< April 16	April 18 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Bal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY - has not yet played in a fully professional league. ... discospinster _talk 23:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep He has played for national team and in 11 matches already which make him pass WP:FOOTY Chirota (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whilst he has never played in a professional league, he has 12 senior caps so meets #1 of NFOOTBALL. Whilst I'm aware that NFOOTBALL is only a presumption of notability, by consensus, we have always kept internationally capped players at AfD as long as the caps are verified by reliable sources, as is the case here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international level player, clearly meets NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to international level play which is clearly notable.--Mvqr (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: played for national team, passes NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played for national team, easily passes NFOOTBALL. Riteboke (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 11 games of senior international football. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Sonofstar (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets NFOOTBALL, Myconcern (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it's so obvious that he should pass GNG, why haven't any SIGCOV sources been added to the article? What's there right now is a very shallow routine match report and coverage of the Three Nations Cup that doesn't mention him at all. His contributions being described in the play-by-play of a match is decidedly routine and shouldn't contribute to SIGCOV even when all the coverage is combined, but that's all I'm seeing so far with my own search: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Are there any specific offline newspapers that would be providing actual SIGCOV here? JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway (computer program)[edit]

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

Not seeing any sources that use this term in this way. Rusf10 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely specialized term, not suitable for general encyclopedia per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOT#DICT. If at all it is a software program than a technical term, it fails WP:NSOFT otherwise. Chirota (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please familiarize yourself with the first of the Project:five pillars. Uncle G (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. Hope the revised rationale convinced you. Chirota (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a very good article about a very general term. I don't see any value in the current version, no objections to recreation of a quality article on the subject. Jeepday (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This term already has a passing mention in the lead section of Gateway (telecommunications). It should redirect to that page instead. TheLordRutherfordOfNelson (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus bordering WP:SNOW to keep. Closing. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Chalker[edit]

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

Borderline advert; I see no indication that this subject meets the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 23:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the content of the article is objectionable, the subject meets the criteria of inclusion as there are multiple references about her as [1], [2], [3], [4], so she passes WP:GNG. Chirota (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV. The references mentioned by Chiro725 are not specifically about Rebecca (ref #4 appears to be a about a completely different person). -KH-1 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I'm not sure what the "objectionable content" is, but she has an entry in Feminists Who Changed America: 1963-1975 and I easily found academic reviews of her books, e.g. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 2001. Passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pburka, actually there was something objectionable, a sentence though - which I removed already. Chirota (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC, due to the sources identified by pburka, The Washington Post (2015) (identified by Chirota) and The New York Times (1989), The New York Times (1993), all of which have been added to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources have been found to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough there to pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. --John B123 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR, see argument by pburka. --hroest 18:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. VocalIndia (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I would withdraw the nomination at this point due to improvements in the article, but given the timing and the state of the discussion, I do not believe withdrawal is necessary. BD2412 T 17:57, 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 merge to Ezra Levant. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Western Standard[edit]

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

After removing all the self-sourced material, there was nothing left apart from coverage of the cartoons controversy. I went looking for sources to remedy that and came up blank. I am not convinced this website is actually notable. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ezra Levant, its founder, and briefly note the later sale. [5] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ezra Levant, per Patar knight. Much of the relevant information appears to already be there. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:15, 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 keep. The consensus is the subject passes NFOOTY. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giambattista Bonis[edit]

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

The article is completely unsourced and does not demonstrate notability. The only sources I could find were brief notations on lists of football players: [6], [7], [8]. I'm not particularly experienced with WP:NFOOTBALL, so I suppose it's possible that he meets that, but it doesn't really seem like it. Aerin17 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Aerin17 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Aerin17 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Aerin17 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he passes WP:NFOOTY by having played 1 game in Serie A and two in Serie B. Just needs sources (I'll try to clean up the page). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nehme. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am with the nominator here, I don't see much, did he playing more football or just those few games? Probably hard to verify considering the age of the player when he did his career. At the moment this feels like a delete. Govvy (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing for Inter Milan and other Serie A teams even if for a single match makes him pass WP:FOOTY. References are not where the emphasis should be for a footballer when basic criteria of WP:FOOTY are met, which is this case. Chirota (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played for Inter Milan and other major teams which gives him a clear pass for WP:NFOOTY. Although article needs some improvement to be fully compatible with wiki neutrality and guidelines. Riteboke (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. Sonofstar (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing NFOOTY is great for showing a subject is likely to meet GNG, but AfD is where that GNG-meeting SIGCOV should be demonstrated. NSPORT explicitly says in the FAQs at the top of the page The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline; Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline; and ...as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. The sources found decidedly fail WP:SPORTCRIT, so it does not matter at all that he trivially passes the football project's criteria since those are strictly subordinate to NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Story (journalist)[edit]

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

Prodded by User:Rogermx with "Fails WP:NBIO. No significant coverage, claim of notability not robust." and removed without explanation as usual. Article just paraphrases the paragraph in the source which is not significant coverage or evidence of notability; I couldn't find any other sources. Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to meet WP:GNG no claims that are notable per Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Played a fairly minor role in one event, being featured on a historically important magazine cover as a baby. That's not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:19, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preshaw[edit]

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

Proded by User:Serial Number 54129 with "It is not a locality, but a house ([9]): fails WP:GEOLAND." and removed without explanation. Source on page also calls it an estate/house, and coordinates point to Warnford. No indication of notability. Reywas92^Talk 22:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The place is a landed estate – a manor with a history going back 500 years to Tudor times. The main manor house includes architecture by the famous John Nash and is officially listed for protection. The ownership and history appear in numerous sources including History, gazetteer, and directory of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight; The Hunting Countries of England; A Hampshire Manor; Hampshire Gardens Trust; &c. (Personal attack removed). Andrew🐉(talk) 22:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andrew Davidson, applying WP:NBUILDING, the subject appears to be notable. Chirota (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And this. Properly documented estate. Rubbish article. Uncle G (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson loves the article rescue sqauadron, but perhaps he could consider "rescuing" crappy one-line "articles" when he removes prods without explanation, rather than attacking those who question such mediocrity that (a) has wrong coordinates – these were three miles off, (b) vaguely calls something "a locality", and (c) has the wrong name making it harder to search: if the Preshaw House is notable, perhaps this should be called that instead. Spot-checking the 390 such "Private Parks & Gardens" in the Hampshire Gardens Trust didn't bring up any others with articles so I see no reason to assume its notability as a big old house. As usual, History, gazetteer, and directory of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight lacks any significant coverage and merely mentions it in passing as a farm a few times. Reywas92^Talk 06:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, just a non-notable house, fails WP:GEOLAND CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added some sources, including some mentioned above. The article as it stands is admittedly useless, but there is enough on the place to satisfy WP:GEOLAND <added: or WP:GEOFEAT Ingratis (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC) > if someone has the interest to rewrite it properly. Ingratis (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andrew Davidson and all above, sources are enough to satisfy WP:GEOLAND. RockOften (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reverted the AfD Close by the nominator (informed them on their talk page). Closing as keep by the nominator as a non-admin is not allowed, they can withdraw as speedy keep but not close it on their own. See https. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The initial article may have lacked enough sources. After Ingratis added more sources, the article is in the good shape to pass WP:GEOLAND ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:47, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empire (online game)[edit]

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

This topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such that we could write a dedicated encyclopedia article on the topic without resorting to original research. It has not been the subject of extended analysis and its only extant coverage consists of minor directory listings: this paragraph and the listing quoted nearly in full in the References. The topic had no substantive additional analytical coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as our List of MUDs only lists games with their own articles. czar 22:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 22:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the fact that there is very little coverage of it (and the relatively small article largely depends on such coverage). It is extremely unlikely that anyone would be able to extend the article into a full encyclopedic one, as the game is no longer playable, and I am fairly confident that the topic of MUDs has largely fallen out of fashion to the point where any information about Empire (which is likely to be trivial) is buried under pages upon pages of more relevant search results or locked away in old books. Lankyliver (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nowhere near enough citations and coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. You can't write a comprehensive article with four sources. Namcokid 47 13:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails in satsifying GNG. Wrenaudra (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko. Blablubbs|talk 12:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom fails GNG. RockOften (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IceWelder [✉] 09:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, fails WP:GNG. SunDawn (talk) 03:21, 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 James Cary (writer). Sandstein 07:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete Cow[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA. Unsourced for over a decade and I was unable to find anything in my searches. There may be some print sources that I can't access/find. De-PROD'd by Andrew Davidson without a reason. Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deemed NN then it should redirect to Concrete Cows which was what I though this was when I saw this in the article alerts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
British Comedy Guide (https://www.comedy.co.uk/radio/concrete_cow/) and epguides.com ([10]) don't have descriptions. I could find mentions (example from Radio Times: [11]) but no significant coverage. It's possible that there was at the time, but searches don't find it now or it is no longer available. Peter James (talk) 10:11, 3 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 11:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Cary (writer): Barely found anything about the show aside from the sources indicated above. Per Peter James, there may be sources about the show, but they're hard to find. 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 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) 06:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Leverant[edit]

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

BLP brochure article. Native advertising. NO blp refs!! Sock. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 17 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, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-08 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was 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) 06:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Palma[edit]

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

Routine profile and annoucement references for a BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 17 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, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-11 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was 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) 06:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Patrick Ward[edit]

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

Potentially notable composer, but very very poor references for a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 20:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British League[edit]

