE and GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deletion is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Steel[edit]

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

This entire page is mostly promotional copy, mostly unsourced, containing single sourced updates SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This band is notable enough to be kept. They have been around for more than three decades and just recently put out a new album. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely covered in music-related websites which give it a pass for GNG. Some of these are listed below.
https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Agent_Steel/529
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-12-16-mn-19738-story.html
https://www.sonicperspectives.com/album-reviews/agent-steel-no-other-godz-before-me/
https://www.blabbermouth.net/cdreviews/no-other-godz-before-me/
https://www.metaltalk.net/agent-steel-back-with-a-speed-metal-vengeance.php
https://www.dissonanceproductions.co.uk/index.php/2019/06/20/true-masters-of-metal-agent-steel-sign-with-dissonance-productions/
https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/agent-steel-featuring-john-cyriis-pulls-out-of-keep-it-true-festival/
https://www.ghostcultmag.com/album-review-agent-steel-no-other-godz-before-me-dissonance-records/
https://www.angrymetalguy.com/agent-steel-no-other-godz-before-me-review/
https://www.allmusic.com/artist/agent-steel-mn0000600867/biography
http://www.metalstorm.net/bands/band.php?band_id=579 Namkongville (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as per the sources Sonofstar (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (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 keep. The deletion arguments do not seem to be based on wp:deletion policy. Proposing a wp:merger is more appropriate here. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Congress (Thomas)[edit]

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

Officially there was no political party called Kerala Congress (Thomas), Mr.Thomas just revived orginal kerala congress in 2010.There is spearate wikipage for the orginal kerala congress and users are mostly contributing to that page. so this page is unnecessary and may create some confusions, if both pages exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasucrossroads (talk • contribs) 15:40, April 15, 2021 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination as a courtesy to the editor who tagged the article. Nominator originally tagged the article for speedy deletion with the above as a rationale, which was obviously not a valid CSD reason, and therefore declined, after which they AfD-tagged the article but did not follow up. Above text seemed to me to be close enough to a valid AfD nomination statement that I went ahead and took it as such. I have no opinion of my own on the article at this time. @Vasucrossroads: For future nominations, please take care to fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 21:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominator Vasucrossroads is actually wrong here. This was actually a registered political party, which was an ally of NDA. See proof here[2] which says The Kerala Congress Joseph faction, which was desperate to get a common symbol, decided to merge with P C Thomas’ Kerala Congress which is a registered party. Its true that this party does not exist anymore as it now merged with Joseph's faction of Kerala Congress. But we cannot delete an article about a political party just because it is no more active. Instead we should update the article appropriately to avoid confusion. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete:when pc Thomas contest from Kottayam in 2019, the party name was kerala Congress as per candidate list made by election commission, and list was put in front of polling station.my self from Kottayam, any way after merging with Joseph nobody is maintaining this page ,if anybody has objection on deletion .I suggest merge this page with Kerala Congress page. Because contributions are happening on this page after merging with Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantanuu96 (talk • contribs) 2021-04-20T19:53:52 (UTC)
Note: This user Shantanuu96 joined only 3 days ago and has just 7 edits in total. 6 out of 7 among them are in their userpage/sandbox. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG and as per reasoning done by Kichu. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Unusual discussion, but consensus to keep is clear. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank (social network)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL prediction about a possible future launch. The service has already failed to launch once[3] and lindell has announced at least other site which may or may not actually launch.[4] Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage by a number of independent reliable sources per WP:GNG, some of which are already used as references on the article. Also satisfies WP:WEB criteria. The platform failing does not take away from its notability. In fact, its failed launch was widely covered by the news media, thus indicating notability. Throast (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Frank has launched although it’s overwhelmed at the moment. White 720 (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's put this AfD on hold until Wednesday to see if it actually launches. I just went to the site and it just shows a video. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds good. I was able to see a registration page earlier this morning (US PDT) but registration itself was down, as has been reported. White 720 (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears to be up now at https://vip.frankspeech.com/; registration and login both work at this domain. White 720 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems premature. The site just launched today and its early failure generated media coverage. But I was just able to register an account so maybe that problem was a blip. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem a little like Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and maybe even fails notablity, but it seems like from the overwhelming number of Reliable sources, and its placement in the context of Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election we should keep. Rklahn (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination based upon Liz being able to register an account. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had to see what was there! It was all columns by Trump supporters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like an abuse of AfD for political purposes. There's been tons of media coverage of "Frank" and it therefor obviously meets the criteria for a Wikipedia page regardless of whether or not it's launched. 2hip2carebear (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's launched. It's there. It's got lots of content. It's being used. Time to close this worthless AfD. 47.12.161.150 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC) — 47.12.161.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It claimes to have had 2 billion page hits in the last few days. It is relevant as historical information even if 'FankSpeech' fails later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitwise1984 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC) — Bitwise1984 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It's a social media company, it exists and has gained lots of media coverage meeting notability guidelines. A maintenance break isn't grounds for deletion. Anish631 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Anish631[reply]
Comment: The developers of this site made the claim that it has billions of page hits, but there's no reason to believe them. They (Johnston + Howse) made similar claims in 2013 about another failed launch of a social media site (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1375572779.html). --Isitfrank (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC) — Isitfrank (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Significant coverage by reliable secondary sources establishes notability, not page hits. You could argue that they may serve as an indicator. Throast (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does have fairly significant notoriety in the news at the moment. It is not a social media site right now, however -- it is merely a clone of worldviewweekend.com and the videos they've already been hosting. That site doesn't have an article, so the only addition here is hype and marketing by Lindell. It may well become a notable site, but it isn't yet, and there are reasons to believe it won't become or remain one. --Isitfrank (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
worldviewweekend.com is not notable because it didn't receive coverage per GNG, as opposed to this. So there is no connection to draw. Current news coverage of Frank clearly indicates notability. Also, once a subject has become notable, which I argue this has, it can never cease being notable. Throast (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is notable, that's an opinion I won't argue with, but it is clearly not a social network. --Isitfrank (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frank's various iterations so far have relied on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media for social features. However, other reliable sources continue to describe it (perhaps speculatively) as a social network, and that is its stated intention. White 720 (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insignificant coverage. Trivial events, such as this one, receive the appearance of "coverage" in the current environment of low-quality content-mill journalism, reactionary to every sneeze, but have no actual staying power. Blips in the landscape are not significant coverage. Also, the social media site didn't launch at all. There's no site here. There's a webpage with a video and that's all there ever was 12.231.67.211 (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I withdrew my nomination because the reason I gave for deletion is no longer true. I am fine with whatever the closing admin decides -- close now or keep open. Please don't jump the gun. An experienced closer will come by looking at every AfD and will eventually get to this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atellani[edit]

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

Borderline A7 eligible article on a non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not satisfy WP:NCORP although left unsourced at this point a WP:BEFORE reveals hits in utter unreliable sources that lack both editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails clearly WP:NCORP CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of developing this page and have a series of reputable sources and well constructed paragraphs I am developing for the page. It would be highly appreciated if the page were not summarily deleted on the basis of how it looks in early stages. - Lexicon Kineticae

@LexiconKineticae, No one ever judges an article based on how they are, we know not to but it’s quixotic to state you have reliable sources to substantiate their notability whereas a WP:BEFORE search invalidates that claim. Celestina007 (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability, no significant coverage (even after doing a BEFORE). By the way, isn't there a process to move it back to LexiconKineticae's drafts if they want to improve it? --JBchrch (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch, technically, there is, but with a WP:BEFORE search it doesn’t seem like the organization is going to notable anytime soon so it’s improbable that incubation is the way forward, what is, is the deletion of the article and whenever the company attains notability, then they may ask for a refund. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Celestina007, that makes sense. JBchrch (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NCORP fail. This seems to be a companion article to Vincenzo Maranghi.--- Possibly (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, lacks indepth significant coverage. Namkongville (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnst meet notability and WP:GNG. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a company, with text and references mainly about one crowdfunded product with which it has been associated. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alderson Broaddus University#Athletics. WP:ATD, plausible search term ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alderson Broaddus Battlers women's soccer[edit]

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

Created by someone affiliated with the team in 2011, the page has been little-updated since but more importantly is sourced only to the team's official website. While we can theoretically have articles about sports clubs that play at below a Division I level, they must pass WP:GNG. While some local sports coverage exists (mostly local player signs with A–B) it's not enough to write a properly sourced article with. SportingFlyer T·C 20:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just local interest as this level I think (NCAA Division II Women's Soccer Championship. Seems to much more interest at Division I level. Nigej (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Third rate: fails GNG. ——Serial 07:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alderson Broaddus University#Athletics as possible search term. Does not merit separate article from what I can see. Giant Snowman 08:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alderson Broaddus University#Athletics as per above GiantSnowman. Namkongville (talk) 16:00, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant Austin[edit]

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

Originally an autobiography, the article unfortunately fails WP:NBASKET, my source search to check for WP:GNG brought up a mention in the NY Times but with only ten games in the D-League I can't find other significant secondary coverage of him. SportingFlyer T·C 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Penny, California[edit]

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

Another isolated "name on a map" case in Mendocino County, the only thing close to a reference to it I found was a mindat.org entry for a relatively nearby copper mine. I'm not too sure because it's another surprisingly common phrase, but the overall hit count was pretty low even so. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was gonna nominate this earlier, but didn't get around this. I came to the conclusion that this could possibly be a natural feature, as all I could find was references to literal little pennies and a few uses of it as a nickname. Hog Farm _Talk 01:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to just be a stretch of forest road. I think this is some sort of paper town Agloe, New York type of place that exists solely as a location on a map.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 01:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found speculation outwith Wikipedia that it was a small copper mine, and a play on words, but that's all that it was, speculation. There is nothing that I can find that says what this subject even is, and aerial photographs show that this 1-sentence article, written in the present tense, is false on its face. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and assesment done per above. Purosinaloense T/K 18:16, 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. Disregarding the !vote from the IP connected to the subject, there is still consensus that there is sufficient coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for the subject to pass WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So Others Might Eat[edit]

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

Since its creation, this article has never had secondary, reliable, independent sources. I do not believe this local charity passes WP:ORGCRITE. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment The group is well-known in the DC area, and the article's sourcing problems are easily overcome. That said, it is local to DC, and I don't know that one would find much coverage from outside the area. Mangoe (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be local to DC, but fortunately DC has a highly notable, reliable source newspaper. A quick search of just the Washington Post website pulls up a wealth of articles. Some mention it in passing, but there are also in depth articles that include detailed information about the facilities and services that this organization provides. I only linked to two articles to avoid refbombing, but there are plenty more just in the Washington Post. I would suggest that it is highly likely that other sources will have additional information. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So during my WP:BEFORE search I found numerous articles like those you posted but they seem to focus primarily on the subject they are helping making it more of a human interest story than an article about the charity. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Secondary, reliable, independent sources exist. No one has been bold enough to add them yet. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Covered in reliable news websites passes WP:GNG. Namkongville (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources so there is no need for deletion in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Quackslikeaduck, Atlantic306, and Namkongville: As a non-DC citizen, it was of my view the sources on this chartiy were not in-depth enough and too local to pass WP:ORGCRITE. I am willing to withdraw this nom but can ya'll provide some in-depth coverage? The ones I found during my WP:BEFORE search all seem to be human interest stories with like a passing mention of the charity. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does not fail WP:GNG, has independent sources. Idunnox3 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello I am speaking on behalf of SOME - I am actively updating info. Please do not delete. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.247.71 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concepción Ricarte[edit]

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

I could not find any sources covering Conchi Ricarte in depth. Searches have come back with sources from Levante's own website as well as other websites for clubs that she briefly played for, but nothing independent of her, as per WP:IS. Spanish searches of Concepción Ricarte and Conchi Ricarte yielded no significant coverage. The latter did yield Super Deporte, Marca and DXT but these are only passing mentions. Google searches also only come back with the usual indiscriminate stats databases and Levante's own website. No evidence of a WP:GNG pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG as it only has one source bop34 • talk • contribs 12:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:36, 21 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) 21:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Mar[edit]

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

There are multiple press mentions but all of them at unreliable media and tabloids, 0 book mentions. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon I saw that you wanted to nominate it for the deletion as well. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As written, does not satisfy either musical notability or general notability:
- - The article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, which makes it difficult to see if there are any good-quality sources.
  - However, it is not necessary to check the references, because the article as written is what is seen by the reader and should speak for itself.
  - The article, as written, does not address the musical notability criteria and does not describe the significant coverage required for general notability.
  - See edit summary comment, "Just to let you know, I took this information from an already made wiki about her because i can't be asked to write all the information so some of the stuff may be wrong so feel free to change the stuff to the correct information". This means that there was little or no effort to check verifiability.
  - There is also a draft. The creation of both a draft and an article is sometimes done to game the system to prevent the article from being moved to draft space. The draft can be kept.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total WP:GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely too soon, as stated. She'll likely be notable in a few years, if we wanted to keep this in the draft space. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and Robert McClenon's spot-on assessment. Currently fails WP:GNG, although might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does having a top 20 in UK Indi chart count towards meeting WP:MUSICBIO ? if so, then I would vote keep. Lesliechin1 (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom as WP:TOOSOON. May be notable in the future. Many of the cited sources are WP:PRIMARY bop34 • talk • contribs 12:16, 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 Edward Carson, Baron Carson. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Kirwan[edit]

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

Non-notable person with no significant coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on her husband. I can find sourcing on her and her future husband meeting in printed works, but this is because her husband, after her death, became the leading political force in the decisions about the status of Ireland and the creation of Northern Ireland. Any full length biography is going to give some coverage to the subject's spouse. I am actually surprised I did not find more coverage of her, but google books may not be analyzing the who text, or we may have an issues where some other references are just to Annette or even Annette Carson. I tried to see if that search would bring up more, but instead it brings up other Annette Carsons. I am thinking if we did keep this article it should be under Annette Carson, since Wikipedia uses the name people were known by during their life, and most of her life that is the name she was known by. Thus we have the article at Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher not Hillary Rodham or Margaret Roberts. Just to name two examples that come to mind very quick. The third that comes to mind is Emma Smith, but she is not quite as well known. However we have nothing substantive to say on Mrs. Carson, other than the names of her children. Even if we could find a little more substantive things to say of Mrs. Carson, I think we would need to find sourcing beyond a biography of her husband to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the excellent rationale of JPL above. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and there's little justification for a separate article. Her name is a plausible search term, however, and redirects are helpful and cheap. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edward Carson, Baron Carson: per JPL CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, which means she isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because she was married to somebody who has one, but this makes no credible claim that she has any standalone notability of her own and its only source is a genealogy rather than notability-supporting media coverage about her doing anything noteworthy. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 20 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 Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something Special (song)[edit]

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

The article only has one source talking about the song. Even though I love this song with all my heart, it should be redirected to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon until it has more independent sources talking about the song. ShootForTheStars (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fails WP:NSongs as I only can find "publications where the agent and other self-interested parties advertise speak about the work" and album reviews. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the song lacking independent sources and not having received strong coverage even in other ones. --K. Peake 06:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not arguing that the song is not notable, but I don't quite understand the nominator's rationale when they have been the only one significantly editing the article for the past month or so, and as recently as yesterday. Is it because tha article failed GA status (see User talk:The Ultimate Boss#Your GA nomination of Something Special (song))? They also recently created and edited Creature (Pop Smoke song), an article that does not meet notability requirements. Perhaps they could explain. AshMusique (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AshMusique, I am not going to speak on the user's behalf but I would like to notify you that I failed this article for GA once it was put up at AFD, so you understand the failure was not the cause. --K. Peake 08:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AshMusique, Kyle Peake I'm not going to comment "Creature" because it was recently created and is being expanded (??), but of right now it doesn't meet notability. However, 44 Bulldog and Snitching are not notable as well. They have one godd source, Hot New Hip Hop and the other sources is Times of India and the only thing it says is "check the video, here are the lyrics". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:59, 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) 21:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfadhli Mohamed[edit]

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

The infobox suggests that Zulfadhli meets WP:NFOOTBALL but it looks like this is a misinterpretation of the stats websites. Probably an honest one. Soccerway shows clearly that the alleged Johor and PDRM appearances actually took place as an unused substitute, which would not qualify him for the SNG. This is confirmed by GSA, Football Critic, Playmaker Stats and even by Malaysian football stats website Johor Southern Tigers.

More importantly, searches, including a Malaysian centred search, do not come back with any significant coverage at all. At best, we have some cup match reports in Goal, TNP and Yahoo but none of these actually stop at any point to address Zulfadhli in depth. I, therefore, believe that he fails WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFOOTYAloolkaparatha (talk) 09:56, 22 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American College for Advancement in Medicine[edit]

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

Fail to pass GNG no independent, reliable coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt and vinegar. Aside from an FTC ruling against them, the main source listed was their supposed accreditation from ACCME. At first, I was thinking that I might have to make a very reluctant keep vote, because that accreditation would be enough to demonstrate that they were a legitimate medical specialty society. The thing is, I've worked for a medical subspecialty society that provided CME courses and credits (I did not work in that specific department, though), and I know from experience that it is a pretty serious endeavor. How does a quack organization (and they are a quack organization) get accredited for CME? The answer is that they are not. They may have been accredited back in 2006, according to the archived file listed. However, a check of ACCME's list of accredited CME providers current as of January 2021 does not list the American College for Advancement in Medicine. And yes, I checked manually after doing a quick ctrl-F search just to be sure. 2006 was back when so-called "alternative medicine" was making a last-gasp effort at legitimate recognition, as the wave of evidence-based medicine was pushing them out. Thus the one thing that they appear to be notable for, providing CME, is simply not true. A check of their website provides a "white paper" on COVID-19 that appears to be an anti-vaxxer manifesto, one that leaves me in a state of professional rage. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Completely revamp so it's not like an advertisement and it's prominently explained how it is a pseudomedical pseudoprofessional organization, or else delete. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an option as well, and since SBM is already an accepted MEDRS, it would be pretty clear that rules like Due Weight would ensure that we make it clear that they're a bunch of quacks. Still, my preference would be just not to have an article at all, due to the risk that True Believers might change it back over time, and their lack of accreditation helps with that argument. On the other hand, if we can do a good job of documenting this group's scam and BS, I could definitely see an argument for the utility of having such an article. I would accept either option so long as the article accurately reflects the nature of this group.

I'm glad that SBM has covered them, otherwise I'd have had to go the long route to demonstrate all the boxes that they fail to check to be a real medical specialty society, vis no CME accreditation, no peer-reviewed journal, no seat at the RUC, no seat at AMA/CPT, no recognized fellows and distinguished fellows, etc. That was one reason why I was hesitant to go that route. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:37, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sherburns, California[edit]

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

And ... this is somebody's ranch/farm/house. Shows up as two buildings near a river fork on the 1926 topo, but by the next one, it's the site of the Eel River Ranger station. My WP:BEFORE only turned up last names, and this finally explains it. That newspaper clipping is from 1951, and says many years ago the Sherburn family lived at the forks of the river near the ranger station ... The evidence suggests to me that our "former settlement" of Sherburns is that Sherburn family cattle farm. Looks to fail WP:GEOLAND as just somebody's house, and WP:GNG is not met. Hog Farm _Talk 17:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Families: A Pictorial History of Round Valley 1864–1938 confirms that there was a Sherburn family and a "Sherburn place at the forks of the Eel River", where they and other people lived. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails relevant notability guidelines Dudhhr (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable family farm. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to just be a ranch, delete per all above.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 01:23, 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. Sandstein 08:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SA M-7[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The given source, which was the only reliable source I was able to find, talks more about how it's constructed with high quality parts, rather than explaining objective information about the rifle, or even what makes Arsenal's production methods better than other companies. There's no SIGCOV, the only place where I can find commentary of any sort is in Youtube videos, which aren't reliable for obvious reasons. The article's author had very few contributions outside of this page, which his talk page reveals were vandalism, and when this article was created it was tagged for being blatant advertising. Compare this article to WASR-series rifles, another semi-automatic Kalashnikov clone, which has plenty of independent sources. Loafiewa (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to advertising and failing WP:GNG. Dudhhr (talk) 20:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwin Fire[edit]

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

Minor fire only covered by local news Noah ^💬 17:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources are talking of fire. It is covered by NY Times [1][2], it is also covered by ABC 15, USA Today, and CNN. Also that the fact that the Governor have to declare a state of emergency shows that this fire is far from minor, and therefore, should pass WP:GNG. The fire also burned 20,000 acres, which is quite a notable event. SunDawn (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per SunDawn assessment. I can also see few more sources like https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2017/brian-head-and-goodwin-fires-continue-to-grow, https://www.verdenews.com/news/2017/jun/27/adot-closes-highway-69-because-goodwin-fire-smoke/, and https://www.cbs19.tv/video/news/local/arizona/authorities-give-update-on-goodwin-fire-wednesday-morning/75-2645862 which should give an additional pass for WP:GNG. Namkongville (talk) 14:30, 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 23:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superbrands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The appropriate guideline for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Kept in 2016, not eligible for soft deletion despite no opposition.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm _Talk 16:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient sourcing, and a Google search doesn't turn up very much else. Megtetg34 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment Delete~~ - I could find almost nothing in terms of independent coverage in reliable sources from delving into some of the many search results, which surprised me. This paywalled article may be one source: 10 reasons why Superbrands 2018 is a worthless list. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources identified by Cunard look very promising for establishing notability. Striking my delete vote for now, and will have a look through the sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a few of the sources are not available to me but I'm now satisfied that GNG appears to be met. Article needs some work: I did a quick first pass to remove promotional (and, I think, copyvio) material. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tan, Audrey; Chang, Rachel (2004-12-21). "Superbrands publisher defends annual brand ranking - Controversy is over whether firms pay to be designated a 'Superbrand'". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  The article notes: "A CONTROVERSY has erupted over whether firms are paying to get their products endorsed as 'Superbrands' by a Hong Kong-headquartered publishing agency. This emerged in the December issue of Singapore-based advertising trade publication Marketing, which reported that firms were dropping out of the Superbrands list as they felt they should not have to pay a 'substantial sum' for Superbrand status, even after being judged by a council to be a 'super brand'. Launched in Singapore three years ago, the gold Superbrands logo is often prominently displayed in advertisements by brands such as Han's and California Fitness, as a mark of endorsement by consumers and industry experts. The article in Marketing incurred the wrath of Asian Integrated Media (AIM) - which gives out the Superbrands awards each year. It says it does not run an 'award-for-sale' system."
2. Ritson, Mark (2018-03-14). "10 reasons why Superbrands 2018 is a worthless list: Superbrands' bogus methodology regularly turns up inexplicable and nonsensical 'findings'. Here are my top 10 aberrations from this year's Superbrands Consumer Top 20 ranking". Marketing Week. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
3. Perovic, Nikola (2019). "The First Superbrand in Knowledge Economy in the UAE: Morison Menon in a Mission of Building Better Business Globally: Proceedings of the 1st American University in the Emirates International Research Conference—Dubai, UAE 2017". In Mateev, Miroslav; Poutziouris, Panikkos (eds.). Creative Business and Social Innovations for a Sustainable Future. Cham: Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01662-3. ISBN 978-3-030-01661-6. ISSN 2522-8714. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  The abstract notes, "The objective of the case study is to explain an impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on the grant of Superbrand recognition." The book notes, "The Superbrand has influenced the change of perception among company’s potential clients because they now don’t only consider “The Big Four” global players above mentioned. More and more potential clients have been approaching to Morison Menon since they recall the Superbrand recognition, which has been linked to the company’s priorities to offer the best service in knowledge economy industry. ... There are many opportunities coming from having Superbrand recognition, and the major location in one of the most global cities in the world, Dubai, and its upcoming 2020 Expo."
4. Redwood, Fred (2006-07-23). "Online voters elect brand leaders - Superbrands: Britain's strongest brands 2006". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  The article notes, "Changes are under way at Superbrands, the company that devises programmes to recognise branding excellence. In the first revision of its assessment methods since it was founded in 1995, Superbrands has entered a five-year partnership with YouGov, the online research agency, to gauge consumer opinion of hundreds of British brands in its annual survey. Under the new system, independent researchers first put forward a selection of thousands of UK consumer brands. Of these, 1,200 are selected for a shortlist. These are then given marks from 1 to 10 by the Superbrands Council, an impartial body of 18 industry specialists that changes every year."
5. Ganesan, Vasantha (2003-08-20). "Superbrands status to help boost exports". Business Times. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  The article notes, "The Superbrands book is distributed in 26 countries worldwide and will reach 30 by year-end. About 54 per cent of the products that have Superbrands status use the Superbrands logo on their packaging, advertising campaign and billboards. ... Superbrands started in the UK 12 years ago. It entered Malaysia in March 2001. The first Superbrands edition showcases 80 brands. Produced every 18 months, the second edition is due in January 2004. In Malaysia, Superbrands is operated by Chelsea Media Sdn Bhd. A brand is given the Superbrands status after several months of research and decision-making. ... In Malaysia's first edition of Superbrands, 34 out of the 80 brands are home-grown. These include Boh, Proton, Royal Selangor, Petronas, I from (I-Berhad) and Lim Kok Wing. ... Malaysia's first edition sold some 13,000 copies. The brands that receive the Superbrands status buy between 50 and 700 copies themselves, to use as a marketing tool."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Superbrands to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbrands participants: Huon (talk · contribs), Waggie (talk · contribs), Dweller (talk · contribs), LibStar (talk · contribs), Murry1975 (talk · contribs), Oshwah (talk · contribs), and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your work uncovering those sources, Cunard. I note in NewsBank that the page reference for the Redwood article in The Sunday Times is "Page: Superbrands 2" which makes me think it could possibly be an advertorial feature/supplement. Unfortunately, my Times digital archive access doesn't include The Sunday Times so I'm not sure. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs), thank you for reviewing the sources. The Sunday Times article says: "Page: Superbrands 2 | Section: Features". It is not an advertorial feature/supplement. I've added a link to the article. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per legitimate news coverage and in one scholarly paper, as per the sources above. All of the sources above are from reliable sources, and all news sources include a byline from a staff writer of a publication with editorial oversight. The scholarly paper also includes the authors name. In other words, these are not reprinted press releases. I am a bit dismissive of source #5 above because it includes a fair amount of interview content, although it also contains some independent analysis. Additional sources for consideration are also available in the previous AfD discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments made above. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cunard has made some good arguments. Agree to keep. Peter303x (talk) 19:48, 21 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) 21:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management and Technology[edit]

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

A private, for-profit, tertiary educational institution that does not satisfy NSCHOOLS as there are no RS satisfying ORGDEPTH, apart from a few database entries and primary sources. VV 16:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. VV 16:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. VV 16:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 16:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. VV 16:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 16:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can find is name drops in things about other stuff and a few news articles about them having a party that are extremely trivial and don't cover the school in-depth. So, unless someone can provide WP:THREE good sources (which I highly doubt) the school clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG as a topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, can't find anything better. Even DDG, which is good at filtering out the junk, is coming up with nothing better than Colleges MBA and other such adverts/profile pages for the institution. Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails ORGDEPTH CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KIET Group of Institutions[edit]