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

Does not seem notable, no reliable sources. EpicPupper 20:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 20:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 20:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first sentence is enough to make the subject seem notable. And only if it's a bare-faced lie would it not mean that the subject is notable. Do the sources found by the nominator during WP:BEFORE say that something else was the main motorcycle speedway league in Britain from its formation in 1965 until 1995 when British speedway was restructured? Note that in this period Britain was one of the top few countries in speedway - the top professionals used to ride for one club in Britain, one in Poland and one in Sweden, with league matches being scheduled so as not to clash among these countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What makes you think that? Can you not see the many independent reliable sources found by searches such as this? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Phil Bridger, AFD is not cleanup. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was the highest professional speedway league in the UK for three decades. There's a book on the history of the league as well as annual books reviewing each season, in-depth coverage in Speedway Star and several newspapers. It's very obviously notable. --Michig (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The league was the most notable in Britain during the time that it took place and their might not be many resources online but with the possible sources offline about this league, we could easily expand among this. HawkAussie (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the subject of the article is notable, but more sources are just needed to improve its state. --K. Peake 11:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Blatantly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IFood (food delivery)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP most sources are just mentions or funding announcements. Sanketio31 (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sanketio31 (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect a unicorn company to meet our inclusion standards, but Google mostly shows me funding announcements and opening announcements. The only independent coverage I've come across is this piece by The Times and this one by Reuters where they are called the 'market leader'. Reuters also regularly writes pieces based on their press releases [12][13][14] – Thjarkur (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ledur Brito, Luiz Artur; Pereira Carvalho, Lilian Soares (2018). "Movile: Sustaining an Innovative Culture on a Global Scale". In Iñiguez de Onzoño, Santiago; Ichijo, Kazuo (eds.). Business Despite Borders: Companies in the Age of Populist Anti-Globalization. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 91, 94, 98. ISBN 978-3-319-76305-7. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  Referring to iFood, the book notes: "The app is a marketplace for restaurants in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Mexico delivering over four million orders monthly from 15,000 restaurants to final consumers. iFood became a synonym of food delivery in Brazil." The book notes on page 94: "Movile launched several other apps during this phase with different success levels. The other remarkable success was iFood. Launched in 2014, it became the absolute leader in Brazil and is currently present in Argentina, Colombia and Mexico. Today, 80% of meals delivered via apps in Brazil are done via the iFood platform (Marzochi 2016)." The book discusses on page 98 that mergers and acquisitions with other local apps "fueled" "its path to leadership". Those apps included Hello Food, Papa Rango, and Central Delivery.
2. da Silva Monty, Renata Cristina (2018-07-25). "Creative Economy: how the interface of Uber Eats and iFood could change your menu". Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management. 15 (3). pt:Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção: 413–419. doi:10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n3.a8. ISSN 2237-8960. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  https://bjopm.emnuvens.com.br/bjopm/article/view/427 notes, "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." This means the article is free content.
  The journal article notes:
  One of the best-known apps is the Brazilian iFood (it’ll will be called iF), launched in 2011, which gives its users access to the restaurants closest to their location, menus, photos, prices, comments and notes about dishes already ordered. The company's forecast is to reach 5 million orders served in 2017. ... Based on materiality theories and the concept of distributed cognition, it was proposed to analyze the iFood and UberEats applications.
  In the introduction to the iFood app, there is a suggestion that the location feature be activated to find the restaurants closest to the client. It is worth mentioning that this is only possible due to the material resources of the application with geolocalizers. The second step inside the app is the per-mission to receive notifications in order to notify the customer when the request has been confirmed. Once again, the story speaks, since without satellite connections from the servers there would be no communication between iFood and restaurants. After selecting these initial settings, the client visualizes the content in a red and white interface, divided into “Next”, “Japanese”, “Snack” and “Pizzas” categories. At the top, there is still a search field in case you want to type the name of a specific place. As an example, if we click on pizza, the app will show us a list with different places, their logos, the distance of each one of them and the average delivery time. It is worth noting that in iFood not all dishes have a photo, a materiality that can, indeed, be decisive for the choice between certain types of food. On the right hand side are the ratings of other customers, with a score of up to five stars, and it generates an overall average of all those who have left their opinions. Unlike the iFood website, in the application it is not possible to read users’ comments, but only see the number of stars. In the subsection “Best rated”, there are only establishments with a mark higher than 4.5. It is worth pointing out that this tool is used as a surveillance and punishment resource (Foucault, 1997), with differences in the disciplinary societies described by Foucault.
  ... It is also worth mentioning that iFood has the “Discover” field divided into “Promotion”, “Newbies here”, “Free delivery”, “Best value for money”, “Trendy”, and “Close to you” subsections. With these divisions, it is noticed that the materialities of the application, that is, the way it is divided, can totally change the course of those who were interested in Japanese food and, by selecting the field “Promotion”, end up opting for Arab food. Or even the layout of the content increases the possibilities of a particular customer, causing him to discover the food of some establishment that never appears by selecting the subsection “ Tá na moda” or “ Novatos por aqui”. The materiality of iFood also allows tracking the client’s eating habits, since the design of the application makes a history of what has already been consumed. This data can be used by both the app developers to perfect it and by the customers, who keep records of what they have already eaten.
3. de Lara, Bruna; Braga, Nathália; Ribeiro, Paulo Victor (2020-03-23). "Aplicativos lucram com coronavírus pondo entregadores em risco de contágio" [Applications Profit From Coronavirus Putting Deliverers At Risk Of Contagion]. The Intercept (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on 2021-04-18. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  The article notes (from Google Translate): "Alone, iFood already received more than 600 thousand orders per day in 2019. ... While governments took isolation measures, iFood fired messages encouraging couriers to get out more. ... On March 16 and 17, when states and municipalities were already taking steps to encourage the isolation of the population, iFood fired at least five messages encouraging couriers to work harder. ... Images like a deliveryman sunk to his knees in a sea of mud during a storm in Belo Horizonte, crossing the flood with the iFood backpack on his back without any protection, show the precariousness to which they are subjected."
4. Souza, Laura Feijó de (2020). "Trabalhadores informais de aplicativos e o impacto da doença pelo novo Coronavírus: uma reflexão teórica" [Informal app workers and the impact of disease by the new Coronavirus: a theoretical reflection]. Journal of Nursing and Health (in Portuguese). 10 (4). Federal University of Pelotas: 1–16. doi:10.15210/jonah.v10i4.18740. ISSN 2236-1987. Archived from the original on 2021-04-18. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  The article notes (from Google Translate): "The first term searched on the Google Trends platform was 'iFood', which led to the indication of the most searched phrases by Internet users with this term, such as "iFood coronavirus", "iFood portal enter" and "iFood cadastr company". ... [discussion about how iFood receives over 600,000 orders every day in 2019] ... In a decision taken by the Public Ministry of Labor (MPT), companies such as iFood and Rappi, the latter that also works with food service, should not interrupt the payment of the delivery man who was contaminated by the Coronavirus."
5. Meddings, Sabah (2019-12-01). "Just Eat is a tasty starter for iFood, the Brazilian main course: The takeaway pioneer's real appeal is its South American stake". The Times. Archived from the original on 2021-04-18. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  The article notes, iFood, which serves 7.2m customers a month, has grown to a valuation of more than $1bn, making it a “unicorn”. ... Until 18 months ago, restaurants on iFood were responsible for delivery. Today, 20% of its orders are delivered by iFood — meaning restaurants that have never done takeaways before can list on the platform. Using artificial intelligence, iFood has even started to predict orders, allowing restaurants to prepare dishes before customers have got in touch. ... These innovations have enabled iFood to reduce delivery times from an average of 40 minutes to 28. ... IFood made sales of £123.8m last year, an increase of 91.9%, driven by a doubling of orders. It is 16 times the size of its nearest competitor."
6. "Food delivery drivers take to the streets in Sao Paulo to protest working conditions". MercoPress. 2020-07-02. Archived from the original on 2021-04-18. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  The article notes, "Lockdown measures have drawn more demand for delivered food in Latin America's largest economy. Brazil's iFood is the market leader, followed by Colombia's Rappi and Uber, which are larger companies but more prominent in other countries."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iFood to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Palgrave Macmillan-published book noted that "iFood became a synonym of food delivery in Brazil" and is "the absolute leader in Brazil" with 80% of meals delivered in Brazil being done through iFood.
MercoPress and Reuters called iFood the "market leader".
The Times said of iFood, "It is 16 times the size of its nearest competitor."
Cunard (talk)

Keep based on what CUNARD posted. This article needs to be improved with some of these new sources provided. If i get a chance I will work on it.Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not possible to follow up in more detail than Cunard has already provided. S/he makes the clear and convincing case that SIGCOV exists. --- Possibly (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Lopez (music executive)[edit]

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

Promo type content fails NMUSIC Sanketio31 (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sanketio31 (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG for coverage in multiple reliable sources like NYTimes, Billboard, Forbes, Reuters, The Hollywood Reporter and many more. Also, if content is promo type cleanup should be done instead of deletion. Viewhexes (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 09:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the references cited by Viewhexes passes WP:BASIC comfortably. Chirota (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per MER-C. Chirota (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiro725: How about cleanup instead of deletion? Looks quite notable as you also highlighted. Maybe a second consideration. Riteboke (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. I blocked the author and quarantined the article, but they created a sock account (above) to revert the move. Sockpuppetry like this should not be rewarded. MER-C 09:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well it looks like there is some sockpupettery present in this article. As this is an AFD discussion, without a doubt this executive is quite notable and had made a major impact in music industry. Infact if article gets kept cleanup is surely needed to make it as per wiki neutrality. Riteboke (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changing to delete as per @Onel5969: and @MER-C: UPE should not be rewarded. Riteboke (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep and cleanup Cleanup is needed as per @Riteboke:. Looking up at the sources seems this article satisfies notability guidelines for WP:NMUSIC. RockOften (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Onel5969 and all above. RockOften (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MER-C - UPE should not be rewarded, that's how it gets encouraged. If someone wants to recreate, no issue with that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I would love to create it if given chance. As I am sort of music guy myself and love to write and create pages about music people :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riteboke (talk • contribs) 17:01, 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. Consensus was that the subject is notable under WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriele Buschmeier[edit]

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

Non-Notable Author with no significant work. No in-depth, independent, reliable source. Sonofstar (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meeting GNG, article showing multiple secondary sources. I added some more. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not Passing GNG, Please read the below comments, sources added by you are not helping to pass WP:GNG. Sonofstar (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In your opinion not passing GNG, see below. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This Musik Heute article and ~~this Crescendo article~~ appear to be significant coverage from independent secondary reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. If my understanding of those two sources as reliable and independent from Buschmeier is incorrect, please let me know.
Note: the following three articles also provide significant coverage but may not go towards GNG:
- this one from the Landesmusikrat Rheinland-Pfalz does not appear to be independent of the subject (since it reported that she was on the Landesmusikrat Rheinland-Pfalz)
- this one from the Internationale Gluck-Gesellschaft is also not independent from the subject, since it says that she was a member)
- this one from Musik Woche for which I have no idea regarding its reliability (I can't find evidence of a solid editorial process)

— MarkH₂₁^talk 22:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC); struck a duplicate source and changed recommendation 14:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC); changed back to Keep 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No passing GNG, I have gone through both the sources you added. 1st This Musik Heute article is not reliable for me neither independent, here the author name is not written, for the 2nd link this Crescendo article is written by the musik heute ( Music Today), which means it is not independent. Please add more sources, these both have some connection. Sonofstar (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say “ musik heute ( Music Today), which means it is not independent.” What a nonsense that all music sources are not independent. In that reasoning it would mean British media are not counting towards notability of a British person. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I simply trying to explain that 1st source musik heute ( Music Today) don't have byline, its not independent nor very reliable. 2nd Crescendo source itself is published by musik heute ( Music Today), so this is not independent, for other sources @MarkH21: explained very well. Sonofstar (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more sources. Also for example Burger Koerier here. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please share the entire list if available. [15] This is far away from reliable source list. They publish hardly 3-4 news a day and maxiumum 10. I doubt if this blogging site have any fact verification process. Please only share major publication not any random one. Sonofstar (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonofstar: Thanks, I didn't realize that the Crescendo article is actually a republication of the Musik Heute article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to "Keep", given the Breitkopf & Hartel obituary and the reviews presented by hroest; a close call for GNG but a clearer WP:NAUTHOR#3 pass. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the references cited by MarkH21 passes WP:BASIC comfortably. Chirota (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obits in niche publications are nice, but they do not carry the weight of obits in major publications. Accomplished certainly, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According GNG it enough what you call as “in-depth”: “ A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” SportsOlympic (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep, an obituary that is independent of the source from Musik Heute as well as other sources such as Breitkopf & Hartel means she should pass the bar per GNG plus several book reviews [16] [17] [18] [19] of her work should make her pass WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest 18:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR #4c. gidonb (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Gidonb:, @MarkH21:, @Hannes Röst: No, I cant understand what is the critical work done by her as per WP:NAUTHOR #3c, #4c which have a rare existance. Please list down the random books name written by her instead of sharing 4 review links by one random site. Well, none of her book have a wikipedia page or even major news publication. The only claim till now is 1 source. Musik Heute in a unreliable minor publication where there is no byline of the author, she is so non notable that users are bringing sources from music selling company like this [20] instead of news site. Now please bring major publication links only. Nothing personal but I hope I am making sense. Sonofstar (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor publications can be reliable, objective and independent. Please show the guideline that only major publications counts towards notability. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonofstar, you seem to be confusing different levels of notability. At the basic level (that is met here), the author and her body of works are sufficiently covered for a biographic entry that covers her life and the totality of her work. Only at a more advanced level, not clearly met, works become individually notable. This is where I AGREE with you: a full list of works is badly missing from the article. If you really want to help Wikipedia: withdraw and/or create a list of works instead of arguing with other Wikipedians here and wasting everyone's time. That would be the most constructive use of time for this entry! gidonb (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining me that one minor source Musik Heute is enough to create a page and helps to pass WP:NAUTHOR #4c. I respect her significant work but unfortunately I can't find sources so after WP:Before I nominated. I have no intention to argue, leaving the discussion for admins and other users. Sonofstar (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your red herring, the one source that has been approved by the supposed authority of this page, is a gross distortion of my opinion. My opinion on this topic is brief but crystal clear: the collective book reviews make Gabriele Buschmeier notable. These come in addition to the one source you "approved" for us that is NOT the base for my opinion. gidonb (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonofstar I suggest you have a second look, it seems you are mistaken here, JSTOR is the site I linked to and is not "one random site with 4 reviews" but one of the most respected and important collection of academic publications in the humanities. It is one of the main ways to check for academic work by and about the author, that is why its included in the AFD help template which is at the top of the page right below her name (see Find sources). The reviews that you dismissed so easily are actually published in "Die Musikforschung 54. Jahrg.", "Music & Letters Vol. 75, No. 2", "Die Musikforschung 46. Jahrg., H. 2", "Notes Second Series, Vol. 50, No. 1" which are all scholarly publications which have entries in Wikipedia and publish to the highest standard in the field. I hope this clears things up, I am not accusing you of failing to do WP:BEFORE but I hope you can change your mind in light of the evidence presented. --hroest