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

A private, for-profit, tertiary educational institution that does not satisfy NSCHOOLS as there are no RS satisfying ORGDEPTH, apart from a few database entries and primary sources. Creator is an SPA with only a single edit. VV 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. VV 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. VV 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-03 ITS Engineering College ✗ delete

Delete. Does not have any real sources, or assert notability; indeed, it does not seem distinctly notable at all from its parent institution (Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University). jp×g 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Not to be confused with other similar named institutions across the world. Does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as there are no WP:RS that could satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Found a few database entries and primary sources which dont count. VV 16:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. VV 16:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 16:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. VV 16:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 16:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-03 ITS Engineering College ✗ delete

Delete No sources and no response Applus2021 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference in the article is a permanently dead link that appears by the title to be primary anyway. Other then that, there's just a few trivial name drops in school directories. So, there's nothing about this from what I can tell that passes either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Weight of the arguments expressed goes to deletion. Both keep !votes run are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, while the nominator and delete !voters provided policy-based rationales as to why the subject is not notable. Hog Farm _Talk 01:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StackCommerce[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promo piece on a non-notable e-commerce company. The sources look plentiful, but they only comprise passing mentions or press release regurgitations; not enough for WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability. (Note, this was previously deleted following AfD, but I don't know how much the content has changed since.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I'm the one who spun up this page. I modeled it after the BigCommerce and WooCommerce pages, so I feel like this should be left up as those pages are or that all of them should be pulled. I was also planning on making pages for other companies in the e-commerce space, like SnowCommerce, as I've personally found Wikipedia's documentation of the field to be a bit lacking. I'm not opposed to changing any element of the page to make it more subtle for Wikipedia, but find it a bit discouraging that the first page I made was flagged for deletion by you and another user accused me of having a conflict of interest. I want to add to Wikipedia and collaborate with other users here, but right now I'm getting the impression that my contributions aren't welcome. Lder1995 (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lder1995: sorry that it had to be your first article, but notability is a core requirement, and applies equally whether it's your 1st or 100th one. Don't take any of this personally; it certainly wasn't intended as such (and as for the possible COI, I don't believe anyone accused you; a question was merely asked). Also, the outcome of this discussion is not a foregone conclusion — it could be that the community decides the subject is notable enough, in which case the article will remain. My advice would be to study carefully the notability guideline at WP:GNG, and to add such references to the article as are required to satisfy those. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I came off a terse, that wasn't my intention and I have no ill will towards you or any other editor. After reviewing the notability requirements extensively, I feel like the StackCommerce page meets the requirements, especially considering the amount and kind of content on the similar pages I mentioned earlier. Furthermore, as StackCommerce is named on other pages, such as the one for Sukhinder Singh Cassidy, I feel as though it's appropriate for there to be a StackCommerce page on Wikipedia. Lder1995 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2017-11 ✗ delete

Logs: 2021-04 ✍️ create, 2017-11 ✗ deleted, 2017-03 ✗ G6

As, from my understanding, this page meets notability requirements, my previous arguments to keep it up haven't been refuted, and other users are beginning to edit this page, I genuinely believe it should remain up and vote to keep it as such. Lder1995 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sorry Lder1995 but you have not lived up to your burden of proof by providing significant coverage from several independent, reliable source. This [5] is the only source that provides some sort of coverage, but one source is not sufficient WP:SIRS. Regarding the other articles that you cited, WP:OTHERSTUFF notes that this argument is not really helpful in deletion discussion. Finally, I understand that it may be discouraging to have your first article be deleted: however, this is something that happens to many new users and it's part of the experience of learning how to contribute to one of the most ambitious projects in the history of mankind 😊 JBchrch (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the argument that Lder1995 made regarding the similar pages that are in the same space is convincing. Shouldn't these similar companies also be deleted if they are pretty much the same in terms of design and sources? Easier to keep all of them, because I think there's plenty here for a page. SplitTake (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User is a WP:SPA who has made 18 edits. scope_creep^Talk 13:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Since when has a small to medium sized IT shop been notable, ever. They're is million of them. So is an entirely generic category and too stand out as notable, it needs to be very very special. This isn't it. There is not one thing that is notable, for this IT Consultancy. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEl4 and WP:DEL14. It is a paid brochure listing. scope_creep^Talk 13:17, 20 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 FastSpring. While there are many sources, none of them constitute significant coverage, so there is consensus that he should not have an individual article. There is no consensus on whether the article should redirect to FastSpring or be deleted, so I will default to making the redirect and anyone can take it to RfD if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Foodman[edit]

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

~~Not a notable Entrepreneur. No in-depth sources present. Fails WP:GNG as per lacking WP:RS Citterz (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Bebopjohnson (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nomination. Fails GNG. Ew3234 (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Well sourced, passes WP:GNG. significant coverage in major reliable sources. GooeyMitch (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep As per news availability in mutiple sources. Passes WP:GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NBIO, no indication of notability. All cited sources either contain trivial mentions, or no mention at all of the subject. Searching reveals no significant coverage in WP:RS. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Passes GNG listed on reputed sites such as Entrepreneur, CNET, INC, Fortune and many others. It can be also procedurally close as nom is blocked for sockpuppetery. Namkongville (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these sources offer significant coverage of Foodman, the Inc source is just FastSpring on a list of 5000 other companies, the Fortune article just contains quotes from him about FastSpring, the Entrepreneur article lists his name once in a list of founders of FastSpring, and the CNET source does not even mention his name. SailingInABathTub (talk)
  - I agree with you that some are mentions but if they are from reputed websites they still hold a value for GNG. I can see many other sources too which are listed down and can be counted for GNG too.
  - https://www.macworld.com/article/151243/17reporter.html
  - https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/23616
  - https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/acclaim-to-offer-disk-versions-of-online-games
  - https://www.livemint.com/
  - https://fortune.com/2014/03/21/e-commerce-platforms-and-the-fight-to-sell-selling/
  - https://www.pacbiztimes.com/2013/04/26/investors-jump-on-fastspring-as-revenue-soars/
  - https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Ohana-buys-Rebate-Delivery.html
  - https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/inno/stories/roundups/2019/06/25/10-female-founders-with-the-most-funded-startups.html Namkongville (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately they do not contibute towards WP:GNG, as none of the sources offered contain significant coverage of Foodman. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, FastSpring is a possible redirect target, as most of the sources here are about this company. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets GNG per references presented above. There are lots of news search results about the subject and his work. Purosinaloense T/K 18:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Current sources qualifies for GNG as per all. Articuno appears (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep As per all above, Easily passes WP:GNG as has received coverage in multiple reliable websites. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, my source analysis is below:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
#1 ZNet	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Acquisition announcement that does not mention Foodman at all.
#2 TechCrunch	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about SaaSy that does not mention Foodman at all.
#3 Atlanta Inno	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about female startup founders that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other founders of Jonny On It.
#4 Yahoo News	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Wrong URL. An article about Vizmato that in one paragraph, says Foodman is the President of Global Delight and founder of FastSpring, lives in Atlanta and has been involved in the tech industry for many years.
#5 CNET	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about Digital River that does not mention Foodman at all.
#6 TidBits	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Acquisition announcement that does not mention Foodman at all.
#7 Games Industry Biz	N	N	Y	Y	N	An article about a business partnership that includes one quote from Foodman about the partnership.
#8 The Daily Record	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about an acquisition of a company that Foodman is the founder of. Says that they negotiated with Foodman for some time and that he is "an excellent ally".
#9 TechCrunch	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about investment in FastSpring that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other board members.
#10 Fortune	N	N	Y	Y	N	An article about FastSpring and Digital River, includes quotes from Foodman about FastSpring.
#11 Entrepreneur	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about three startup entrepreneurs that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other founders of FastSpring.
#12 The Stevie Awards	N	Y	N	N	N	2015 Stevie Award Winners, includes FastSpring, no mention of Foodman.
#13 Inc. Magazine	N	Y	N	Y	N	Dead link. FastSpring on a list of other companies, no expected mention of Foodman.
#14 Deloitte	N	Y	N	Y	N	FastSpring on a list of 500 other companies, no mention of Foodman.
#15 Pacific Coast Business Times	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Dead link. Article about investment in FastSpring.
#16 Business Wire India	N	N	N	Y	N	An announcement about Global Delight appointing Foodman as its new CEO. Includes some quotes from Foodman and some information on his background.
#17 Geektime	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Dead link. Article about a Vizmato product launch.
#18 Pymnts	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An acquisition announcement that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other founders of FastSpring.
#19 Salon Today	N	N	N	Y	N	An announcement about Rosy Salon Software appointing Foodman as its new president. Includes some quotes from Foodman and some information on his background.
#20 Jounal Pioneer	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An acquisition announcement that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other founders of FastSpring.
#21 Digital Trends	N	N	N	Y	N	A Global delight product launch article. Includes some quotes from Foodman.
#22 Inside UNC Charlotte	N	N	Y	Y	N	A redirect to the Salon Today article.
#23 Google Patents	N	N	Y	N	N	A patent where Foodman is listed as the inventor.
#24 USA Weightlifting	?	?	?	?	N	Dead link. Unable to verify per WP:V.
#25 Casual Connect	N	N	N	N	N	An article by Foodman about GetMyRebate.com.
#26 Software Business Magazine	?	N	N	N	N	No link. An article by Foodman.
#27 Entrepreneur	N	N	Y	Y	N	An article about creating web companies, includes quotes from Foodman.
#28 Fortune	N	N	Y	Y	N	An article about Digital River, includes a quote from Foodman.
Total qualifying sources					0	There is no significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many in-depth sources. For example this article in Fortune [6]. Second: a piece in Entrepreneur [7] and an article on The Daily Record [8]. Those three alone are enough for WP:GNG. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Techcrunch article you mention is source #9, Fortune #10, Entrepreneur #11, and Daily Record #8. None of them have significant coverage. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the excellent and exhaustive analysis of source made by SailingInABathTub shows a lack of SIGCOV and a failure to meet WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: Above seems a good example for WP:HOAX. The nom is bad faith. Maybe you can reconsider your vote :) Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the three sources purportedly meeting GNG, I checked the one in Entrepreneur, which is just an in-passing mention of Foodman and contributes nothing to notability. I didn't check the others (Fortune is behind a paywall and the Daily Record website seems to be down), but just the Entrepreneur example already shows that you have no good feeling for what meets GNG and what doesn't. In addition, I sampled some of the references and agree with the nterpretations of {SailingInABathTubabove. --Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right upon checking deep Fortune articles fails for GNG. The entrepreneur article seems just a mention. Agree with your assessment. :) Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to FastSpring As per great sources assessment by SailingInABathTub and Randykitty. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. scope_creep^Talk 18:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Phellix[edit]

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

In my WP:BEFORE search of "دیجی فلیکس" and "DJ Phellix", I did not find any WP:RS showing WP:SIGCOV of the subject. WP:GNG requires that the subject is discussed in depth in independent sources but excludes press releases. Digital Journal, NCN, RFD, Scoop and KMLK are all clearly marked as 'advertising content' and 'press release'.

The only remotely decent source that I could find was on Time Bulletin (blacklisted - I am not allowed to link to it) but it's not enough on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep: DJ Phellix is a famous music producer in Iran. In addition to sites related to his work, other sites have also worked on news about him. Please reconsider deleting this page.Afsane1369 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you share some of these alleged sources demonstrating notability? Thanks Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: per nom, no sufficient sigcov in WP:RS, looks almost like a G11 CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find any reviews of his shows or albums. Afsane1369, if you have access to sources that cover news about him, I'd like to see them. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] ^[2] ScottishFinnishRadish Afsane1369 (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I see those sites I see Sponsored: Advertising Content and Press Release and Information contained on this page is provided by an independent third-party content provider. Frankly and this Site make no warranties or representations in connection therewith. These sites are being paid to release press releases, and are not, but their own admission, reliable. This doesn't contribute to notability, and the sources couldn't be used even if it did. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Paid press doesn't count towards notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Just press releases, download links and stream links. Notability not established.-Xclusivzik (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG no enough coverage. Articuno appears (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lolwah Al-Khater[edit]

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

On a routine check of my deletion log I noticed that this article had been resurrected. While this new version does much to address the original claim of copyright I don't really see how a spokeswoman for the government warrants an article. It may be an issue with the sourcing, or it may be an issue with the overall notability of the article, so I'm listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've just changed this the wrong way, but she's the assistant foreign minister of Qatar. [9] . I think ministers are generally notable. Furius (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've tried to expand this out a bit further on the basis on the available English-language services. Someone with Arabic could probably achieve a bit more. Furius (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that does help the article, as before she was only a spokesperson. Still a little thin on material, but if we need the article then the material will present itself. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN. There are lots of news search results that could be used to support additional content for the article, including some with the name as "Lolwah bint Rashid Al Khater." Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as BennyOnTheLoose said, she meets WP:POLITICIAN.--Imad_J (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NPOL as per having a lot of coverage in different trusted news sources. Namkongville (talk) 14:47, 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) 21:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Xiao[edit]

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

Tell me if he is inherently notable but as of now only has a passing mention in one source, and I can't find anything online. Noah ^💬 15:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. It may be a nomme de guerre or there may be Chinese language sources but I can't identify them. Mztourist (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and above lacks SIGCOV in WP:RS to qualify for WP:GNG. Namkongville (talk) 15:37, 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) 21:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray S.K. 0–7 Güneş S.K.[edit]

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

AfD per discussion at Project Football relating to the enduring notability of a game which is just the highest scoring in a given series. This is another instance, where if another game was to be higher scoring it would just replace this, functionally meaning its enduring notability is in question per WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT.

The notability of this event appears to be tied to the largest defeat for a club (Galatasaray). The 3 linked sources, 2 are to summary scorelines, and the other just has a passing sentence which boils down to "they had their biggest defeat". Seems distinctly WP:ROUTINE. Two books are listed, but unclear what content is derived from them that might confer significant coverage.

Courtesy ping for those on football talk page and editors that have contributed to this page recently: @Govvy, Nehme1499, GiantSnowman, ChrisTheDude, Ortizesp, No Great Shaker, C.Fred, Akocsg, and KingSkyLord: Koncorde (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Koncorde (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Koncorde (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Koncorde (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and discussion at FOOTY. As the highest scoring game in a series, it is potentially a moving target and that isn't a sound basis for inclusion here. Individual matches need lasting reasons for inclusion as standalone articles – for example, a cup final. Thanks for the ping, Koncorde. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." As such, my view is that this should be noted in higher level articles, eg 1938 Turkish National Division, especially since this level of detail is not required. Nigej (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and all above, fails notability criteria. Purosinaloense T/K 18:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this particular football match has enough enduring notability to warrant a stand-alone article. Not a final or a record-breaking match so not inherently notable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence Aloolkaparatha (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't need articles on individual clubs' biggest ever victory/defeat. Overall record victory/defeat for a country/league maybe yes, but definitely not for each individual club...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 22 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) 21:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The World of Which We Dream Doesn't Exist[edit]

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

another nominated-but-no win film that has no meaningful critical coverage and was self-submitted to festivals. TAXIDICAE💰 15:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails GNG. Articuno appears (talk) 12:42, 22 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) 21:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Light (film)[edit]

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

non-notable film by a likely non-notable filmmaker. it may have been "nominated" in several festivals, but those festivals are all self-submissions and they didn't win anything. There's no other coverage. TAXIDICAE💰 15:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I can't find a single source regarding the film in the Icelandic media. The only Icelandic media source in the article doesn't mention this film, it is a piece about another film that featured the producer Karna Sigurdardottir. Alvaldi (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing found after a web search. 81.131.132.199 (talk) 15:15, 22 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Management and Research[edit]

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

A private, for-profit, tertiary educational institution that does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS. The sources found during a WP:BEFORE do not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH as they consist of paid databases and primary sources. I have cleaned up the page of advertisement cruft. no inherent notability. VV 14:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. VV 14:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. VV 14:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 14:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 14:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-03 ITS Engineering College ✗ delete

Delete: No sigcov from multiple sources thus failing the notability criteria. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of WP:ORGDEPTH at all; mentioned in lists in News18, Pagalguy and a few other places but nothing addressing the organisation in the required level of depth Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 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 merge to Kim Petras. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone. Any relevant content that's reliably sourced should be selectively merged to either the main Kim Petras article or some other appropriate target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kim Petras live performances[edit]

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

Per WP:NTOURS this is a summarization of many other articles - the tours already have their own articles, both headlines, and support. The TV performances also included in the articles of the songs she performed. Henceforth, the information on this page is covered/duplicated elsewhere and doesn't meet the notability standard for inclusion like this. All the information here is backed by Youtube sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not required, not notable, it's WP:NOTDIR - and WP:OR: entirely sourced to multiple YouTube videos. Acousmana 15:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not surprising that a list of videos is linked to those videos. Citing primary sources is not what OR is, nor does the present state of sourcing determine whether something is OR or not. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the act of deciding to put a list together of Kim Petras live performances, and just provide a bunch of YouTube links, is OR Acous mana 19:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. A video, if published by an official source, is reliable for its own content. The question is always whether an assertion is verifiable or not. You should read the policy and on WP:RS more carefully. postdlf (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there's enough justifiable as a WP:SPLIT from the parent article; her two tours have their own articles, the rest of the content does not. I think WP:SMERGE to Kim Petras is appropriate, the tour table details can easily be incorporated there and the rest probably trimmed down. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kim Petras (or some more appropriate target -- I'm unfamiliar with all the articles regarding this musician) per WP:PRESERVE. The sources going to Youtube looks to be a bit of a misrepresentation -- the ones I spotchecked were TV appearances and similarly RS/non-SPS sources. It doesn't at this time look like a separate article is justified, but it doesn't look like it should be nuked either. Vaticidalprophet 04:57, 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 redirect to Lata Bhagwan Kare as Lata Bhagwan Kare (film) now redirects there. ✗plicit 14:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Deshaboina[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG DasSoumik (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 17:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 17:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to Lata Bhagwan Kare (film). The only film directed by him.-Nizil (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lata Bhagwan Kare (film). (comment as a creator). Imfarhad7 (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lata Bhagwan Kare (film) as per all above. Purosinaloense T/K 18:26, 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) 21:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samyuktha Shanmughanathan[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:NACTOR. In my opinion, it just a promotional page as the subject participated in the aired reality tv show Bigg Boss Tamil 4. The page was recently deleted by WP:PROD. I request to create an afd discussion for this article. BilalChoudary2 (talk) 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Created with comment left at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion by IP. ~ GB fan 20:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. If she would have won any of these TV shows, it might have been a different case.

Bilalchoudary2, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NACTOR. Chirota (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes. it fails WP:NACTOR. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:999C:DB59:A7C6:A68A (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest the nom BilalChoudary2 to come up original reasoning for nomination as the current nom seems to be very much imitated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavithra Lakshmi. I don't think this page has been deleted by WP:PROD before. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:999C:DB59:A7C6:A68A (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Starring roles in a notable film (Oolu) and a notable series (Chandrakumari), in addition to a notable reality show (Bigg Boss Tamil 4).Furius (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Tauseef ur Rehman Rashidi[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete search in Arabic does not show sustained coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is very little coverage about the person. For now, it don't meets WP:GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not yet apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete As per nom fails GNG. There is no notable coverage about them. Namkongville (talk) 14:51, 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. ✗plicit 14:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharda Group of Institutions[edit]

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

An education trust that does not satisfy WP:ORG or WP:GNG and has no inherent notability. Does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as no WP:RS satisfying ORGDEPTH was found with a WP:BEFORE. I have cleaned up the advertising cruft. The creator is an SPA with an apparent COI. VV 13:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. VV 13:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 13:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:NCORP, being private educational institution. Chirota (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy GNG as lacks indepth sources. Namkongville (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan College of Science and Technology[edit]

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

A private, tertiary, degree non-awarding institution which has no inherent notability and does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as no WP:RS satisfying ORGDEPTH was found with a WP:BEFORE. I have cleaned up the advertising cruft. VV 13:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 13:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. VV 13:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. VV 13:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 13:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:NCORP, being private educational institution. Chirota (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:NCORP as per above. Articuno appears (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthin-Pwllglas Golf Club[edit]

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

Same reason as I PRODded: No evidence this is a notable golf club despite its age. A BEFORE turns up news and book listings, but Wikipedia is not a directory of golf clubs. StarM 13:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. StarM 13:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. StarM 13:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Deletion would be contrary to our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. The current stub might reasonably be merged into Pwllglas which currently links to it. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Pwllglas. Seems to be a WP:MILL golf facility that fails all notability guidelines; the article is nothing more than a directory listing, which mimics pretty much all the independent sources I could find. Would be WP:UNDUE to merge, a mention seems to cover this adequately. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL is an essay, not a policy or guideline and so has no official standing. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is policy. WP:N is a guideline. This comprehensively fails both. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill golf course. No more special that any of the other 2000-odd clubs in the UK. Founded 1905, but that's not particularly early for the UK. Wikipedia is not a directory of golf clubs/courses and they need to be something out-of-the-ordinary for us to maintain articles about them. Nigej (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, per WP:NOT, not a directory of golf clubs CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our policies do not ban deletion. No indication this generic club is notable or that articles on villages must provide details about golf clubs' histories. Reywas92^Talk 08:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, low quality spam that fails GNG by a mile. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nigej....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:53, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NIILM CMS[edit]

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

A private, tertiary, degree non-awarding institution which has no inherent notability and does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as no WP:RS satisfying ORGDEPTH was found with a WP:BEFORE. I have cleaned up the advertising cruft. VV 12:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. VV 12:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. VV 12:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 12:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 12:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-03 ITS Engineering College ✗ delete

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABES Institute of Technology[edit]

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

A private, tertiary, degree non-awarding institution which has no inherent notability and does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as no WP:RS satisfying ORGDEPTH was found with a WP:BEFORE. I have cleaned up the advertising cruft. Creator is an SPA. VV 12:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. VV 12:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 12:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. VV 12:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 12:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Promotional appearance and fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:NCORP, being private educational institution. Chirota (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for sources turned up non-reliable sources and a few mentions in comprehensive databases. I could not find any indepth reliable sourcing that we would need to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NORG; only self-published and unreliable sources available Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't see further discussion being likely to establish a consensus given the fundamental disagreement displayed here about whether or not current sources satisfy notability requirements. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's Ice Cream Bowl[edit]

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

CSD removed and now DEPRODed , fails clearly WP:NCORP and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Google News searches not turning up non-local coverage of sufficient length (outside of the Columbus, Ohio area). –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae @CommanderWaterford I'm not sure if this would count, but the parlor was the site of one of one of Mitt Romney's rally's, getting coverage on Today. https://www.today.com/food/food-trail-why-obama-romney-must-visit-diner-flna1C6610948 SingingZach (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, businesses and buildings aren't notable merely for hosting notable people. TAXIDICAE💰 17:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The White House is not notable because it's painted white but because it houses the US President. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the whitehouse is notable because of its longstanding history and the fact that there are thousands of books written solely about it. What an absurd comment. TAXIDICAE💰 18:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
👍 I think the previous ("...because it is painted white...) was the most absurd comment I have read here at WK so far. And that means a lot. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of new non-local sources: 1) Humphrey Slocombe Ice Cream Book - N does not have significant coverage. 2) Newsweek 1998 - N does not have significant coverage. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG having been featured on national TV with further detailed coverage in a variety of books and other sources per the search links above. As a distinctive and outstanding feature of Zanesville, the worst case would be merger into our page about that small town but I consider the page to be best left as is. Applicable policies include WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's featured in numerous books in GBooks and shows up in a few articles in Newsweek and Country Living. Tons of mentions in the local paper. It's even been featured in some works of fiction to help establish the setting. I think it's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b We would be very happy to see all those Book Citations, best within the article. Local coverage is not relevant to provide sufficient notability. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @CommanderWaterford Newsweek and Country Living are notable secondary sources, there are about 10 tertiary sources, that put together, help establish notability. It's also been on a TV show, featured in books and hundreds of local citations. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been featured on national TV as well as being very popular with the city and surrounding area. -- SingingZach (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SingingZach Please be aware that local coverage is not relevant to provide sufficient notability. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CommanderWaterford: Actually, for companies and organizations, local coverage is usable to establish notability, as long as that coverage is independent, significant, and from a reliable source, and provided that WP:AUD is met. Please note that WP:AUD is part of the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) page, and states that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". WP:AUD does not state that all of the sources must be at least regional (et al.), only that one of them needs to be. This is important because you come across as dismissing any sources that are local in nature, but as long as WP:AUD is satisfied with at least one non-local reliable source being available that provides independent, significant coverage, reliable local sources that provide said independent, significant coverage are usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Featured on national TV, extremely popular in Ohio with significant local coverage. Mukedits (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you'll be able to provide those sources? An appearance on the Food Network is not coverage. TAXIDICAE💰 16:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mukilteoedits Please be aware that local coverage is not relevant to provide sufficient notability. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A variety of coverage has been supplied including national news, TV and books. The nominator needs to explain why they failed to follow WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did follow a before and found that the hyper local coverage is insufficient and just appearing in books is irrelevant unless the books are reliable themselves. Anyone can self publish a book and it's appearance in fiction is irrelevant unless it's the subject of actual coverage itself. If I write about my favorite corner store in my self-published fanfiction on Amazon, it doesn't make it notable. TAXIDICAE💰 18:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons cited above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to the Newsweek and Country Living articles, it's been featured in the New York Daily News (https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/ohio-proves-great-destination-short-family-trip-article-1.2348036), in the Cincinnati Enquirer (but the site is behind a paywall), an Australian monthly (https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2008/december/1350949737/don-watson/once-upon-time-america#mtr), a few news stories on TV (https://news.wosu.org/news/2018-07-05/you-can-now-follow-a-trail-of-ice-cream-across-ohio) and an AP newswire feature in the Seattle Times (https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/candidates-hungry-for-votes-show-up-for-ohio-food-favorites/). It's been seen, written about and talked about. These are all more than enough for notability IMHO. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I mentioned to the nom elsewhere that the wording of the prod tag was decidedly off; the A7 removal wasn't at all incomprehensible, and the subject seemed to pass GNG. I didn't remove the tag myself, because I was unsure whether it passed NCORP and had no enthusiasm to start drama. Further discussion here, combined with the expansion of the article, leaves me more confident of an NCORP pass. Vaticidalprophet 05:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very interesting for us but unfortunately you do not mention with a single word why exactly do you think the article passes GNG. You thought of being unsure that it passes NCORP but you seemed to be sure that it deserved of being DEPRODED. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do know that we have reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure if what we have would be "secondary sources" though, although I believe that I had stumbled across some in some searches about this place. I think where this article falls a bit short on is "Significant Coverage". I do know it has been featured on a national news website, but other than that, I can't find anything else that covers it outside of just local newspapers and websites. I bet there's more out there just that I haven't searched enough to get to it. SingingZach (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 30 sources referenced show that this single shop has a following in the State of Ohio, around the USA (in national media), and even in Australia. Easily meets WP:GNG. Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first, being mentioned on a national tv show in and of itself does not necessarily equate with significant non-local coverage. Second, has anyone ever checked to see if this "national tv program" actually aired? Turns out it did, not on the Food Network, but on the Cooking Channel, and consisted of a 3 minute segment. This is hardly significant coverage. As such, fails WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've overlooked this. Today is national TV.