Hannes Röst you are making some sense, I have no idea about jstor. If Getting reviewed by this site makes an author notable then alright. Now the theory is around JSTOR. Thanks for sharing this and let other editors decide. Rest, I don't agree for any other source. Sonofstar (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR is the most widely used database for scientific research, alongside Google Scholar. Given the failed WP:BEFORE, the unnecessary arguing, and the clear notability of the subject, imho it's best to withdraw. gidonb (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonofstar: Adding onto what Hannes Röst and Gidonb have said above, the point isn't that the reviews are from JSTOR, which is just an online repository of journal articles. What really matters is that Buschmeier's co-authored books Tanzdramen. Opéra comique. Kolloquiumsbericht der GluckGesamtausgabe and Opera incerta: Echtheitsfragen als Problem musikwissenschaftlicher Gesamtausgaben. Kolloquium Mainz 1988: Bericht were reviewed in Die Musikforschung and Music & Letters respectively, and her solo-authored book Die Entwicklung von Arie und Szene in der französischen Oper von Gluck bis Spontini was reviewed in both Die Musikforschung and Notes. Therefore her work has been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (WP:NAUTHOR#3). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Thanks, this is helpful. Sonofstar (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the research and further improvement above. StarM 13:39, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper 20:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EJBCA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As noted in cleanup tags on the article, this article has multiple issues; there are no reliable sources (all lead to the product's website/documentation), the article uses second person inappropriately, and a slew of other issues. I re-nominated this as the previous AFD did not include any votes (only comments), and WP:CONSENSUS was not reached (withdrawn by nominator). EpicPupper 19:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 19:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 19:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a founder of this open source project, I think some of these issues are caused by my ignorance of the WP:COIN. Now better educated, is it appropriate for me to suggest edits, in the Talk page, to improve the article? (and suggest reverting some of my own edits)

@Primetomas: You may suggest edits to the article via the process listed at WP:ER. If you wish to revert one of your edits, that is generally permissible, however, you should not revert an edit just because of a conflict of interest. Please note that unless there are significant fixes to the issues outlined in the template located on the article, this AFD will remain. EpicPupper 04:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AfD is a process in which editors form a consensus about the status of an article. Consensus on Wikipedia cares more about discussion and compromise over "voting". Simply put, AfD is not a vote process.

Additionally, AfD is not the process in which articles with clean up tags get resolved. AfD only cares about sources and notability.

Looking at the sources from the first nomination, the article seems to barely attain notability. Keep this article. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 04:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance, I will keep that in mind next time. Withdrawing as nominator, looking to improve the article as an alternative to deletion. EpicPupper 20:36, 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 Female Furies. Sandstein 07:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Harriet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Coverage seems limited to plot summaries and passing mentions on junk listicles from what I can see. The two non-primary sources in the article contain nothing relevant. TTN (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless better sources are found. The two non-primary sources appear to be just a plot summaries in DC-licenced fan-encyclopedias (so probably should be classified as dependent sources anyway). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources to make it as qualify for GNG. RockOften (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the membership section of the Female Furies. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Female Furies. Unfortunately I'm not seeing sources to pass GNG, but there is a natural redirect target the character is associated with so that is a better option than deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Female Furies per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Haleth (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Female Furies - It should certainly not be kept, and merging would not be needed as there is no content from reliable, secondary sources to merge. The character is already covered on the target article, so a simple Redirect would suffice. Rorshacma (talk) 20:10, 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. The disagreement here is about whether the sources cited by Omegatron are sufficient to support an article in the light of our applicable rules such as WP:GNG. This is a matter of editorial judgment and not something that I can decide by fiat. But I can determine that a sufficiently strong majority of experienced editors think that the sources are insufficient to establish rough consensus for deletion. The three sentences that make up the article can be undeleted (please ask another admin) for a merger to Bryan Caplan, if that is desired. Sandstein 07:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological Turing test[edit]

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

This has been a redirect since 2017 due to lack of support in reliable independent sources. It's recently been reinstated, but the sources were terrible. Most of it was drawn from the inventor himself, Bryan Caplan, on his blog, or material published on the Liberty Fund's websites (Caplan is associated with them). The substantive content was blog posts (including Patheos and Wordpress blogs). What remains after the obviously unreliable are removed, is a couple of namechecks - and that is exactly representative of the level of traction this idea actually has. While Caplan has been assiduously promoted and his opinion (usually primary-sourced) added to large numbers of Wikipedia articles, he is not, in fact, a significant thought leader in economics, he's just a garden variety libertarian think-tanker.

I do not think that this term, with its 139 unique Google hits, is an independently notable subject, and I do not think that adding any number of namechecks and affiliated primary sources can fix that. As a purported term of art in economics, the academic literature is the indicator of whether this is taken seriously. As far as I can tell, it is not. All I can find in remotely serious economic sites is self-published materials and the occasional essay. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. — Omegatron (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to add these, but Wordpress, Typepad, Patheos, Econlog, The Volokh Conspiracy, Medium and LessWrong are nto reliable sources so please don't reintroduce those. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JzG: Yes, they are reliable sources (for the facts they reference), as are the books and academic papers that discuss the topic (for both facts and notability). Please stop blanking the article during the AfD. — Omegatron (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Some examples:
  - Galef, Julia (2021-04-13). "Could you pass an ideological Turing test?". The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don't. Penguin. p. 203. ISBN 978-0-7352-1756-0.
    - Significant coverage: Yes, a section of a book
    - Reliable source: Yes, published book
    - Secondary source: Yes
    - Independent of the subject: Yes
  - Kling, Arnold (2017-05-01). "The Ideological Turing Test". The Three Languages of Politics: Talking Across the Political Divides. Cato Institute. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-944424-47-3.
    - Significant coverage: Yes, a chapter of a book
    - Reliable source: Yes, published book
    - Secondary source: Yes
    - Independent of the subject: Yes
  - Hannon, Michael (2020-11-XX). "Empathetic Understanding and Deliberative Democracy". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 101 (3): 591–611. doi:10.1111/phpr.12624. ISSN 0031-8205. ((cite journal)): Check date values in: |date= (help)
    - Significant coverage: Yes, a section of a paper
    - Reliable source: Yes, academic journal
    - Secondary source: Yes
    - Independent of the subject: Yes
  - "The Atheism/Religion Turing Test". Discover Magazine. Retrieved 2021-04-17.
    - Significant coverage: Yes, an article about the topic
    - Reliable source: Yes, magazine with editorial process
    - Secondary source: Yes
    - Independent of the subject: Yes
  - Matthews, Dylan (2019-08-09). "Quillette loves hoaxes that embarrass the left. Here's how "Archie Carter" hoaxed Quillette". Vox. Retrieved 2021-04-15.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    - Significant coverage: Yes, describes an instance of "Type 3" ITT, more than a trivial mention
    - Reliable source: Yes, magazine with editorial process
    - Secondary source: Yes
    - Independent of the subject: Yes
  - ... — Omegatron (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can turn self-published primary sources into RS for the notability of a term that would, if it were notable, be discussed in the economic literature. You should know this. We routinely delete crazy ideas that are only poropounded and refuted on blogs. This is by design. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Vox article is a trivial mention. Jlevi (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the "Discover Magazine" item is a blog post, not a magazine story that actually passed through an editorial process. It's a pretty trivial blog post at that, too, in the "hey, this happened" genre. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Philosophy and Phenomenological Research item is a short section, only three brief paragraphs, that gives a bare description of the idea and does not discuss its history, shortcomings, use in actual practice, or anything else that I'd expect from an in-depth discussion. (Other sections of the paper actually discuss empirical evidence, compare different thinkers, etc. The bit about the "political Turing test" might be the most insubstantial part of the paper.) It's coverage, but I can't honestly call it WP:SIGCOV. And of all the sources that have turned up so far, that's the one which probably went through the highest standard of review. Really, there's less and less here the more I look at it. Caplan works at Cato, so the Kling book is out. The only source in the list above that is independent, reliable, and close to substantial is the section in Galef's book (it's not a whole chapter). And one source isn't enough for wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing the substantial coverage needed to keep an article on a concept like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia: The requirement for notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which this topic meets. It might not be obvious, because JzG is repeatedly blanking the article and deleting all the references, so I will add them to my response here. — Omegatron (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though some people without expertise in the subject of rhetoric are inexpertly reinventing Rapoport's rules and Rogerian rhetoric, in self-published works and poor quality sources, without knowing about the ideas long since invented by experts. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is largely what grift-tanks do: appropriate the work of others, repackage it with spin, and publish it as if it were peerless wisdom. In this case, they did so on Wikipedia despite a clear COI, leading to bans and blacklisting. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Rogerian argument says, role reversal, which Rapoport attributed to Carl Rogers, is listening carefully and empathetically enough to be able to state the other's position to the other's satisfaction, and vice versa. For that matter, take the Carl Sagan passage referenced earlier: Towards the end of the course, students select a range of wildly controversial social issues in which they have major emotional investments. Paired two-by-two they prepare for a succession of end-of-semester oral debates. A few weeks before the debates, however, they are informed that it is the task of each to present the point of view of the opponent in a way that's satisfactory to the opponent—so the opponent will say, "Yes, that's a fair presentation of my views." How is the distinction between that and this more than a gimmick? XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are unreliable ideologically partisan outlets, pace the statement made above, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Pure rubbish, undeserving of space in a fact-based encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:GNG, a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. These sources exist—in addition to the sources listed by Omegatron, the sources that provide significant coverage to the topic include at least one book chapter, at least two peer-reviewed journal articles, and two doctoral dissertations available on ProQuest.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] As a result, I believe that the article meets notability standards and I oppose the deletion of the page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Irwin, William. "Saturday Night Live and the Political Bubble." Saturday Night Live and Philosophy: Deep Thoughts Through the Decades (2020): 51-61.
^ Hannon, Michael (22 July 2019). "Empathetic Understanding and Deliberative Democracy". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 101 (3): 591-611. doi:10.1111/phpr.12624.
^ W. Joel Schneider; Alan S. Kaufman (1 February 2017). "Let's Not Do Away with Comprehensive Cognitive Assessments Just Yet". Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 32 (1): 8–20. doi:10.1093/arclin/acw104.
^ Snow, N. D. (2019). How to Talk: Richard Whately, the Constitutional Conversation, Informal Social Groups, and Reform (Order No. 22587156). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2310307809).
^ Shugars, S. (2020). Reasoning Together: Network Methods for Political Talk and Normative Reasoning (Order No. 27835438). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2402915321).