That you say that the food network's show didn't air is WP:OR. And is contradicted by "Tom's Ice Cream Bowl" (Video). Ice Cream Nation. The Cooking Channel. July 17, 2017 – via YouTube.

Given the present state of the article WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't pass WP:NCORP. The first five reference fail WP:ORGIND. A very small private business. Regarding the reference above, 2 comments above, it states in the profile, not a reference, It was a good PR move. Our name got out there all over the country. So most of these reference are PR and paid for news. I don't see a single source that doesn't fail WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Youtube video above has 7k. It might as well be invisible for the reach it has. If it has 700k views, fair enough. But it is not. scope_creep^Talk 12:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my earlier comments and Scope's. This might be locally popular, but so is my local corner store and several local restaurants, many of which were featured on full length episodes on The Food Network - however, none of them, including Tom's, have been the subject of non-trivial coverage. TAXIDICAE💰 13:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a nice little article about a nice little spot in a nice little town, leave it alone. It is not advertising and a lot of editors have put work into it. In these troubled times Ohio needs all the good vibes it can get. Why not let this be a part of that? Carptrash (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else that voted deleted. Especially Scoop. Clearly this isn't notable outside of the local area and what small national coverage it did get was a PR thing more then anything else. Like Scoop says, if the Food Network segment had thousands of views and there hasn't been hundreds of other local corner stores and restaurants that were also featured on Food Network then maybe I'd vote keep based on that, but there's nothing to make this any more particularly notable then any of the others that have been featured on the network. Likely whatever coverage in other outlets it got were more a function of it being on a TV show then anything else to and notability isn't inherited. I think that's clear in the fact that 99% of the article about it are from after it was featured on the show or the whole Mitt Romney visit thing. It's not inherently notable just because a presidential candidate went there either BTW. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wince, Lori (1998-07-25). "Zanesville ice cream shop named one of the best". Coshocton Tribune. Thomson News Service. Archived from the original on 2021-04-26. Retrieved 2021-04-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes that USA Today named Tom's Ice Cream Bowl in Zanesville as one of the best places for ice cream. It was founded in 1948 by Jack Hemmer and Tom Mirgon, two cousins. The ice cream shop relocated to McIntire Avenue in 1950. In 1984, the current owner Bill Sullivan purchased it.
2. Kull, Hayden (2017-06-14). "Food Network to film at Tom's Ice Cream Bowl on Wednesday". Coshocton Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-04-26. Retrieved 2021-04-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes that Tom's Ice Cream Bowl was founded by Tom Mirgon and was "named as the top place in the country to get ice cream by USA Today". The article further notes that the Food Network would be "filming a pilot for its new show 'Ice Cream Nation,' at Tom's Ice Cream Bowl Wednesday that will air on July 21."
3. "Taste the Season". Ohio Magazine. Vol. 28, no. 14. Cleveland, Ohio: Great Lakes Publishing. March 2006. p. 75. ISSN 0279-3504.
  The abstract notes, "The article reports on the traditional services of the ice cream parlor Tom's Ice Cream Bowl in Zanesville, Ohio. The parlor creates homemade ice cream served in dishes that look like soup bowls. Furthermore, Tom's will be stocking springtime ice cream favorites that includes lime sherbet and lemon chip."
4. "Roadside eats. (Sprayberry's Barbecue, Betos, Tom's Ice Cream Bowl) (Restaurant Review)". Country Living. Vol. 26, no. 3. March 2003. p. 64. ISSN 0732-2569.
5. Matthews, Peggy (1992-03-25). "Tom's Ice Cream Bowl will not alter what has made it successful". Times Recorder. Archived from the original on 2021-04-26. Retrieved 2021-04-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes that Tom's Ice Cream Bowl was founded by the cousins Tim Mirgon and Jack Rammer and that "the restaurant gained its reputation because of generous portions of homemade ice cream served in generous sized bowls." The article noted that "Bill Sullivan, the current owner, pledged to never change the name". It was founded in 1948 on Linden Avenue. When it opened, it had four tables and a counter with four seats. It was named Jack Hemmer Ice Cream. After two years, the restaurant moved to 532 McIntire Ave. so it could have more space for customers. After Tom purchased Jack's stake, the restaurant was renamed to have Tom's Ice Cream Bowl in 1957. After Tom retired, Sullivan purchased the restaurant in 1984. Sullivan previously had been its manager.
6. Rudloff, Jim. (1997-02-28). "Zanesville's favorite tradition" (pages 1, 2, and 3). Times Recorder. Archived from the original (pages 1, 2, and 3) on 2021-04-26 Retrieved 2021-04-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  This is an extensive three-page profile of Tom's Ice Cream Bowl.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tom's Ice Cream Bowl to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles from Thomson News Service (national coverage), Country Living (national coverage), and Cleveland, Ohio-based Ohio Magazine (statewide coverage) allow Tom's Ice Cream Bowl to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, 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.
The local newspaper Times Recorder has extensively profiled Tom's Ice Cream Bowl. Tom's Ice Cream Bowl has received sustained coverage over a period of several decades with sources published in 1992, 1997, 1998, 2003, 2006, and 2017.
Cunard (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 08:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MUSLIM Institute Islamabad, Pakistan[edit]

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

Non-notable 'research institute'; despite the heavy refbombing, the sources are close and/or primary, or passing incidental mentions, and don't satisfy WP:GNG notability or even basic verifiability, to say nothing of the promotional nature of the whole piece.

It looks like this was earlier draftified, republished, speedied, and has now been re-republished, so if this AfD results in delete, my suggestion would be to salt it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create, 2021-03 ✗ G11, 2021-03 move to → Draft:MUSLIM Institute Islamabad, Pakistan

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to recreation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry I just can’t face ploughing through all that stuff. Mccapra (talk) 17:40, 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 keep. ✗plicit 11:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratna Ghoshal[edit]

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

Not able to find source about her. Does not meet criteria Parthhalder (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Parthhalder (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator has proceeded without WP:BEFORE. The person clearly passes WP:ENT and WP:GNG verified by WP:RS listed in the article itself. I am neither connected nor subject to WP:COI or WP:UPE. I have decided to create and expand redirects only I found them to be notable enough. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak Keep: I cannot accept that the subject easily passes GNG. None of the sources in the article are actually able to give her enough sigcov. They are actually talking about the movies and TV shows which she was a part of. So general GNG criteria is not met. I said week keep in the sense that she had some notable roles in multiple number of television show. So she may barely pass NACTOR. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:ENT. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered in various Indian secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : has appeared in loads of notable films and television series. Plenty of sources. Furius (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ENT Sonofstar (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and an added source for her latest significant role in a notable work; she also is one of the subjects of a documentary. Beccaynr (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ENT as per all. Articuno appears (talk) 12:44, 22 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 15:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anushree Das[edit]

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

I am not able to find news coverage about this person. Doesn't meet criteria. Parthhalder (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Parthhalder (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator has proceeded without WP:BEFORE. The person clearly passes WP:ENT and WP:GNG verified by WP:RS listed in the article itself. I am neither connected nor subject to WP:COI or WP:UPE. I have decided to create and expand redirects only I found them to be notable enough. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide WP:THREE reliable sources addressing Das in depth? Thanks Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Here are below:

সংবাদদাতা, নিজস্ব (5 April 2021). "কোভিড আক্রান্ত অনুশ্রী, বাড়িতেই স্বেচ্ছাবন্দি অভিনেত্রী". www.anandabazar.com (in Bengali). Anandabazar Patrika. is entirely about her current projects being not attended due to contraction of COVID-19.
"8:08 er Bonga Local Movie Review {3.5/5}: Critic Review of 8:08 er Bonga Local by Times of India". Times of India. 18 May 2016. mentions While the first half of the film is quite gripping thanks to the performances of Anushree Das and Manoj Mitra (who is so restrained in the role of Das’ father), the drama heightens later on when the film runs the risk of getting a little melodramatic.
"Khorkuto: Soujanya and Gungun to get married? - Times of India". The Times of India. 14 September 2020. mentions It has a very strong starcast which includes Dulal Lahiri, Ratna Ghoshal, Chandan Sen, Sohini Sengupta, Ambarish Bhattacharya, Anushree Das and others.

I would argue that only the first source shows any amount of significant coverage. The second two merely mention her once and then swiftly moves on to something else. As per WP:SIGCOV, this seems to fit the description of a 'trivial mention'. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the actress passes WP:ENT where she has acted in significant roles both as lead and supporting raging career more than a decade and has a huge fanbase. Also all the episodes and old films are freely available on the internet and one can verify her work. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence to support the fanbase or the fact that her roles are significant? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She was the lead female actress in Bourani (1991), Rupban Kanya (1992) films and performing significant roles in Sreemoyee and Khorkuto TV soap operas. Run n Fly (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: From my assessment, most of the sources are about the movies and all. I will say the subject does not have any sigcov. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Run n Fly - passes WP:ENT. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NACTOR says we need multiple lead roles in multiple notable films. Most of the feature films she acted seem non notable. I think same is true for the television series as well. Also, the WP:THREE provided above do not seem not independent and reliable, also fails to discuss the actress exclusively. Chirota (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, changing my vote per below rationale. Chirota (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But, she passes WP:ENT as she has performed and doing significant roles in multiple WP:NTV soap operas. The films that she acted as lead roles lacks online resources because only print resources were available and digitalized versions are unavailable. But she is indeed a notable TV actress performing important roles in Sreemoyee^[3] and Khorkuto^[4]^[5] and has done similar roles in Mohor (TV series)^[4], Phagun Bou, Bajlo Tomar Alor Benu etc. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://lifestyle.mykmlk.com/story/43680445/dj-phellix-an-iranian-dj-and-music-producer-announces-release-of-new-hit-and-official-music-video
^ https://www.scoop.it/topic/press-release-by-press-pod
^ "Bengali daily soap 'Sreemoyee' crosses 300 episodes - Times of India". The Times of India. 26 June 2020.
^ ^a ^b Samadder, Tulika (6 April 2021). "করোনা পজিটিভ 'মোহর', 'খড়কুটো'-খ্যাত অনুশ্রী, বলিউডের পর টলিউডেও করোনার থাবা". Hindustan Times Bangla (in Bengali). Hindustan Times.
^ সংবাদদাতা, নিজস্ব. "১০০ পর্বে 'খড়কুটো', অতিমারি মনে পড়িয়ে দিচ্ছে ফেলে আসা যৌথ পরিবার?". www.anandabazar.com (in Bengali). Anandabazar Patrika. Retrieved 17 April 2021.

Keep: Coverage in Indian languages counts too. Bengali sources are not easily accessible over the English Google.--Ipigott (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant roles in multiple notable films and TV shows. Questions about notability are only arising because of the language barrier. Note that her name also appears at times at "Anusree Das" (she appears to be listed under this name in the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema [10], but for me the preview doesn't show exactly what that source says about her). Furius (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furius, same is published here at National Film Festival Volumes 42-44 (1995) published by Directorate of Film Festivals, Government of India. As per my analysis its about the film Amodini (1994) cast. Run n Fly (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: missed WP:Before by the nominator. Sonofstar (talk) 10:20, 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) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malabika Sen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The creator is doing research work like he is using other persons coverage who is also Malabika, using youtube links, a d trying to prove that the person is notable enough. Parthhalder (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator has proceeded without WP:BEFORE. The person clearly passes WP:ENT and WP:GNG verified by WP:RS listed in the article itself. I am neither connected nor subject to WP:COI or WP:UPE. I have decided to create and expand redirects only I found them to be notable enough. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have not impersonated. Its the same 'Malabika' Sen where Bengali speaking people do spell her name as 'Malobika'. All the references are of the same person only. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass GNG based on its very many refs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I tried to clean another article Anushree Das, created by the same creator of this article. Leaving this article clean up on someone else. It has many unreliable sources. I did not find any notable fact about the actress/dancer. No in-depth coverage for her at all, no way passing WP:NACTOR nor passing WP:GNG as the references provided only make passing mentions. Chirota (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But, she passes WP:ENT as she has performed and doing significant roles in multiple WP:NTV soap operas mentioned in the article with proper sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Run n Fly (talk • contribs) 14:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I discovered her being the model for mudras in this book → Thankamani, Kutty (2019). Bharatanatyam. Prism Books Private Limited. ISBN 978-93-88478-16-8., but cannot present it because images are hidden in the preview of Google Books. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please find some selected WP:RS (from India, Bangladesh and France) presented in the article that passes WP:GNG below