Note that the last 2 are both PhD theses. The second only briefly discusses ITTs and describes it as coming primarily from Hanson. The first thesis includes quite a bit of content, and describes putting together an ITT to gather data for some research. Empathetic Understanding and Deliberative Democracy is a repeat from Omegatron's list above. Jlevi (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are either from within an ideological bubble, unreliably published (e.g., bloggy), or lacking in depth (e.g., a passing mention like "we admire scholars who can pass what Caplan calls the ideological Turing test"). At most, this should be a redirect like it was for years. As I wrote in an RfC last year that concluded it should not be mentioned in Caplan's infobox: Caplan slapped an obvious term on an idea mentioned by Paul Krugman, and advocated by teachers of debate and rhetoric well before Krugman too. "Ideological Turing test" isn't a contribution, it's branding — and it's not our job to propagate that. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If the concept has a noted use in academia outside of the explicit references to the term "Ideological Turing text," then the article topic (namely the test) seems like it would be notable, although the article itself could use a better name. Although it might be better to redirect to a section of the Turing test page (or a subsection within the variants section) rather than to the biography if we decide to merge, since a redirect would seem better targeted to the concept itself rather than to the individual. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The topic is already covered at Rogerian argument, mentioned above; Turing test is about the philosophy of AI and shouldn't be bloated with ephemera that somebody happened to attach Turing's name to, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Afterthought As an academic myself, I can testify that the invention of terminology is one of our primary work products. The number of jargon terms cooked up every year is staggering. I myself have invented a couple that have received a comparable amount of attention to this one (and in peer-reviewed papers, rather than blogs and pop books). Much as I'd love to have Wikipedia articles on my work, the base rate of coinages is so damn high that I can't say my contributions stand out, and if anything I've done does merit explication here, it's better served as a part of a larger whole. So too with "ideological Turing test": it's the furthest thing from a new idea, and the adoption rate of the new word is not actually impressive. For a point of comparison, there are an order of magnitude more Google Scholar results for "moral Turing test" (and unlike this one, that usage actually makes sense, as it is about testing a machine, like the Turing test is). XOR'easter (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with XOR'easter. This should be a redirect at best. Historyday01 (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are lacking in reliability, depth, or both. (t · c) buidhe 10:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources weak, agree with other editors that it appears to be an old concept repackaged. Redirect should be restoredSlywriter (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main Caplan article. This idea is only ever presented as Caplan's. There's probably enough material to write a paragraph in the Caplan article, but there isn't enough independent/substantive coverage to let it stand on its own. Jlevi (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The second source doesn't mention Caplan at all. For all we know, the guy talking about a "political Turing test" there came up with the branding independently (it's not the most imaginative name, after all). XOR'easter (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. There's not enough to maintain a stand-alone article. What information there is here is basically WP:DICDEF, and the three or four sentences necessary to cover this topic can be adequately dealt with at the Brian Caplan article. --Jayron 32 15:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's used in scholarly articles (see JLevi's list above) and on prominent blogs such as Lesswrong. It has been noted that this is not a new invention and has been used by rhetoricians, if there is an article that discusses this concept I would change my vote to Merge. Alaexis_¿question? 05:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, Rogerian argument already discusses the prior history of the concept. (Blogs, however prominent, are not generally reliable sources.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Omegatron's reasoning. I checked the Rogerian argument article and it seems quite clear it's not the same idea. I invite everyone to check that article and form their own opinion. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir Paul, we don't form our own opinions, we cite respectable, reliable sources to substantiate that reasoning. Can you show any sources that make that distinction between Rogerian argument and the ideological Turing test? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beetstra I know what we do. I have been editing Wikipedia for eighteen years. I was inviting participants in this thread to check the article for themselves rather than rely on my characterization of it, or anyone else's. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per User:Omegatron. On another note, some of the language used in this discussion so far has been pretty inflammatory. Atchom (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Brian Caplan, this article currently boils down to 2 sentences defining what is an ideological Turing test (the other sentences do not result in claims of notability). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Julia Galef's new book is one good source, that's enough for a redirect but there needs to be more than that for a standalone article. Brian Caplan seems the obvious target for a section. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:28, 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 merge to Drip irrigation. Sandstein 07:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trickle ring[edit]

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

Article is about a product that was invented in 2007, but no longer produced Here is an article about the invention. It never seemed to catch on and I don't believe it is notable. user:DGG suggested that it be merged to drip irrigation, I respectfully disagree. I just don't think the product is notable enough to even be mentioned there. Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. or merge The product is still made and sold--there's quite a bit in Google. There's an extensive literature on plant cultivation, and much of it discusses technical details of the equipment. I suggest the first place to look might be USDA. Whether there's enough for a separate article can't be known until someone does the work of looking. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. or merge As per DGG explanation. RockOften (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Drip irrigation. This is a very short stub (2.5 lines) of a particular type of drip irrigation and can be discussed in the parent article which already discusses various types.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:22, 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 23:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Leangun[edit]

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

Possible covert UPE article on a non notable Dj who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. A before search only led me to self published and user generated unreliable sources such as this & this Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't satisfy any notability guidelines. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references don't provide any coverage of him and nothing better found in a search Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Also, I agree with the possible UPE assessment above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 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. There is significant coverage in the Guardian and Newsday, so it comes down to WP:ORGIND. This is ultimately a subjective criterion, and the broad consensus here is that the sources are indeed independent. It may be advisable to start a WP:RM to move it to J. T. Allum and Company or similar. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JTA Supermarkets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company announcements or information provided by the company or announcements or interviews, etc. We don't doubt the existence of the company, only whether it meets our requirements for establishing notability. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous participants Megtetg34, Jayron32, Cullen328 HighKing⁺⁺ 18:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The solution to a poorly referenced article about a notable business is to improve the referencing and rewrite the article. Deletion is not the answer. Quite easily, I found this article with four paragraphs about the history of the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic, albeit largely written by its own employees, is notable. In addition to the first AFD of this topic, the big discussion for this topic and its founder can be found here. Ultimately, I withdrew both noms based on the feedback from admins/editors. Both articles just need to be re-written and cleaned up. Megtetg34 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Megtetg34, the requirements for different topics vary. [WP:BIO]] applies for people and it is a very very easy standard to hit. WP:NCORP applies for companies/organizations. You withdrew both noms but unless/until we can find "multiple" sources that meet NCORP to establish notability, no amount of rewriting or cleaning will fix it. I suggest below, as an alternative to deletion, to redirect this topic to Carlton K. Mack. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable supermarket with indepth coverage in reputable sources. As also Cullen328 pointed out The solution to a poorly referenced article about a notable business is to improve the referencing and rewrite the article. Deletion is not the answer. Has enough sources to be kept. Riteboke (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response Just to emphasise, we're not looking for references to prove the existence of the topic company, but references that fulfill the criteria for establishing notability. Two editors above describe the company as "notable" yet neither have managed to point to references which meet NCORP requirements. Therefore the topic is not notable. Cullen328 points to this T&TG article as a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notabilty but if fails to provide in-depth information *on the company* and fails CORPDEPTH (it is PR with no identifiable journalist hyping the grand opening the previous week). It has been described as "4 paragraphs about the history of the company" - that is simply untrue. There are two sentences which say the following:

JTA Supermarkets is managed and led by one of the oldest business groups in the country and has a very long history in serving local communities. From as far back as the 1930's, the JTA team has successfully managed though the turbulent Second World War, then through the many booms and recessions that followed, yet it has continued to grow from strength to strength.

The above fails CORPDEPTH and judging from the peacock language and lack of an identifiable journalist, I suspect also fails ORGIND. The solution to a poorly written article on a non-notable topic is deletion but that said, as an alternative to deletion it makes sense to Redirect this topic to Carlton K. Mack. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: The Guardian is a top-tier national newspaper, and substantial coverage is substantial coverage, even if the journalist who wrote the story relied too much on clichés. We aren't supposed to be media critics. Guettarda (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I noted the last time I voted, the sources seem adequate to me. They are published in reliable, independent newspapers, journals, etc. and are of sufficient depth to pass WP:GNG. --Jayron32 11:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong guideline, GNG is irrelevant here. We require references that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, you don't get bonus points for responding to every single vote. We already know that you believe the article should be deleted. You don't get more weight added to your vote merely because you badger everyone with a different opinion of you. Also, WP:GNG is the only relevant page; subjects that pass GNG don't need to pass additional hurdles to be acceptable as articles. --Jayron 32 13:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Guardian, the Express and Newsday are all well-established national newspapers, so substantial coverage in them passes the GNG. Subject-specific guidelines are meant for cases where the GNG isn't met. Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response There appears to be a lot of confusion among some editors above on whether GNG is applicable for establishing notability of a company/organization topic and some are disagreeing when I say GNG is irrelevant (for those purposes). Please see WP:SNG which is the result of a recent RfC. Note the following (emphasis added): SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines "and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies." For those Keep !voters who believe that references exist, post them below so we can examine them against NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read WP:ORGIND. I'm sure we all have. A. It doesn't apply here (it's talking about trade publications and PR, not national newspapers of record), and B. it's still subsidiary to the GNG (it's about helping people understand the difference between a trade publication or PR mill and an actual reliable source). If you want to deprecate all of the major newspapers in Trinidad and Tobago, please take it to WP:RSN. Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ORGIND requires "Independent Content" and says "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." Nothing to do with the type of quality of the publication. The aim is to ensure that what is written about the company isn't originating from the company itself or "connected" sources. Also, I've posted a link to the RfC and to the relevant paragraph in WP:N which shows that GNG is not primary over NCORP. Tell you what - I'll post this question on WP:N Talk page and lets see what others say. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on coverage in the Guardian, the Express, and arguments already posted. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ Keep ~~as more than 75% of the content has been copied straight from the company's website where there is no indication of it having been published under a compatible license.~~ Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not a valid cleanup option. The copyvio text can be removed, but the sources still exist that establish this topic as a worthwhile subject for an article. --Jayron 32 14:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: I tagged the copyvios earlier, and they have since been removed, but given that what is left is so poor I believe WP:G12 would have been better in hindsight. The opening of a supermarket branch is routine coverage. 'Supermarket employee assists disabled man' doesn't make the supermarket they work in worthy of an encyclopedia article. What is left neither meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG and is just a G11-worthy promo piece. Perhaps other sources exist, but I am going on the sources used in the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I feel that the sources in the article AND the ones noted above are sufficient to meet minimum requirements, but you're free to believe that they don't. --Jayron 32 16:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed !vote to keep after Guettarda's rescue work. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Since when is five of anything, notable on Wikipedia, particularly a number of supermarkets. 500 hundred possibly. Looking about, an editor has stated above Guardian, the Express and Newsday are all well-established national newspapers. Good, but where are the sources? There are two sources in the article at the Trinidad Guardian. The first one looks like a press release, a routine announcement of work, with no analysis. The 2nd one 100 jobs with new JTA supermarket at C3 Centre is an interview with the company director. How is it independent? It fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. Where is the sources from the Express and Newsday???? Certainly, a place that opened in 1943 should be notable, but where is the coverage? 2 or 3 independent sources would be ideal but at the moment it fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 18:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One source from the Guardian that was in the article until recently strikes me as significant, independent, reliable and secondary. Newsday reports on the same event. A second one that also strikes me as all these three. This mention, from the Express, while just passing, is a comment that goes to notability from an independent, reliable source: the supermarket and land development empire known today under the JT Allum brand. Combine that with the extensive coverage in the Chamber of Commerce bio of Mack, and Parris' description of "Allum's Supermarkets, the foremost supermarket chain in the southern section of Trinidad". Guettarda (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - working on expanding the history and looking at the sources that are easily available, I think it would probably make more sense to move this to J. T. Allum and Company since that's both the parent company of JTA Supermarkets, and the developer of Carlton Centre, Cross Crossing Shopping Centre and the new C3 Centre. Except for a decade or so when McAL managed the supermarket side of things, the supermarket and property development businesses have been deeply intertwined. (If memory serves me, the Mack family were one of the largest shareholders in McAL until it was taken over by ANSA in 1987 to form the current ANSA McAL.) Guettarda (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Feuchtmayer. ✗plicit 00:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Feuchtmayer[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Rusf10 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Feuchtmayer, which has all the relevant information. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 18:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Feuchtmayer as this would be for the best. Riteboke (talk) 14:17, 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 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fast electric[edit]

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

No sources found, no evidence that this term is widely used. Rusf10 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term is used, though maybe not widely. On these clubs [1][2] [3] they have clearly made a special class for Fast Electric model boats. But still, not enough to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. SunDawn (talk) 03:38, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Financial District, Orlando[edit]

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

No evidence that Orlando has an actual financial district. By the article's own admission, it doesn't exist. Rusf10 (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — article is a neologism for a district that I could only find one mention of on Google ([21], where "financial district" is not capitalized) White 720 (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unsourced article about a district which, according to the article, does not yet exist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per everyone above.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 21:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above. Fails general notability guidelines. Riteboke (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:00, 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. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Sjøberg[edit]

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

Previously deleted page with nothing major improvements. Fails GNG Sanketio31 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sanketio31 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previously deleted version was speedy-deleted in 2005 and was pure porn-site spam unrelated to Sjøberg. So we have to evaluate the article freshly rather than relying on any past discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are the Scopus metrics for Dr. Sjøberg and all 112 of his coauthors with > 10 papers:

Total citations: avg: 2233, med: 1414, Sjøberg: 4110

Total papers: avg: 98, med: 91, S: 78.

h-index: avg: 20, med: 19, S: 32.

Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 369, med: 204, S: 424. 2nd: avg: 217, med: 125, S: 245. 3rd: avg: 145, med: 106, S: 227. 4th: avg: 117, med: 81, S: 223. 5th: avg: 98, med: 67, S: 218.

Seems to be quite a bit above average across the board. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm surprised at how little I can find beyond the citation record — basically just a faculty profile and a couple of interviews giving his opinions on some technical subjects [22] [23]. But the citation record should be good enough for WP:PROF#C1, even in a high-citation field like CS. His political activity doesn't seem to pass WP:NPOL but that shouldn't take away from notability in an unrelated area. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with these citations he is a notable academic.--Mvqr (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, his citation rates reasonably high for a computer scientist in his field of software engineering (which is very different from deep learning where citation rates are much much higher). --hroest 14:38, 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. However, sourcing in the article as of right now needs substantial improvement. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guo Yi (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC not enough available coverage. Sanketio31 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sanketio31 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Larkin, Colin, ed. (2006). "Guo Brothers". Encyclopedia of Popular Music (4 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195313734.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-531373-4. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  The book has an entry about the Guo Brothers.
  The book notes, "Born in Peking, China, Guo brothers Yue and Yi followed the footsteps of their father, a singer and erhu (Chinese violin) player, and studied China's folk and classical musical traditions. They mastered many instruments in spite of their extreme poverty (at one stage the brothers were forced to pay for their music lessons with cooking oil). ... while Yi played the sheng (Chinese mouth organ) with the Peking Film Orchestra, with whom he recorded over 200 soundtracks. In 1983, Yue moved to England to study at London's Guildhall School of Music. Soon afterwards his brother joined him and together they formed the Guo Brothers group, that also featured Chinese percussion."
2. Jones, Stephen (2000). Ellingham, Mark (ed.). World Music: The Rough Guide, Vol. 2: Latin & North America, Caribbean, India, Asia and Pacific. London: Rough Guides. p. 43. ISBN 1-85828-636-0. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  The book has an entry called "Guo Brothers". The book notes that Guo Yi was born in 1954. Raised in "a musicians' courtyard in Beijing", he was a musical pupil in the middle of the Cultural Revolution with his brother, Guo Yue, who was born in 1958. He and his brother immigrated to London at the beginning of the 1980s. The duo "built up a following busking in Covenant Garden". They subsequently composed film scores for The Killing Fields and The Last Emperor. Guo Yi's musical instrument is the sheng, "an ancient Chinese mouth organ".
3. Sweeney, Philip (1991). The Virgin Directory of World Music. London: Virgin Books. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-86369-378-6. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  The book notes, "In the UK, the Guo Brothers, Yi and Yue, two classically trained instrumentalists, have worked in a range of formats since their arrival in 1974. Guo Yi plays sheng, a portable mouth-blown organ, of which he was a prominent soloist with the Peking Film Orchestra, while the flautist Guo Yue is a former member of the Chinese Army Orchestra. Both formidable musicians, the Guos worked their way up from busking in London's Covent Garden to participating in the creation of the score to Bertolucci's film The Last Emperor and making solo albums such as 'Yuan', on the Virgin-owned Real World label."
4. Russell, K.F. (1994). "Guo Brothers article". Rhythm. p. 24. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  The article notes, "WOMAD tour by the Guo brothers—Guo Yue, who plays Chinese flutes, and Guo Yi, specializing in the sheng, a hand-held mouth organ. Yuan, the Guo Brothers' recording on the Real World label, offers an excellent sampling of their music for Western listeners. It combines Chinese classical music, with its delicacy and grace, and lively folk songs that bear the stamp of the many outside influences absorbed into the long-standing traditional Chinese Han culture. Traditional melodies, in some cases transposed from works made famous by other instruments such as the lute-like pipa, are arranged in a manner that proudly displays their origins while modernizing their interpretation. ..."
5. Blumenthal, Howard J. (1998). The World Music CD Listener's Guide. New York: Billboard Books. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-8230-7663-5. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  The book notes: "When Guo Yue's was a young boy in China, his father, a respected musician, died. His mother was sent away, the result of the Cultural Revolution. Guo Yue and his brother, Guo Yi, grew up in a Beijing ghetto, a musicians' compound where they learned to play a variety of musical instruments. ... Yi became expert with the ancient sheng (a handheld mouth organ). ... Yi became involved with film, eventually composing hundreds of soundtracks.
6. Niedergang, Ena (2015). Wales China: 250 years of history. Wales: Ying Hua Books. p. 89. ISBN 978-0-9934184-0-2. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  The book has an entry about the Guo Brothers. The book notes: "Guo Yue and Guo Yi with the help of their sister Yan formed one of China's famous folk musical ensembles in the 1980s and went on to record their music and work on music soundtracks. Since then, they have performed at various venues and festivals throughout Wales, including the Sherman Theatre Cardiff and the Pontardawe International Folk Festival."
7. Sinker, Mark (September 1985). "WOMAD Festival. Mersea, Essex: 19–21 July". No. 19. The Wire. Retrieved 2021-04-18. ((cite magazine)): Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)
  The article notes, "Two Chinese brothers, Guo Yi and Guo Yue, are wonderfully astonished at their new popularity, for exploration and exposition of Chinese Folk Music on flue and sheng (a mini pipe-organ, blown): forlorn bending pentatonic wails, mimetic virtuosity."
8. Boisen, Myles (1997). Erlewine, Michael; Bogdanov, Vladimir; Woodstra, Chris; Erlewine, Stephen Thomas (eds.). All Music Guide: The Best Cds, Albums & Tapes: The Experts' Guide to the Best Releases from Thousands of Artists in All Types of Music. San Francisco: Miller Freeman Books. p. 849. ISBN 0-87930-423-5. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  The book notes: "The Guo Brothers (Guo Yue and Guo Yi) come from a musical family, and distinguished themselves as young woodwind players in official Chinese orchestras. After leaving China, their musical horizons have broadened, but still reflect the austerity and poise of their native traditions."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Guo Yi to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Cunard ! Definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. VocalIndia (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources significant coverage identified by Cunard in this discussion including a number of book sources that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Dadas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR not enough coverage. Sanketio31 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sanketio31 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep - he seems to satisfy NACTOR criteria 1. There is plenty of "coverage" from a gsearch, albeit and for reasons of language, finding Moroccan reliable sources is difficult. I'm not persuaded that the nominator has completed the diligence due to a subject, sources for which will tend to be in arabic, and uninclined to build more western bias into wikipedia in a situation in which the actor's list of credits appear of length sufficient to give rise to the supposition that criteria 1 is met. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR and there is a ar.wiki page and another arz.wiki page. Chirota (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he passes WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:NACTOR. Kirtos67 (talk) 22:32, 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. Sandstein 07:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCA[edit]

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

Does not meet software notability and general notability. When I search online, I see only the project home page and no external coverage at all. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT. Only coverage I could find is a brief mention in an article that reads like it was written by an AI: "Construction And Architecture Software Market 2021 Share Growing Rapidly with Recent Trends, Development, Revenue, Demand and Forecast to 2025". --130.245.192.7 (talk) 01:59, 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 redirect to Doboj ethnic cleansing (1992). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Doboj[edit]

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

Zero sources. While there certainly were clashes in Doboj during the time period claimed here, it is dubious that these clashes constituted a siege, and whether they merit an article at all is in question. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ a search for the Serbo-Croat term doesn’t even produce unreliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doboj ethnic cleansing (1992) as it seems that this "siege" was a precursor to the ethnic cleansing. Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mztourist as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. 1–2 Grimsby Town F.C. (2001)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. It's almost 20 years since the match was played and there's not much in the way of long-term notability about the match aside from one article in the Grimsby Telegraph. This isn't notable in the same way as other giant-killing articles we have here. Due to this, I believe the article should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree there is no lasting significant to, or coverage of, this match. Giant Snowman 17:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Delete - while the article is lengthy and well-referenced, an equivalent article could be produced for basically any professional football match in England, given the coverage they get. To get a stand-alone article requires a particular claim to notability above and beyond that, and I am not seeing that here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. We're not in the business of producing match reports for football matches. Could only be justified if there was something truly extraordinary about this match Nigej (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Fails GNG. RockOften (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this doesn't pass WP:GNG, as it's not a massive "giant killing". It was a Tier 2 team beating a Tier 1 team, which is why there's not lasting coverage if this unlike some other FA Cup shocks. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain A night that was probably more well sourced and covered at the time and was certainly considered a giant killing due to the size and financial difficulties of Grimsby Town. Having come across similar articles on Wikipedia featuring games of a similar stature I hoped this would at least be worthy of being notable enough to remain, certainly given the hours I put in to trying to unearth the references and beef up the article to being as informative as possible. Alas, although aware I am long past tired of trying to navigate some Wiki policies. I have never been a fan of removing informative articles but I don't make the rules, so with that I abstain because it would be pretty pointless to say otherwise. Footballgy (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails GNG Myconcern (talk) 18:57, 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 no consensus. Three-way split between keep, merge and delete, each with good arguments. I'd normally go for merge as a compromise, but here there are also valid arguments against a merger given the length of the target article. Sandstein 07:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liverpool F.C. matches in international competitions[edit]