Vidyarthi, Nita (20 July 2017). "A reperotire that captured Kolkata's flavour". The Hindu. mentions Disciple Malabika Sen mesmerised with her solos. Juxtaposing two keertanams in praise of ‘Dakshinamurty’ and ‘Nadabrahmani Mata Durga’, Malabika brought out the artistic, poetic and religious significance.
সংবাদদাতা, নিজস্ব (12 December 2018). "আগের থেকে সুস্থ পৌলোমী-মালবিকা". www.anandabazar.com (in Bengali). Anandabazar Patrika. is all about her family tragedy that describes her daughter's sucide attempt and attempt to kill her mother Malabika Sen.
Sen, Zinia (11 August 2011). "The magic of dance drama in Kolkata - Times of India". The Times of India. mentions Malabika Sen, in the title role, looked every bit the part, effortlessly venting the angst on being treated like contamination by the milk vendor, bangle seller and flower girl and later, transforming into an epitome of love and longing on being awakened to consciousness of her rights as a woman by Ananda, a follower of Lord Buddha, who accepts water from her hand and teaches her to not judge herself by the artificial values of society.
Sen, Zinia (10 July 2018). "Danseuse Malabika Sen takes up acting - Times of India". The Times of India. is all about her and mentions Danseuse Malabika Sen, who was earlier seen in a bit role in Posto, plays the protagonist in Rema Bose’s Bhagshesh.
"Need for equality under spotlight". The Daily Star. 12 March 2012. mentions Malabika Sen donned the role of Prakriti while Anita Mallick and Sambaditya Das enacted the roles of Prakriti's mother and Ananda respectively.
"Malabika Sen | Indian Council for Cultural Relations". www.iccr.gov.in. ICCR. Retrieved 11 April 2021. is about her being an empaneled artist at Indian Council for Cultural Relations.
"Malabika Sen à l'auditorium du musée Guimet". www.indeaparis.com (in French). Retrieved 11 April 2021. is about her performance at Guimet Museum, Paris in 2008.
Paul, Ushnota (16 March 2017). "Filmfare exclusive: On the set of Posto". filmfare.com. Filmfare. Retrieved 11 April 2021. mentions Renowned classical dancer Malabika Sen who’s playing one of the teachers laughs and says, “Nandita di likes a natural look, so she instructed me to not have even a hint of kajal in my eyes. I’m more decked up in real life.”
Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Brief coverage in multiple secondary sources is sufficient for general notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's fine - clearly notable and soured Lajmmoore (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG as per available sources and all above. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Japan FM League. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 100 (Japan FM League)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, unclear context and purpose ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove or redirect to Japan FM League. Couldn't find any reliable sources. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Japan FM League: Per nominator. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debottam Majumdar[edit]

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

The creator of the article is doing some personal research work. Like the editor is using youtube link, hottar link, tv channel website link to prove that the person is motable work. I think he is doing paid work. Parthhalder (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Parthhalder (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator has proceeded without WP:BEFORE. The person clearly passes WP:ENT and WP:GNG verified by WP:RS listed in the article itself. I am neither connected nor subject to WP:COI or WP:UPE. I have decided to create and expand redirects only I found them to be notable enough. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be enough good sources mixed in with the weaker ones to show that the subject meets notability guidelines, and you "thinking" that someone is being paid isn't a valid reason for deletion. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - feel free to remove weaker refs but it seems as though there's enough good sources (taking a brief look I mainly see news sites) that this is worth keeping. Remagoxer (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on standards of a foreign actor, she meets WP:NACTOR, some of these source may be considered non notable if it was for a US actor.Peter303x (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when I reviewed the article, it was clear that they passed WP:NACTOR. Not seeing any indications of UPE here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:09, 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 J-Wave. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tokio Hot 100[edit]

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

This is a WP:SINGLEVENDOR chart, not an official national chart. As such its not as notable as the Japan Hot 100 (Billboard) or the Oricon Japan Charts, both of which are full national charts. Not found much coverage supporting WP:GNG either. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Japan FM League: Per nominator. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to J-Wave - fails WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, and is not the main chart of Japan. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While there was a consensus that the subject is not a hoax, whether it is notable and whether the subject falls under WP:NOT is unclear. A speedy re-nomination based on the above reasons would be reasonable. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Workshop for Non-Linear Architecture[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE finds only mirrors of Wikipedia. Likely hoax. Fiddle Faddle 05:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding plenty of mentions in a variety of sources, e.g. [11][12][13][14][15][16]. None of these are in-depth and not all of them are reliable, but they do appear to be independent of Wikipedia so while I'm leaning heavily towards it being insufficiently notable for an article I am convinced it is not a haox. It would not surprise me if there was something here that would be suitable for merging into an article like psychogeography, especially if someone has access to specialist sources. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fiddle Faddle 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems the only question is if it's a hoax, and Timtrent's research seems to show that it's not. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced it's not a hoax, I'm not convinced WP:GNG is met. Brought up only a couple hits in online scholarly sources, but not entirely sure what to recommend. SportingFlyer T·C 18:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be borderline promotional given that it makes repeated references to "Stewart Home" including inline ELs to his work (now removed), his webpage, and all the citations are pretty much to him as well. It also seems to attract a remarkable number of single-purpose accounts. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 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 keep. However, sources found here should ideally be added to the article. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow (bodybuilder)[edit]

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

Falls very short of WP:BIO standards. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, the subject seems to be notable by virtue of coverage in independent sources as a bodybuilder (featured in three magazines in the 80s). It does seem like winning Miss Exotic World is a major award in this niche as well, although a little hard to evaluate. The issue with the article seems to be sourcing, not one of notability. For example, Muscle & Fitnesss online archives only go back to 1998, so digital copies of this source for verification may not exist. Is there a reason you think these sources are unlikely to constitute notable coverage? Suriname0 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GMV is not a source - it is a video label. Women's Physique World is a sketchy source, at best. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see any issues with the sources themselves. Finding them online isn't ever going to be straightforward for something as niche as women bodybuilders in the early 1980s, but I can find multiple Women's Physique World articles linked here, one of which can be read here and here . -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found several sources:

"PAPA JOE'S WOMEN"; January 15, 1987; Anchorage Daily News (AK); Author: DEBBIE McKINNEY; Page: E1 (Interview and background; over 1000 words about Pillow)
"THE STRIPPING LIFE LOSING ITS APPEAL"; February 20, 1990; Anchorage Daily News (AK); SHEILA TOOMEY; Page: D1 (742 word article about Pillow)
'Pillow' case: 2 actress claim name; November 3, 1991; Daily Breeze (Torrance, CA) Author: Pat Alston | Page: A3 (338 word article about dispute between Bell and Faye Baker over use of the name "Pillow")
Burlesque Hall of Fame (link)
Strip City, A Stripper's Farewell Journey Across America (2003) by Lily Burana (I can only see a snippet so am not sure how much about Pillow is in there)
There are also a number of other shorter mentions in the Alaskan press that could be used to add details to the article.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is also this CBC article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I found more coverage in The Gold's Gym Book of Bodybuilding, here. It's a snippet view, so difficult to ascertain. Below is the snippet from the Google search results that led to the book source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow so OS One of the most remarkably muscular women to ever step on a stage at a bodybuilding competition , Pillow ( the only name she uses ) won the Ms . Alaska title , then moved to southern California both for the sun and to train at ...

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rukma Roy[edit]

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

Lack of references that is why the creator is using Ott link, hotstar link, and trying to prove that the person is notable.Parthhalder (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Parthhalder (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep the nominator has proceeded without WP:BEFORE. The person clearly passes WP:ENT and WP:GNG verified by WP:RS listed in the article itself. I am neither connected nor subject to WP:COI or WP:UPE. I have decided to create and expand redirects only I found them to be notable enough. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Passes GNG - e.g. the Times of India refs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in several secondary sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The secondary source references seem abundant. Innisfree987 (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The subject has a lot of secondary sources, passes WP:GNG also passes WP:NACTOR. Bengal Boy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D. J. Baxendale[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player, fails WP:NBASE. Minor league players can be notable but need to demonstrate a level of notability beyond routine coverage. There's lots of routine coverage sourced in the article that you see of minor league players, game reports and prospect reports, and there's lots of hits of mentions claiming he pitched in various minor league games, but I don't think any coverage of him rises beyond routine game reports/prospect reports. He did play in a couple early games of the College World Series which was reported nationally, but I could only find match report coverage of those as well. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom - I agree with all the points Sporting made. This page can be recreated if he ever makes the majors, as he has played in 4 seasons in the Triple-AAA level. Until then, coverage of him seems routine for a minor league player and doesn’t warrant a page. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 23:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the kind of sourcing that would establish notability under either GNG or NBASE with existing coverage mostly routine for baseball players. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redouan Assermouh[edit]

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

Non-notable comedian, sources cited are mostly YouTube or other primary / unreliable, and a search finds nothing beyond social media etc. The only RS one (MarocHebdo) is nowhere near enough sigcov; hence fails WP:GNG. Nothing in the article that suggests WP:ENTERTAINER notability, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 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 keep. Weak consensus consider existing sources sufficient. However, adding sources here to the article are strongly encouraged to avoid potential re-nominations. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mania velichia[edit]

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

There's some blog coverage, but not enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable references to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NALBUM, was redirected, but the redirection was objected to, without rationale or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The album is well covered in several books about the band, as well as in many interviews, and it is included in "100 best albums of Soviet rock", released as a book. The sources don't necessarily have to be in English. Beaumain (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Beaumain: Can you present said sources? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of them are on Google books:
- 100 magnetoalbums of Soviet rock by A. Kushnir
- Aria: The Legend of Dinosaur (biography), by Dylan Troy
- Aria: The Legend Reborn (an authorized biography)
- Beaumain (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the basis of sources provided by User:Beaumain Ingratis (talk) 15:00, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Momele[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." If so, I wish they had been added to the article. Which right now only has 2 press releases, an interview, and a couple of brief mentions. Does not meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a whole review! Meet WP:NALBUM. Last time you deleted an album that had four reviews! --Sanslogique (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay, one more time for the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tamara Gverdtsiteli as a compromise, and that is standard procedure for questionably notable albums anyway. I am unable to find anything in Russian or Georgian beyond the sources already in the article, but that may reflect my foreign language searching skills. I reviewed the current sources via Google Translate and agree with the nominator on how they are brief press releases from questionably reliable sources, a review that might be reliable but might not, and an interview with the singer in which this album is only mentioned briefly. Redirect to the singer per the usual procedure, and if anyone finds anything more reliable the article can be re-created easily. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has occurred. Sources were presented later in the discussion countering the nomination, but the nominator and user !voting for deletion have not revisited the discussion to provide any commentary or input regarding those sources and the guideline-based rationale provided for article retention relative to those sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HRnetGroup[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for a recruitment company. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✗ G11

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:NCORP, sources are limited to trivial business activities and PR. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

Analyst reports

https://sginvestors.io/sgx/stock/chz-hrnetgroup/analyst-report^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports. Here are four of the analyst reports from three different firms:
1. "HRNetGroup Ltd". DBS Bank. 2020-08-12. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  The analyst report notes: "HRnetGroup is the largest recruitment agency in the Asia Pacific (excluding Japan), according to Frost & Sullivan. The Group operates in 13 Asian growth cities, with its headquarters in Singapore. It has two operating segments, namely Professional Recruitment and Flexible Staffing."
2. Seet, Jarick (2021-03-03). "HRnetGroup - RHB Invest 2021-03-03: Proxy To Economic Recovery; Keep BUY". RHB Invest. RHB Bank. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19 – via SG Investors.
  The analyst report notes: "2020 was a tough year for HRnetGroup due to COVID-19, as hiring decelerated – as evidenced by its decreased number of job placements, which led to a decline in revenue from professional staffing. However, with many countries expected to see an economic recovery this year, hiring should rebound – and this should benefit the company. As such, we lift HRnetGroup's FY21 earnings forecast by 15%."
3. Ong, Darren; Lim, Siew Khee (2021-03-01). "HRnetGroup - CGS-CIMB Research 2021-03-01: Forging Ahead In FY21; Reiterate ADD With Higher Target Price". CGS-CIMB Securities. China Galaxy Securities. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19 – via SG Investors.
  The analyst report notes: "Flexible staffing volume came in at a high of 14,347 (+14% y-o-y), stronger than we expected. HRnetGroup's FY20 core profit above our/consensus forecasts. Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) could potentially lift our HRnetGroup's FY21F core profit forecast of S$47.9m by 2.8%-28.3%. Reiterate ADD on HRnetGroup, with a higher target price of S$0.70, as hiring activities accelerate in FY21F from job creation."
4. Yeo, Alfie; Sim, Andy (2020-08-13). "HRnetGroup - DBS Research 2020-08-13: Cautious Outlook As Job Cuts Loom". DBS Vickers. DBS Bank. Retrieved 2021-04-19 – via SG Investors.
  The analyst report notes: "HRnet Group's 1H20 earnings below expectations on lower permanent placements. Weak GDP dampens earnings growth potential. Cut FY20-21F earnings by 17-20% on weak outlook."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow HRNetGroup to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:34, 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. ✗plicit 11:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VMQ[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence that this meets any criteria in WP:NOTABILITY. No obvious WP:ATD, this page is an orphan. Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried a BEFORE search ("Virtual Machine Queue" -wikipedia) and found no independent sources. In case someone does find an RS, draftify while the article is made clearer, the copy-pasted section from the documentation is rewritten, and the article is extended.