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

Unnecessary page which is just a collection of matches Liverpool played in European competition. We already have an article detailing Liverpool's record in Europe. We don't need to include every single match they've played in Europe because the page is an overview and not a collection of stats. That article has been through the featured article process where it was decided such tables are superfluous. The reader can learn what happened in those matches from the equivalent season articles. Wikipedia is not a collection of stats, so this page is unnecessary and should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant duplication of both season articles, and competition articles for starters. It even gives links to the pages of both the season and competition in each case in a more easily read / consumed format (though the Liverpool season article is missing which round each match took place in which would be a useful bracket). The existing summary table in Liverpool F.C. in international football conveys a suitable level of detail, and anyone seeking specifics can drill down into any of the links. Koncorde (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally unnecessary level of detail, subject is more than adequately covered by Liverpool F.C. in international football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Clearly duplicating information that we already have. Nigej (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These tables are extremely common to include in articles about teams playing in European competition and a quick spot check shows they exist in every other English team I spot-checked, and a couple other European teams for which I'm familiar. On its own it does violate WP:NOTSTATS, but we can't really merge it upstream: fact the Liverpool article has featured status and due to the length of Liverpool being in Europe means this table may not be properly placed within that article, making this article is a valid WP:SPLIT, and while I haven't had the need for Liverpool these tables are encyclopaedic and informational (looking through season by season is quite time consuming.) Deleting this article would lead to an odd case where an extremely notable team doesn't have the same information as teams who have not played in Europe as much because we already have too much information on them. (If this information exists elsewhere in this form, it may not be proper for an article.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Liverpool F.C. in international football, otherwise keep per SF's comment above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Liverpool F.C. in international football, otherwise Keep Tables like these are extremely common for many football clubs. Pjesnik21 17:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Liverpool F.C. in international football, does not merit separate article. Giant Snowman 18:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just because these tables exist in other articles doesn't mean they should be in the articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument to include all these matches in the article. It's stretching the limits of what's considered encyclopedic information to include a whole list of matches. The reason the other articles have those tables is because they haven't been through the featured article process, f they were, they'd be removed. This is real WP:CRUFT territory. The main article has records by competition, country, and competition, we don't need more detail just for the sake of it. NapHit (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's another argument entirely, and if we accept it, we're going to have to do a lot of work. These sorts of tables are the usual way by which we present information about matches played in Europe, whether it be Örebro SK, Lokomotiva Zagreb, Manchester United, or in the case of FC Anzhi Makhachkala, as a collapse-able table (which would be my suggestion if this is up-merged), clearly showing they're not WP:CRUFT (either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan – neither of these are true - the only reason the second might be satisfied is because there's so much of information here in this specific article), but rather an integral way of displaying encyclopaedic data related to European football matches. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to push back on the argument "it was decided that such tables were superfluous." This does not appear to be consensus, but the nom's personal opinion. The matches table was removed from the original article in August 2010 by the AfD nom, but the first Good Article assessment was in October 2010, and there's no consensus on the talk page about its inclusion/removal. In fact, one of the good article reviewers even suggested adding this table here (point #8), but NapHit unilaterally decided the table wasn't worth including [24]. Presenting this as a consensus against the table doesn't appear to be a correct analysis. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A collapsible table fails MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS, so that's a non-starter. It's not another argument, it's relevant to this point. Should we include these tables just because we can. In the case of smaller European clubs, I think there is a case for including them. In the case of Liverpool, I don't think there is a case for including in the parent article. It would become too long and unruly. The question then becomes, are these lists worthy of standing alone? As Koncorde mentions below, what then stops you from creating a list of domestic league and cup matches? The reviewer on the GA didn't push back when I said we didn't need the table. Nor did anyone advocate for the table's inclusion during the featured article process. The same was the case with the Arsenal article. That's a consensus on how the articles should be structured. This is why we have season articles. All the information is included in self-contained summaries. NapHit (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACCESS doesn't specifically fail them, but does mention that if length is a concern that the topic be moved under a different heading or split. We also have articles for lists of domestic league and cup matches: they're in the specific season articles for each club. A table representing an overview of European competitions is clearly different, however, given how we present the information in other articles, and the Liverpool article may even be at a stage where the European statistics could qualify for a stand-alone article, including this table. SportingFlyer T·C 00:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Technically each season page we create is collection of statistics. The nomination for deletion hasn't cited any direct policy. Liverpool F.C. in international football is an FA article and people want to merge content without consideration for article size and future expansion? Liverpool could be playing in European football for another 100 years, which could created a vast article. So no thank you on a merge. As for the article, each match should be cited in my opinion. I feel this is a valid list and feel it can pass WP:NLIST easily if sorted out and cleaned up. Govvy (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So should there be a list for List of Liverpool F.C. matches in Domestic Cups and List of Liverpool F.C. matches in Domestic Leagues? There is a reason we use Season articles as self contained summaries. Koncorde (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we also don't have a completely separate article for those competitions, either. SportingFlyer T·C 20:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a giant rabbit hole if we go down this road. That's why we have the season articles. Liverpool could be playing in Europe for another 100 years, so you'd have a list which is even longer and unruly as you add every match they've ever played. The season articles are much easier to keep under control. We have summaries by competition, club and country in the European article, that's more than enough. The only other option would be to split the current list up into by year lists, along the lines of the national team results lists we have. But, it's arguable whether this has any encyclopedic merit. NapHit (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per NH. A list doesn't require there to be a separate article to be dependent upon (they can just refer to the main Club article if so). However all the arguments in support of this list are in support of all lists of results compiled. As you said, it would be quicker and easier to read all their results on one page. Koncorde (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list isn't actually dependent on a separate article, though it makes sense as its own article as a proper WP:SPLIT. We could easily include the information, hatted, in the main article. SportingFlyer T·C 00:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O really, you're going that route, do you want to delete England national football team results (1872–1899) and all the rest that follow also? It really is no different, articles can be split. We cover European results, league, cup, you name it. It's all covered somewhere, at times in multiple places, this is you singling out one article, which is done on multiple other articles. FC Barcelona in international football shows a load of results, but has no-where near the same quality as the Liverpool in Europe. You might as well drive down a road the wrong way! Govvy (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the Barcelona article is a shit-show too. No consistent format, no consistent structure etc. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a defence, particularly if you raise an article that is probably even more guilty of crimes against formatting and readability. Koncorde (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of that Barcelona article is a dog's breakfast, even the results tables aren't properly formatted. SportingFlyer T·C 00:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere did I say I want to delete the national football team results. I don't think you understood my point. I'm questioning whether these results merit their own article. Like Koncorde states, if we create separate European results lists, what's stopping us from creating domestic results lists? Are these lists encyclopedic? Just because they are currently on here, doesn't necessarily mean they are. The Barcelona article you mention should be brought up to the standard of the Liverpool and Arsenal article. Doing that would mean the list of results would have to be either deleted or split due to its length. Personally, I don't think we need separate lists when we have season articles for the clubs and the competition. The European articles are a side point of the history of the teams. There probably needs to be a discussion at WP:FOOTY about this, as the issue is bigger than one list or article. 11:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete this subject is covered in a much better way at the FL Liverpool F.C. in international football, and we don't need an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of every match they played in these competitions. Usually I would say merge to that article, but there isn't any content here that would benefit that (really good) FL. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As one of the foremost clubs in the sport, with a significant history international competition, this level of detail is within the scope of Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Five pillars – specifically, this is exactly the kind of material you would expect to see in a specialised football almanac. The nomination says "Wikipedia is not a collection of stats", but that is untrue – the five pillars say Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of information". This information is highly discriminate with a clear scope and focus, and Liverpool F.C. matches in international competition is clearly a notable topic. I'm happy for the material to be accommodated at Liverpool F.C. in international football, though due to the length of both this list and the article, I think the stand-alone list approach is preferable. SFB 16:16, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jughead (band)[edit]

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

"Supergroup" lacking significant coverage in reliable sources establishing notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. My internet search did not find any significant coverage. Zero results in Rock's Backpages. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have gone to speedy as recreation or for not signifying its importance. Despite having four members with articles, they fail WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is basically just a database entry. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Supergroup made up of four absolutely notable people, but the group and its album came and went with zero notice. Jughead is already mentioned briefly at each of the members' individual articles and that will suffice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have requested speedy on this, but clearly the nommer is a much nicer person than I am. Or was it because that misplaced 'supergroup' (yeah, right...) descriptor might have been interpreted as a claim to fame, of sorts? Anyhoo, utterly non-notable, not to mention unreferenced (and probably unreferencable), so needs to go. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klavdiya Kalugina[edit]

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

Not very notable, certainly doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. Highest award that isn't a jubilee medal is Order of Red Star (certainly not qualifier for notability), reliable estimates indicate ~28 kills as sniper, certainly not notable either. No indication of wartime media coverage, later media coverage and information is scant. Doesn't even have Russian wikipedia article, not even clear if she is currently alive or not. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PlanespotterA320:, WP:SOLDIER has been deprecated. Please do not cite it to help determine a consensus anywhere. Thanks - wolf 02:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I see thats has been mentioned below. NM - wolf 02:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NSOLDIER is deprecated and no longer has any bearing on notability or AfD discussions. Vaticidalprophet 15:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass GNG in my view. Not notable. Intothat darkness 18:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as the youngest sniper to serve in the Soviet army. Furius (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- She certainly wasn't the youngest sniper in the Red Army.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, ok. Furius (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:19, 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. Sandstein 06:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K25MM-D[edit]

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

Defunct translator station, does not meet WP:BCAST guidelines for notability. An IP address deproded this, claiming it was "clearly notable", am I missing something? Rusf10 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

172.96.34.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done a mixture of actions today, some vandalism, some not. I'm going to take challenging the Proposed Deletion here as not. Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Three Angels Broadcasting Network. Translator has no notable history of its own and zero mentions in the Omaha World-Herald. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie:If the station was still active, I would have just redirected to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates, but since it is not, I think delete would be better, rather than lead the reader to a page where there's no mention of the station.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three Angels Broadcasting Network has sold all of their television stations. Catfurball (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We don't extend any presumed notability to stations that exist just to retransmit other stations or networks with no local material whatsoever. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 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 closed; the article has been moved to draftspace by the article creator, User:2002Alice. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When You're Young (film)[edit]

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

No claim of significance, unverifiable. An upcoming film made by two students. Neither the film nor the people involved with it have been mentioned in a reliable source. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF and reeks of self promotion. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"made by two students" is completely mistaken. My client is a certified actor and it is completely unnecessary to call him a student. In which part of the article is there a self promotion? The Article is completely impartial. what I want is that it be moved to draft and that is not excluded. 2002Alice (talk) 16:11, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sonofstar (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Massa (electrical engineer)[edit]

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

Non-notable, fail to pass GNG. Sonofstar (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The IEEE fellow meets WP:NPROF C3. The citation record also looks sufficient for WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF. Massa's works are highly cited and he is a IEEE Fellow. TJMSmith (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NPROF as per above, being an IEEE fellow and his citation record seems sufficient to give him a pass for WP:NPROF. Namkongville (talk) 15:36, 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 Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

44 Bulldog[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP: NSongs. Only presents one good source, Hot New Hip Hop. XXL magazine only mentions the song was one of their favorites of the week, while Times of India only mentions the video and cites lyrics of the song. Entering charts doesn't mean a song is notable. The rest of the article is composed of album reviews and "self-interested parties" such as a manager and producers. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the album, Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon (t · c) buidhe 20:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon - Coverage from album reviews should be condensed and incorporated in the Music and lyrics section of the album article. It does not contribute to the song meeting notability standards per WP:NSONG.--N Ø 08:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: lack of independent sources and it was not a massive hit; I regret reviewing this properly in the first place. --K. Peake 07:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW close as the charts give it independent notability. This is another nomination that depends on downplaying significance. If XXL is putting it on a list of best songs, that is not a "mention." Times of India doesn't "only mention the video and cite lyrics of the song". If they talk about the lyrics, that is not a passing mention. That's WP:SIGCOV. "Was not a massive hit" is a tautological claim and extremely based in subjectivity that would be WP:ORG to determine. This was a top 40 hit on the actual charts of both the US and Canadian Hot 100 (the prime f---ing charts of those countries), which gives it independent notability. ~~In his nomination for vulnerable,~~ Excuse that, my apologies, I forgot it was a different user's nomination because it used a similar rationale to this one. Mario tried to downplay that track's chart performances by stating three of the four chart positions of countries were "unofficial" because they weren't top 100 charts, which is blatant BS. He doesn't even have that excuse to do that here. He has tried to downplay the significance in charts even in Afds that aren't about song articles, such as in List of Taylor Swift live performances: "Back then you only make it with having a record deal, nowadays you can reach to the top spot of a chart with no record deal." Charting without a record deal changes absolutely nothing. Billboard has decrease how much streaming plays a role in their chart methodology, with radio and actual sales more prominent and thus less depend on simple streams of Youtube videos and Spotify. He then admits in that same nomination "Not everyone will make it, it is impossible but artist like the ones I referenced sticked out like a sore thumb and to some extend they made it, due to timing, music, memes and other stuff." He pretty much debunked his own claims in the next sentence, admitting his survivorship bias anecdotes of sudden success stories like Mackelmore, 69 and Lil Nas X were "sore thumbs" that didn't reflect that success of 99% of acts who do the same thing. All this stuff about charts and certifications not being that important is based in feelings and anecdotes rather than actual facts and empirical evidence, and we need a guideline or a essay page stating claims like what MarioSouldTruthFan is saying in nonsense. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable)". They don't talk anout the lyrics, they cite the lyrics, they don't say anything about that...you would know if you actually saw the source, which you didn't. I didn't nomiante that article to be delited, not sure why do you make false claims, once more. First uou took our conversation complety out of context, and secondly it can't be aplied here. No, its based on the guideles on WP:NSongs, which you would know if you actually read it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies about the false claim. I didn't mean to make one as I thought it was you as you used similar reasoning. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I am not convinced by the above, long-rambling comment which is basically just an appeal to an SNG (being on the charts?) and ignores WP:NOTINHERITED, and therefore has no basis in policy, as there is no such thing as an automatic pass. I fail to find anything amounting to WP:GNG. Redirect as a plausible search term and as a valid WP:ATD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Busola Dakolo[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and only became famous for accusing a Clergyman of rape. A before search centers around her accusing the clergyman of rape but she is never never discussed with in-depth significant coverage. The sources used in the article are all unreliable as they are yet to develop a reputation for fact checking. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes an accusation of a serious crime against a named person which has been dismissed by a court. Surely that accusation should be revision deleted per WP:BLP? This would certainly be done in the case of such an accusation against an American or a Brit, so why do people think it is OK to leave it when it is against a Nigerian? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger, a brilliant observation there & you definitely raise a very valid point. Celestina007 (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's pretty much coverage about the rape allegations - The Guardian, BBC, AllAfrica, a bunch of Nigerian sources, but that's about it. I don't think she passes WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Phil Bridger. I'm...hesitant...to have a BLP1E for someone whose 1E is such an allegation. Vaticidalprophet 15:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got 675 results for "Busola Dakolo" on NewsBank, but looking through the first fifty or so sorted by best match there, and through news/general search engine results, I don't see enough in the way of independent coverage in reliable sources to argue that WP:GNG is met. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:36, 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. Consensus is to delete with only one of the keep votes being grounded in any guideline Fenix down (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Farcaș[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL never having played at the professional level as stated at WP:FPL One appearance on the bench (unused) in Serie A in 2018/19, currently 4th tier in Italy. Not finding GNG in this case. JW 1961^Talk 18:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 18:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 18:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 18:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the two Digisport references in the article currently (1, 2) are enough to get through on GNG. Giant Snowman 18:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Participating in a official game for Romania-U17, make him a professional footballer 411411 09:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dragos, Only appearances for the full national side contribute towards notability per WP:NFOOTBALL JW 1961^Talk 13:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't think that the coverage is that significant. If we analyse the sources in the article, firstly, we have a routine transfer announcement; no depth at all; simply mentions that he is U17 captain and has signed for Ajax. The next article simply states that he is the first Romanian in the Ajax academy and has a brief quote from him. I don't believe that being the first person of x nationality to play for the academy of y is a claim to notability. The third and last source is essentially a routine announcement of being added to the senior squad for Spal. The article states that he is a central defender and that he played 28 matches and scored 5 goals with the youth team last season. No other info or depth. My own brief searches did not come up with anything better. GSP articles are nothing better than a brief announcement that he made his debut in a friendly match and a passing mention. Sport.ro labels him as a wonderkid but the article itself is barely more than a passing match report mention. My delete is 'weak' because there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources but I still lean towards 'delete' because I honestly don't think that any of it meets WP:SIGCOV, if we apply it properly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and Spiderone's rationale and deep dive of sources. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear agreement yet on whether the sources presented are sufficient for GNG, needs further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and Spiderone's rationale give above. Namkongville (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spiderone's analysis shows Farcaș has not been the subject of SIGCOV whatsoever. Routine match reports and transfer announcements are the definition of trivial; if they could be added up to meet SIGCOV then, all else being equal, players who bounced around from club to club would be at a distinct advantage for notability over people retained on teams despite no new in-depth information being provided. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maypole Dairy Products[edit]

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

This company no longer exists (and it failed WP:GNG when it did). It was bought and merged into Central Smith, itself a non-notable dairy with one location near Peterborough Ontario. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has always been sourced to corporate autobiography, and I cannot find any independent sources for this. Uncle G (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable company. No news can be found about it in Google news. Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:42, 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 13:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Braxton Winston[edit]

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

BLP of a city councilman of Charlotte NC which does not pass WP:NPOL. The subject is not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Charlotte NC is not a global city for the purposes of guaranteeing the "inherent" notability of its city councillors just because they exist as city councillors, but the article relies almost entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, rather than reliable source coverage that would actually help to get him past WP:NPOL #2. At the city council level of office, the notability test is not "he exists as an officeholder" — it is "it's possible to write a substantive and well-sourced article that makes a credible case as to why he should be seen as more special than most other city councillors", and this isn't doing that. Bearcat (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Charlotte is not one of the very short list of cities where memebers of the city council are default notable. We do not have enough sourcing to justify an article when we do not clearly meet politican notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua G. Stein[edit]

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

BLP tagged for notability in the NPP queue for two months. Notability is doubtful - although there are sources there isn’t in-depth coverage. The article seems promotional. There is reference to academic roles but these don’t pass WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Isn't close to passing NACADEMIC. As for GNG, what I do see appears to be interviews and in connection to the company (Radical Craft) and not so much on Stein himself. The coverage is also not significant in number, as such this does not pass GNG.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an architect he either needs to be cited in the literature to fulfill WP:NPROF or have designed some notable buildings per WP:ARCHITECT which do not seem to be the case. Winning a competition with something that is not yet built does not qualify in my book. --hroest 14:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Insufficient discussion on sources for a strong consensus to exist at this time. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ventoy[edit]

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

No references, online search doesn't produce any proof of subject passing WP:GNG. Highly likely a paid-for article. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly likely a paid-for article." This is simply not true. I am not affiliated in any way with the software or its vendor. I am simply a satisfied user of this software and I have noticed that Ventoy was referred from the article List of tools to create Live USB systems (which I have not contributed) and decided to start this new entry. Fedkad (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There seems to be just enough third party coverage of this tool to squeak over the notability line. Added a link to a Linux Magazine article. PianoDan (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to have a borderline notability to pass for GNG. Namkongville (talk) 15:16, 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 delete. ✗plicit 06:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actors Circle Theatre[edit]

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

This article concerns an acting school in Los Angeles, California. Since the article's creation in 2006, it has cited no sources. BEFORE searches do not return any meaningful coverage of the school as this was the only source I found. Thus I do not believe this article can pass WP:GNG or any more specific notability guideline.

For anyone else who goes searching for sources, please note that there is a similar theatre in New Hampshire that does not appear to be related to this school. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are not even close to being enough indepdent to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see sufficient evidence of notability for this school. RockOften (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not appear to be sufficient references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 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 13:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian in Georgia[edit]

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

Article about a television "micro-series" (that thing where advertisers format their advertising as short-format "drama" or "comedy" series instead of conventional 30-second commercials), not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. Things like this are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their existence is technically verified by an IMDb page -- the notability test is reliable source coverage about the show by recognized television critics to establish its significance. But the only footnote here is a press release from the network that aired it, a primary source that is not support for notability at all, and the strongest other source I can find on a WP:BEFORE search is a Q&A interview in an industry trade magazine in which one of the show's executive producers is talking about it in the first person -- which is not fully independent of the show, and thus not enough to make the show notable all by itself if it's the strongest source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this show from having to have much more media coverage about it than this. (Also probable conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username to the producers' names in the infobox.) Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the well reasoned proposal of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I find it a bit perverse to have articles about advertisements, and all the moreso if they're barely-cited stubs. Bearcat's explanation is strong, and there's nothing I can dig up to contradict it. Vaticidalprophet 09:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Realtek. Keep !votes have not provided adequate reasoning for keeping apart from WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avance Logic[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing cogent other than unreliable sources such as this. Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Realtek: While i found two sources in a before search, they are not enough to justify a stand-alone article. pc.watch discusses Avance briefly and as per consultancy.com.au the company was one among the 200 companies to be awarded the Treasury and Finance contract by Department of Treasury and Finance. I'd say merge to its parent company Realtek. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Realtek as WP:ATD. Deletion is unwarranted. ~Kvng (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Realtek as WP:ATD as per all above. RockOften (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Realtek as others suggested. Peter303x (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. There's simply no case to Keep this article, if fails NCORP requirements and there are no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:41, 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 Info Edge. Those who wish to merge can retrieve the content from the article history. (Recommend adding ((R from merge)) to the redirect after merging.) (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

99Acres.com[edit]

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

Fail of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. nearlyevil 665 09:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 09:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 09:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although most of the COI edits have been cleaned up, it's just not notable.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 14:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Info Edge, its parent company, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. There is sourced material in the article about the company's history that can be merged to Info Edge. No prejudice against undoing the redirect if new sources surface that establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Info Edge as there are some articles about the company, but not enough to need an article independent from its parent company. Mukedits (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge merge with Info Edge as recommended by others. Peter303x (talk) 20:58, 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. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BKV Előre SC[edit]

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

Fail of WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 08:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 08:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 08:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 08:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a Hungarian Cup runner-up and former first division club will have sourcing even if they're in the third division now and played in the first division for only four seasons in the 1940s, which will likely also have sourcing. [25] [26]. This contains a list of recent articles on the club. Needs improving, not deleting; the Hungarian article would be a good place to start, though unfortunately it's light on sourcing too. SportingFlyer T·C 10:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SportingFlyer. Unsure why nominator is trying to use NSPORT to justify deleting a sports club when NSPORT specifically says "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs". Giant Snowman 11:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:NSPORT, there is more on the Hungarian wiki, certainly needs sources, but the topic certain should be passing GNG. There should be enough around to sort out the article. Govvy (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NSPORT.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keeppass NSPORT Aloolkaparatha (talk) 09:48, 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 Tom and Jerry filmography. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Safari[edit]