Delete A WP:BEFORE shows no coverage fails GNG. Articuno appears (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong (British band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND; I can't find anything about this group online, let alone significant coverage. Even if the Manchester Evening News did report on them as the article claims, it's probably not enough to establish notability. Lennart97 (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any sources which show notability. The article as it is seems mostly original research and a third of it is about Jason Orange rather than the band itself. Suonii180 (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for the band and lead singer's name together in the British Newspaper Archive, newspapers.com, and NewsBank, and got zero results. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE shows no coverage fails GNG. Articuno appears (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Strap-Ons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NBAND. Currently sourced by a couple of blurbs from Maximum Rocknroll, the usual Allmusic listing, a primary source and a non-reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their appearance at AllMusic.com suggests they are notable. In fact they have three albums listed there. (Discogs.com has 11 records listed, but of course we're not allowed to use that as a source.) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMUSIC.-KH-1 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable coverage fails GNG and NMUSIC. Articuno appears (talk) 12:36, 22 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 Linacre College, Oxford as Linacre College redirects there. ✗plicit 05:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linacre College Boat Club[edit]

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

Current independent sourcing is a 'British Rowing' listing of the club with minimal information. Searching finds similar inclusion in lists of boat clubs and brief mention in lists of crews participating in events. No significant independent coverage located. Fails to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Redirect to Linacre College. Gab4gab (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here is enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is for deletion, an administrator hitting the delete button that non-administrators do not have. It is in the name. ☺ Redirects are enacted with the editing tool that even editors without accounts have. Ironically, a redirect takes one third of the edits that an AFD nomination does. Please do not bring redirects to AFD. Uncle G (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no problem with bringing a contested redirect (as this one was) to AfD. AfD very often leads to a decision to merge and redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - A contested proposed deletion, but not a contested redirect. That's for article talk pages. AFD is about deciding when the delete button gets hit. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However Wikipedia policy says "Suitable venues for seeking a consensus if a redirection is challenged include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion."
Redirect - likely as a search term but not notable independently of the college. Worth discussing here, as some editors (see above) would opt to delete it entirely. Ingratis (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Linacre College, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG, a search reveals no WP:SIGCOV. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Linacre College, as per all. Articuno appears (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jais Malsarani[edit]

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

Short version: Did not play for the national team and fails WP:NFOOTBALL.

Long version: Problems with WP:Verifiability. The question is, did he really play for the international team? I know that one source says so, mentioning his name in passing, but I'm having trouble corroborating that information.

Soccerway, which sometimes has complete information and sometimes nowhere near complete info, informs of him playing for youth teams, but not the senior international team. National Football Teams, usually better than Soccerway, has no entry for Malsarani and also includes Vanuatu's full lineup for the match in question against Fiji, without Malsarani's name. Footballcritic has Malsarani as an unused substitute, could it be that he "made his debut in the squad" but not in the actual game? It seems to. Needless to say, there are no other parameters whereby Malsarani could qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I trust National Football Teams on these matters. It's highly unlikely that he played in that match given what the reliable sources are saying, far more likely that he was an unused substitute, therefore not meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. It appears that his notability rests solely on this as well as I could find nothing even close to WP:GNG coverage on him. The article was probably a result of a good faith misunderstanding. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Global Sports Archive lists him as an unused sub in that match. They show him as having been an unused substitute twice, without ever making an actual appearance. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator fails GNGAloolkaparatha (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Underwood Park, California[edit]

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

Now also called the Drive Thru Tree Park, it is the home of the Chandelier Tree marked on some topo maps, which is the tree you can drive through if your vehicle is small enough. It is a literal privately run park, started by the Underwoods back in the 1920s. It is a fairly minor attraction as things go, and certainly not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss. There's nothing about the park that is in-depth and independent. I then thought that it could be refactored into an article about the tree, but the tourist guides only point to it and don't give any actual in-depth information, and the sources about the trees only give it a mention as a well-known example of Sequoiadendron giganteum. Uncle G (talk) 10:26, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Oak Park, California[edit]

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

My first stop in Mendocino County turns out to have a somewhat interesting history: according to its website, it started out as an auto camp in 1928, but more recently has been turned into a facility to support AIDS patients. The topos are consistent with this, as they show the very typical rows of buildings of such a facility. All that said, book hits come up with essentially nothing useful, and I did not find enough references to this place as it now exists to claim notability for it. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can find out more about Lewis A. Spengler (who ran the park), albeit not enough for a biography, than I can about the actual park itself. There's one biography, by the U.S. Weather Bureau, and no others nor enough supporting material elsewhere. I always want multiple sources. The park itself? Well pretty much nothing substantial, only the mention in Spengler's biography. ☺ And I mistrust the park's own WWW site because it disagrees with the U.S. Weather Bureau on years. Uncle G (talk) 09:50, 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 merge to DoNotPay. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Browder[edit]

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

The article primarily covers the accomplishments and development of DoNotPay. The subject isn't notable as a standalone article for inclusion in Wikipedia. The bulk of the article covers the product, not the person. Delete and merge with DoNotPay. Ew3234 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with DoNotPay: Nom has it correct. Unless rewritten to be about Browder this cannot stand. Browder cannot inherit notability from his app Fiddle Faddle 16:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DoNotPAy this is a clear case of coatriacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DoNotPay as per all. Purosinaloense T/K 10:13, 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 redirect to Education in Perinthalmanna. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MEA Engineering College, Perinthalmanna[edit]

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

Nothing showed up on doing a WP:Before, which gives enough sigcov to establish GNG other than the college website. Fails notability criteria Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-01 ✗ G11

Delete Found a source but seems to be a PR gimmick. [17]. Not enough to qualify WP:ORG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Education in Perinthalmanna. Ingratis (talk) 15:12, 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 no consensus due to a lack of participation. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Courte[edit]

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

Biography of a journalist and activist, not adequately referenced as passing our inclusion standards for journalists or activists. The only references here are the biographical sketches attached to an archival fonds and a portrait -- but neither having his personal papers preserved as an archival fonds nor the existence of a portrait are notability claims in and of themselves, and none of the work summarized in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have been the subject of actual reliable source coverage by journalists in media outlets or books. And even on a WP:BEFORE search for other sources, all I can find is a couple of glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things, with no evidence of any sources that are actually about him for the purposes of establishing his notability. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has a lengthy entry here in Who's who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History: From World War II to the Present Day by Robert Aldrich and was an Honor Roll Inductee in 1998 for his work with AIDS for the Ontario AIDS Network (link here). His papers/fonds are held in The ArQuives and they have a biography on him here. He has additional fonds at the Quebec Gay Archives (link here), and they also have a biography on him here. The ArQuives states "Everyone who worked in the gay and lesbian community in the 1980s remembers Bernard Courte, journalist for Le Berdache... He was also one of the founding members and then Editor-in-Chief of the magazine Sortie... He was one of the first in Montréal to truly understand the importance of AIDS and its impact upon gay people." (link here). When Gary Kinsman interviewed Ross Higgins, Higgins called Courte a "crucial figure" and "very instrumental in the francophone community in Toronto" (link here). --Kbabej (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being inducted into an organization's own proprietary "honour roll" is not an automatic notability freebie in itself, especially if you have to rely on the organization's own self-published website to source the claim because journalistic coverage about it is non-existent — in order for any award or honour to make its winners notable for winning it, it has to be an award that gets media coverage to establish its notability, so you have to be able to source the claim to journalism in media, where somebody wrote a news article about the presentation of that award, before it counts as a notability claim.

Having his papers held by archives is not a notability claim per se, and the biographical sketches attached to those archives' collections of his papers are not notability-making sources — because by virtue of directly holding a collection of his personal papers, the archives are not fully independent of him.

Transcripts of Q&A interviews, held in PDF form in the private website of an organization and not published in real media, are not notability-supporting sources, and being editor-in-chief of a magazine is not an "inherently" notable job that guarantees a Wikipedia article in the absence of any WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about him.

Notability is not a question of simply being able to show primary sources, like interview transcripts or the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, as technical verification that he did stuff — it lives or dies on the amount of third party journalism that has or hasn't been published about him and the things he's done in media. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I don't agree with your assessment completely, but that's neither here nor there, as I've located additional sources (below) that are standalone news articles in a notable publication. Those, combined with his entry in Who's who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History: From World War II to the Present Day, meet GNG in my opinion. --Kbabej (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found two newspaper articles on newspapers.com. There's an in-depth article on his views on AIDS by Heather Hill of the Montreal Gazette called "AIDS plague spawns epidemic of defeat" (August 13, 1983) (paywalled); there's another in the Montreal Gazette on if the Gazette had been biased in their coverage of a gay story when Courte complained in the article "No bias found in homosexual story: council" (June 10, 1986) (again, paywalled). --Kbabej (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see in my nomination statement, where I said "all I can find is a couple of glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things"? Congratulations, you just found the exact same two articles I was talking about.

They don't change anything, though. "AIDS plague spawns epidemic of defeat" just briefly quotes him as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is the HIV virus, and "No bias found in homosexual story" just mentions his name as the plaintiff in a press council complaint about the tenor of other news reportage in the Montreal Gazette. Neither of them are about him for the purposes of helping to make him notable — we're not looking for how many sources we can find that happen to glancingly namecheck his existence, we're looking for how many sources we can find that have him as their subject: news articles about him winning notable distinctions, critical analysis about the significance of his work, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Additional sources: Xtra reported Courte was one of the inductees in Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archive’s National Portrait Gallery in 2003 (link here). The same organization also holds a shirt with Courte's likeness on it; the same shirt is listed in the Wearing Gay History project (link here). --Kbabej (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which are article-clinching notability claims in the absence of GNG-worthy coverage about him. (The Xtra piece, frex, just glancingly mentions his name in the process of being about Denis Leblanc, and thus is not building Bernard Courte's notability as he is not the subject being written about.) Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely adds toward notability, as the subject is important enough to be added to the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archive’s National Portrait Gallery in 2003. It seems obvious you’re embedded in your position no matter what sources are presented, so I won’t go back and forth any more about this. —Kbabej (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia notability criterion in which "a portrait of him is held in an archive's proprietary commissioned collection" confers an automatic notability freebie that would exempt a person from having to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG. I'm not "embedded in my position no matter what sources are presented", you're failing to show any sources that are about Bernard Courte doing anything that meets a Wikipedia notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 20 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 Warwickshire Cricket Board. ✗plicit 06:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Mohammad[edit]

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

Nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warwickshire Cricket Board Only 1 LA game, very limited in terms of coverage, although some coverage may exist on his minor counties stuff. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD, but would be nice if List of Warwickshire Cricket Board List A players was created. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warwickshire Cricket Board as per above explaining by Rugbyfan22. Purosinaloense T/K 10:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per the above. StickyWicket (talk) 08:49, 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 redirect to Warwickshire Cricket Board. ✗plicit 03:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naheem Sajjad[edit]

(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) 19:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warwickshire Cricket Board Quite an extensive minor level career, but no coverage I can find which suggests he passes GNG. There may be some coverage on his minor counties career locally or offline though. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD, but would be nice if List of Warwickshire Cricket Board List A players was created. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warwickshire Cricket Board as per above. Purosinaloense T/K 10:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Redirect to Warwickshire Cricket Board Kokopelli7309 (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Choudhary[edit]

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

Single significant role, fails WP:NACTOR and sources don't meet WP:GNG criteria. Ravensfire (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail to pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Many IANS PR links are there, which I removed in the past but the page creator undo my edits, might be COI IssueSonofstar (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs multiple lead roles. She got her first for now. But more needed. WP:TOOSOON like many other actors. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough indepth coverage. Purosinaloense T/K 10:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I request the Wikipedian Admins to please look into the Wikipedian Article of the subject Abrar Qazi. Just like the Wikipedian Admins have approved the article Abrar Qazi to be following all the criterion of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way, the article of the subject Priyanka Choudhary too has fulfilled all the criterion necessary for WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content. ——Serial 09:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Plus as Sonofstar has wrongly claimed, this article falls nowhere into WP:TOOSOON. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] Therefore, I put down my opinion to keep this article. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Only one major acting role and lacks in-depth coverage on the subject. TOOSOON. Fails NACTOR. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content. ——Serial 09:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Sunshine1191- No you are wrong. The subject infact has THREE MAJOR ACTING ROLES; which are in Yeh Hai Chahatein (where the subject was playing PARALLEL LEAD till her character was killed); then the lead in an episode of Savdhaan India and at present one of the leads in Udaariyaan. --] (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, that very well proves that the subject has fulfilled WP:NACTOR.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the wikipedia article of the subject has ENOUGH IN-DEPTH COVERAGE ON THE SUBJECT which user Sonofstar had tried to remove for some INVALID, IMMORAL, VAGUE REASONS.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the subject can nowhere be counted as TOOSOON because apart from being part of television shows. The subject has been also part of several musical video projects of the reliable sources are from verified youtube channels. So, that provides for the subject not being TOOSOON and also fulfilling GNG. Thanks --Aleyamma38 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR, and a BEFORE indicates a lack of WP:N based on a dearth of WP:RS. ——Serial 09:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Would just like to state that despite Aleyamma38's repeated attempt at flooding the discussion with the same tedious points and redundant arguments like other stuff exists, in order to sway opinions, I will be sticking with my previously stated opinion that the said article should be Deleted. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dearth of reliable independent sourcing that's actually about the subject. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:13, 21 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. Consensus consider meeting WP:NALBUM C2 sufficient at this time. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Karma (EP)[edit]

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

No reliable sources, and a WP:BEFORE search found nothing of use. versacespace talk to me 00:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. versacespace talk to me 00:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It made the Billboard charts, which is backed up by references to the Billboard site, so that satisfies criterion #2 at WP:NALBUM. However it seems to have gotten no reliable and professional reviews or other useful coverage. If kept, the article needs to be cleaned up with useless Twitter and YouTube sources removed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The charts could be added to the discograpy. Article is fuly based on twitter and Youtube sources, nothing else. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aside from charting on Billboard, I found a few reliable sources which talk about the EP: [18], [19] and [20]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: ref 1 is a student news site, ref 2 is ok, ref 3 is an interview. 1 and 3 do not establish notability. versacespace talk to me 16:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There isn't much here that's reliably sourced other than the chart positions. Only one of these is included in the article on the artist, so unless something more substantial can be found to justify an article, perhaps merging there by adding these chart placings would suffice. --Michig (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Doomsdayer and Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NALBUM #2 due to appearing on the Billboard charts. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Current status meets WP:NALBUM as per above. Articuno appears (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modinagar Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Fails NSCHOOLS as no RS found. Cleaned up advertising content Vikram Vincent 03:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 03:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 03:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 03:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 03:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-03 ITS Engineering College ✗ delete

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:22, 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. Except for Eastern Europeans in the United Kingdom, for which there is no consensus. Sandstein 20:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern European Americans[edit]

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

Including also within the nomimation:

Eastern European Australians
Eastern European Canadians
Eastern Europeans in the United Kingdom

All of these articles make the unsubtantiated claim that "Eastern Europeans" have been recognised as a pan-ethnic group. The articles consist of synth where various mentions of the term "Eastern European" are randomly collected together without much coherence, and fail to substantiate the core premise of the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern European Americans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern European Canadians on articles by the same user and same format also closed as delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SYNTH per the outcome of several recent AfDs on related topics.Mccapra (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As below, Clarityfiend is correct, so the UK article should be kept. Mccapra (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first three, but keep Eastern Europeans in the United Kingdom. That unofficial grouping gets media and scholarly notice, e.g. Britian had influx of eastern Europeans (The Irish Times), Eastern European migrants stop coming to Britain (The Economist), The future of Eastern Europeans in Post-Brexit United Kingdom (EconStor), The effect of Eastern European immigration to the UK on wages, employment and the Brexit vote Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article can provide valuable information to people interested in this specific topic. I believe its inclusion improves the encyclopedia and support keeping it up per WP:BRAR - "If the rules don't correspond to your idea of improving Wikipedia, break them." --Greysonsarch (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greysonsarch: I have nominated 4 articles for deletion, can you clarify your vote? Also you have not expressed a policy based reason for keeping the articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I advocate for keeping the article up. My vote is to keep it. My reason (I'm correcting the Wikipedia rule citation that I wrote above, apologies for its inaccuracy) is that I believe that the rules cited above prevent us from improving and maintaining Wikipedia, as I believe that this article's existence DOES improve the encyclopedia. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." (WP:IGNORE) My vote and opinion is not a personal attack, it's just a vote and an opinion. --Greysonsarch (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Eastern Europeans are quite well recognised as a category – we even had an arbcom case for it. For the primary case of Eastern European Americans, the Library of Congress recognises the category and we have books such as this. The nomination's claim that such Eastern Europeans don't exist is therefore absurd. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons set out in the nomination. This seems to be a ragbag of people from places that were once part of the USSR. What do Belarusians, Ukrainians, Russians and Moldovans have in common that they don't share with Rumanians, Bulgarians and Serbs (not mentioned in the introduction to the Eastern European Americans article)? If membership of the USSR is the criterion, why not Estonians, Latvian and Lithuanians? Athel cb (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first three, weak keep Eastern Europeans in the United Kingdom per the !votes above. Unspecific arguments in the "this is good to keep around" vein are not all that helpful, and a link to a children's book is not sufficient grounds to keep the page Eastern European Americans. Nor is the existence of a LoC category (the people who gather all the books about everything) a reason to keep the article we actually have. WP:SYNTH leads to WP:TNT, even if the label has been used in print somewhere before. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 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 keep. Further discussion about some concerns here regarding promotional tone and the potential to rename the article can continue on the article's talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leher App[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT Kemalcan (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kemalcan.

Leher is a significantly notable Indian startup with more than 35 press coverages. I believe the page should not be deleted, please suggest edits or improvements to avoid deletion of the page.

@Izno has already denied the first deletion request for this page. Siddharth Jaiswal (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Siddharth Jaiswal (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources seem mainly promotional. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Kemalcan (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Like most Indian articles, it needs work, it seems promotional, and it lacks good sources, but it seems pretty okay. It's a social media app, from what I'm reading.

Also, @User:Siddharth4137, if Leher does in fact have "more than 35 press coverages", why don't you add them as references? Properly, of course. AdoTang (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @AdoTang, it's a social media app.

I didn't include a lot of repetitive press mentions to avoid making the article promotional in the first place. As you might have seen on my profile, I'm directly related to Leher (ex-employee) and wanted to be fair with Wikipedia's policies and upkeep.

I would be highly grateful if you can help me include these mentions and quotes from the founder as references and help me improve the article. Siddharth Jaiswal (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if these links will be of enough value to the article, please advise:

https://gadgets.ndtv.com/how-to/features/leher-clubhouse-alternative-india-how-to-sign-up-use-steps-android-iphone-ios-download-2369165

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/made-in-india-apps-woo-users-amid-self-reliance-push/articleshow/81486405.cms (Paywall)

https://www.thequint.com/tech-and-auto/why-are-indians-switching-to-audio-based-platforms

https://ivmpodcasts.com/shunya-one-episode-list/2021/3/5/ep-119-vikas-malpani-co-founder-and-ceo-lehersocializing-in-the-virtual-world

http://everythingexperiential.businessworld.in/article/Democratisation-Of-Influencer-Community-And-Perception-Building/09-03-2021-383297/

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/mc-experteye-are-users-ready-to-move-into-the-next-generation-of-social-media-thanks-to-clubhouse-6354671.html Siddharth Jaiswal (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise on next steps to improve the article and close this with a clearer consensus. Siddharth Jaiswal (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least three instances of sigcov in reliable sources:

Plenty of industry sources as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additionally, on Indian Govt's Startup mission website - https://www.startupindia.gov.in/content/sih/en/reources/startup_india_notes/startup_journeys/leher_app.html Siddharth Jaiswal (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, as per sources presented. Articuno appears (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Leher: Article is good enough to pass WP:NSOFT with reliable sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without supplementing the sources the keep arguments allude to, the assertion that this school is notable remains unsubstantiated. ✗plicit 03:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majilpur J. M. Training School[edit]

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

Mentions, listings, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are some basic sources from a quick search. Therefore, highly likely that sources exist, but they are offline, and quite possibly not in English. Neither of which are reasons to delete this article. 42.110.152.67 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@42.110.152.67: Could you please point out any such sources, particularly if they cover the subject in detail (WP:SIGCOV)? — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Plenty of sourcing, as with any tertiary institution in West Bengal. 42.110.158.21 (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, no references provided satisfy WP:SIGCOV. SunDawn (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the only WP:SECONDARY source I could find for this, and it is probably not significant coverage. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks WP:SIGCOV defcon5 (talk) 05:43, 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. ✗plicit 03:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norah Alawadhi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

She was in a picture, and did a few interviews about the picture. That is pretty much it. She hasn't had enough of a career as an activist or "influencer" to sustain an article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - support for WP:BASIC notability does not appear to exist. Beccaynr (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially a WP:BLP1E. There's no coverage outside the "event" (which probably isn't notable either), and there's no reasonable redirect target. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that Alawadhi is probably not notable, but perhaps the image is? The article could be moved to UAE-Israel peace image? Furius (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete best. She has done nothing with her career to be called an “activist”. Namely, she just stood in a picture. The majority of the people who saw the picture know the picture but not the person in it and rightfully so. Also as a “social media influencer”, she has neither the platform nor the content to be considered one. The entire character is just false and the article is self written.

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Mirolioubova[edit]

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

No evidence of recognition in independent sources; GNG fail. --- Possibly (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only edits of creator, back in 2008, were making this, so likely COI. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing independent significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify notability. Non-notable per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper 18:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Willock[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable, no reliable sources. EpicPupper 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does seam notable as the cyclist competed in the 1984 Summer Olympics. And 'Sports Reference' is a reliable source which is uses in this article.A.A Prinon (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "doesn't seem notable" is not a valid reason for deletion, and the "no reliable sources" is not true either. He competed at the Olympics, so per WP:NOLY meets the notabilty requirements. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Lugnuts. I'd really like to see this article expanded, and I feel a lot of similar ones would do better as list entries than separate articles. (It occurs to me that certain interpretations of "Wikipedia is not a sporting statistics directory" might weaken, rather than improve, our articles.) Still, as notability guidelines are written it does indeed seem notable, and I have to assume any given Olympic athlete has at least the hometown newspaper coverage to add some detail. (Maybe I'll fire up newspapers.com.) Vaticidalprophet 08:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seems to be a decent amount of coverage in Newspapers.com which I'll try to fish through in the next couple of days. We shouldn't be presuming that people aren't notable simply because Google doesn't turn up much about them- especially if they're from the pre-Internet era. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am in shock. This article on an olympian has multiple sources. That is very rare for such articles. Having read through all the biographies of all people in 1926-1928 births, and many in 1925 and 1929 births, plus all in 1940 births, I have encountered so many artilces on olympians with one source that it shocks me to see multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As promised, I have added many more sources from Newspapers.com archive. [21] and [22] in particular are whole articles dedicated to him. Sure there will be way more information in newspapers not available online (Newspapers.com only seems to have about 3 Canadian newspapers with archives in this time period). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:19, 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 merge to Donald Trump in popular culture per WP:TRUMPNOT. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Person, woman, man, camera, TV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus. As I expected, this thing that the former president said has no enduring notability. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it a repository for Trump controversies of the day. Time to move on. KidAd • SPEAK 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Donald Trump in popular culture, since the article primarily details pop culture/celebrity reactions to his use of the phrase. BD2412 T 01:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Not every word that comes out of Trump's mouth is worthy of an article. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, we can keep the information but I do think NOTNEWS applies to the stand alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 16 sources. A lot of content, and it's not filler. Too much to move into an already-bloated Donald Trump in popular culture article. Leave it here. Benicio2020 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources in the article are from a period of just about a week, which violates WP:LASTING. SportingFlyer T·C 14:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. There are two reliable sources from January 2021. Please strike or amend your above comment. Benicio2020 (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of them just mentions it in a sentence and isn't SIGCOV, the other (Orlando Sentinel I presume?) I can't access. I'm not striking or amending, it's still not WP:LASTING. SportingFlyer T·C 15:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Benicio2020 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous nom that not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Yes, there was coverage at the time, but there's nothing to suggest this was a significant, notable thing; it looks like just another odd thing that Trump said, that had its 15 minutes of fame by way of comedians riffing on it, and then everyone moved on once. This is actually the first I've even heard of this phrase (or if I'd heard it before, I promptly forgot). I also disagree with the above suggestions of a merge to Donald Trump in popular culture, partly because I don't think it's notable to begin with, but also because that doesn't seem like the appropriate target; Donald Trump in popular culture is more talking about the 'big picture', of Trump's cultural image and a brief outline of his various media appearances, and I don't see where this is supposed to fit in (unless the suggestion is to make a new section for his way with words). — Kawnhr (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that this is not a notable thing, but the standard for inclusion in an article is much lower than the standard for having a standalone article. I think a paragraph on the phrase and the immediate pop culture reaction to it in the proposed merge target would suffice. BD2412 T 04:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think it's even relevant to cover on that page. Note that Covfefe, another weird saying that actually did achieve a sort of lasting notoriety, is nowhere to be found on that page. Unless this is also a proposal to make a section on Donald Trump in popular culture titled something like "Gaffes" that goes over his propensity for saying weird things and garnering reactions, I don't see where it's supposed to fit. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Donald Trump in popular culture, there is no need for an article for everything Trump said in an interview.--Mvqr (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not everything Trump says deserves an article. Meme died very soon afterwards. We would never be even considering this if the PM of Spain said something that got a bit of attention for only several days. Seriously, stop archiving every odd thing he says. Otherwise we would need 12 new articles every time he opens his mouth. Same goes with Biden by the way. -- Kndimov (talk) 15:12, 22 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 03:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Li Xikan[edit]

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

Non notable actor and singer who do not satisfy either WP:NACTOR & WP:SINGER and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:BEFORE shows me a plethora of self and user published sources which are all blatantly unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "李希侃：第二次机会" [Li Xikan: Second chance] (in Chinese). Shanghai United Media Group. 2020-08-14. Archived from the original on 2021-04-18. Retrieved 2021-04-17 – via Sina Corp.
  This is a very extensive profile of the subject.
2. "王嘉尔空降《少年之名》李希侃蝉联酷狗专区第一" [Wang Jiaer airborne "The Name of the Youth" Li Xikan regained the first place in the cool dog zone] (in Chinese). TOM Online. 2020-07-03. Archived from the original on 2021-04-18. Retrieved 2021-04-17.
  The article discusses Li Xikan during his performances in the We Are Young TV series. The article notes (translated from Google Translate), "The enthusiasm of the Kugou endurance officers has also won Li Xikan a huge amount of promotion resources. In addition to the first picture of this activity that has been recommended for Amway, official announcement Weibo, and exclusive customized promotional posters, Li Xikan has also unlocked major promotion resources such as the variety show focus map (app, computer terminal), student Amway tidbits, and selected displays. Let more people see his dream stage."
3. 王贵溪 (2018-05-17). "李希侃一直播自曝糗事承诺约粉丝一起吃烤肉" [Li Xikan reveals embarrassment in a live broadcast and promises to invite fans to eat barbecue] (in Chinese). 台海网. Archived from the original on 2021-04-18. Retrieved 2021-04-17.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Li Xikan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Cunard ! Definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Thanks for finding these RS. VocalIndia (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources significant coverage identified by Cunard in this discussion that show a pass of WP:Basic so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 22 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.