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

I am afraid this topic fails to meet GNG/WP:NFILM. During my BEFORE I failed to find any reference to this outside a few passing mentions that it exists. The cited Encyclopedia entry is sadly just a mention in passing; this short does not have its own entry - the edition I checked (newer, the 2008 edition of the same cited encyclopedia) only mentions the subject in the main Tom and Jerry article, in the timeline entry for 1962 as one of the T&J releases for that year ("...“Tall in the Trap” (Deitch/Sept. 1); “Sorry Safari” (Deitch/Oct. 1); “Buddies Thicker Than Water” (Deitch/Nov. 1);..."). It seems this short doesn't have anything else to say about itself outside "I exist"; no reliable source discusses its history, inspiration, reception, significance, etc. At best, this can be redirected to some list of Tom and Jerry shorts, if one is created (or maybe there is a better list someone can find)? Unless someone can find sources I missed, I am afraid this is the best we can do. We are not a catalogue of non-notable animation shorts or similar entities. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The quality of the nomination and its BEFORE may be judged from the fact that it cites a redlink, not having managed to find the Tom and Jerry filmography which lists all T&J cartoons. The page in question is an obvious spinoff, the driveby does not identify any significant problem that needs fixing and, in any case, this is not cleanup. The usual policies apply: WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple books cover animated shorts in detail from this era, including the one cited in the article that covers this film as well. Also covered in Tom and Jerry: The Definitive Guide to Their Animated Adventures By Patrick Brion 1990. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Donaldd23, As I have demonstrated in the OP, the book cited in the article DOES NOT cover this animated short in any detail. As for Tom and Jerry: The Definitive Guide to Their Animated Adventures, please tell me how you got access to this work? I don't see it searchable on Google Books or Amazon, nor was I able to locate this book anywhere else I looked. Anyway, looking at sample images like [27] it is possible this book has a paragraph about the cartoon - but what this sample also shows is that the coverage in that book doesn't go beyond pure plot summary. In fact, who knows, our article may be a copyvio from this book, since both are just plot summaries. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since when does Wikipedia require the contents of EVERY book to be available and searchable online? That is NOT a requirement. The film is covered in the book, that's enough. As to how I "got access to this work", I don't need to prove to you that I own this book. It exists and it covers this film, that makes it pass, at the very least, WP:GNG. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The burden of proof is on you to show that the source meets the definition of significant coverage as required by GNG. If you don't have access to the source, then you have no way of knowing what the source says about the topic. The very act of being mentioned in a book is not significant coverage in itself. TTN (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main list of cartoons. One keep is a completely dishonest attempt at wikilawyering, and the other discusses coverage without actually providing any context as to what pertinent information exists in the source. I cannot seem to find a searchable copy of the Definitive Guide listed, but the single preview picture I can find shows coverage is limited to one or two paragraphs and some screenshots of each cartoon. The text is illegible, but I cannot imagine the context is more than a minor plot summary. If you have access to the source and can provide some quotes pertaining to non-plot information, please let me know. The source in the article seems to be no different and currently is not used to cite anything beyond a single date. TTN (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography. Encyclopedias are not a catalog all movies or episodes of various franchises, list will suffice for that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography - The nomination and TTN have done a sufficient job at analyzing the available sources, showing that a stand alone article is not warranted for this short. It is covered on the main filmography article already, so redirecting there is appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 20:14, 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 redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dicky Moe[edit]

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

I am afraid this topic fails to meet GNG/WP:NFILM. During my BEFORE I failed to find any reference to this outside a few passing mentions that it exists and is a parody of Moby Dick (here's the best one). The cited Encyclopedia entry is sadly just a mention in passing; this short does not have its own entry - the edition I checked (newer, the 2008 edition of the same cited encyclopedia) only mentions the subject in the main Tom and Jerry article, in the timeline entry for 1962 as one of the T&J releases for that year ("...“Calypso Cat” (Deitch/June 1); “Dicky Moe” (Deitch/July 1); “The Tom and Jerry Cartoon Kit” (Deitch/Aug. 1);..."). It seems this short doesn't have anything else to say about itself outside "I exist"; no reliable source discusses its history, inspiration, reception, significance, etc. At best, this can be redirected to some list of Tom and Jerry shorts, if one is created (or maybe there is a better list someone can find)? Unless someone can find sources I missed, I am afraid this is the best we can do. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The quality of the nomination and its BEFORE may be judged from the fact that it cites a redlink, not having managed to find the Tom and Jerry filmography which lists all T&J cartoons. The page in question is an obvious spinoff, the driveby does not identify any significant problem that needs fixing and, in any case, this is not cleanup. The usual policies apply: WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple books cover animated shorts in detail from this era, including the one cited in the article that covers this film as well.Also covered in Tom and Jerry: The Definitive Guide to Their Animated Adventures By Patrick Brion 1990. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Donaldd23, As I have demonstrated in the OP, the book cited in the article DOES NOT cover this animated short in any detail. As for Tom and Jerry: The Definitive Guide to Their Animated Adventures, please tell me how you got access to this work? I don't see it searchable on Google Books or Amazon, nor was I able to locate this book anywhere else I looked. Anyway, looking at sample images like [28] it is possible this book has a paragraph about the cartoon - but what this sample also shows is that the coverage in that book doesn't go beyond pure plot summary. In fact, who knows, our article may be a copyvio from this book, since both are just plot summaries. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does Wikipedia require the contents of EVERY book to be available and searchable online? That is NOT a requirement. The film is covered in the book, that's enough. As to how I "got access to this work", I don't need to prove to you that I own this book. It exists and it covers this film, that makes it pass, at the very least, WP:GNG. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on you to show that the source meets the definition of significant coverage as required by GNG. If you don't have access to the source, then you have no way of knowing what the source says about the topic. The very act of being mentioned in a book is not significant coverage in itself. TTN (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main list of cartoons. One keep is a completely dishonest attempt at wikilawyering, and the other discusses coverage without actually providing any context as to what pertinent information exists in the source. I cannot seem to find a searchable copy of the Definitive Guide listed, but the single preview picture I can find shows coverage is limited to one or two paragraphs and some screenshots of each cartoon. The text is illegible, but I cannot imagine the context is more than a minor plot summary. If you have access to the source and can provide some quotes pertaining to non-plot information, please let me know. The source in the article seems to be no different and currently is not used to cite anything beyond a single date. TTN (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography. The only coverage appears to be in sources that cover all Tom and Jerry shorts, with no indication that this one was particularly acclaimed or distinctive; there's hardly anything here but plot summary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found this review [[29]] Donaldd23 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Donaldd23, Nice. Can you discuss what makes it reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography - Not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to support an independent article, but already covered at the main filmography article, so it can be redirected there. Rorshacma (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on every episode of Tom and Jerry, but not for Monty Python's Flying Circus? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the subject is notable by WP:GNG. This might also have been eligible for a speedy keep per WP:SK#1, with the nominator deleting a copy-pasted nomination rational shortly after creating this AfD page. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majiziya Bhanu[edit]

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

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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Loads of coverage of her from before this Big Boss thing, focussed on her powerlifting and wearing of the hijab: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. I don't know what the rules are for bodybuilders specifically, but I think she's passed the general notability rules. Would consider draftifying until revised into a full article. Furius (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The nominator hasnt even given a proper reason for this nomination. Also something suspicious has happened to the article. After the nom Bilal.Choudary2 nominated the article for deletion, an IP came and blanked some section of the article just after 3 minutes. I dont know whether it is a coinincidence or something well planned. The subject is the first Hijabi powerlifiter from Kerala. The sources in the article are giving enough in-depth coverage to the article. If someone is not satisfied with the sigcov, please ping me. I can provide more Malayalam sources here. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easy pass of WP:GNG. Sonofstar (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started revising the article to incorporate information from multiple in-depth sources; clearly meets WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 22:35, 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 no consensus on WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viðar Örn Hafsteinsson[edit]

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

Simply does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep One of the best known coaches in the country, passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. First of the subject fails WP:NBASKETBALL so he has to pass general GNG criteria. The sources in the article are not giving enough sigcov hence fails this also. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seems borderline. Alvaldi what would you say were the WP:THREE best sources on this player in terms of coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me it would probably be these: Morgunblaðið - Coverage about him and his success with Höttur. Vísir.is/Stöð 2 - An interview on Stöð 2 with him regarding his stay with the team and recent promotion in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic in Iceland. Fréttablaðið - Article/interview regarding him and the flow of foreign players in the Icelandic leagues. This one is also from Vísir.is but is a good coverage about him and his team and a discussion about the interview with him. He became a bit of a cult phenomenon due to his bluntness in the interview and his quotes have been frequent headlines in the Icelandic media.[41][42][43][44]

Keep - I agree that the sources above are enough to demonstrate WP:GNG, which simply requires that multiple reliable sources discuss the subject in a non-trivial way (multiple paragraphs dedicated to the subject would be more than a trivial mention); the references cited are from major reliable Icelandic publications, many of which I am familiar with when working on Icelandic footballer articles. Furthermore, there would be no obvious merge target so it's essentially keep or delete. There's definitely enough Icelandic media coverage to support a keep vote in this instance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 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 no consensus. Here, the keeping arguments have not properly addressed the deletion arguments fully, so comparatively the deletion arguments weigh more. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draw My Life[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Draw My Life

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

Does not warrant its own article per WP:GNG. None of the sources discuss the subject in question directly. Not enough significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Relies mostly on primary sources. Throast (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have a lot of coverage. The BBC:

Draw My Life: Lindsey Russell | Blue Peter presenter - CBBC - BBC www.bbc.co.uk › cbbc › watch › bp-draw-my-life-lindsey It's Lindsey's turn to take a stroll down memory lane in her very own Draw My Life. See her life unfold in this unique animation that captures her amazingly!
Draw my life | Blue Peter presenter | Richie Driss - CBBC - BBC www.bbc.co.uk › cbbc › watch › bp-richie-draw-my-life Richie gets his very own Draw My Life where you can find put about all the amazing things he's done! From his adorable pet cow Lucky, to his adventures across ...
https://www.hollywoodinsider.com/conan-gray-music-youtube-tiktok/ explains Draw My Life was a social media trend that creatives participated in where they’d tell their life story in whiteboard illustrations. Google news search show a very large number of results, this just a common thing people do, and the media comments on.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/199388-watch-hermione-grangers-life-story-through-drawings-in-this-incredible-video
https://filmmakermagazine.com/108931-sitting-in-front-of-that-whiteboard-for-two-days-joe-came-up-with-some-hilarious-and-strange-drawings-eugene-kotlyarenko-spree/#.YGZduzxOmM8 states how effective they are to help understand a character and the film they were making.

So I believe this proves it is a real thing, with ample coverage in the media to deserve its own article. Dream Focus 00:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 00:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree for the reasons stated above. The article needs to be improved by incorporating those better sources, but they do exist. The notability disclaimers currently on there have that covered for the time being. Internetronic (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with sources indicated above. It's a typical topic done by several YouTubers. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 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 assuming that Spiderone's "keep" !vote is solely procedural. 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marthoma Senior Secondary School, Kozhencherry[edit]

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

~~A WP:BEFORE search in both English and Malayalam reveals nothing besides trivial and routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP and my own standards for schools. It appears to be very run of the mill, as opposed to some others nominated recently. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - I have no comment on the notability of this school but I believe that this should be closed as it was created by a vandalism-only sock in evasion of a block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since Bearian has also suggested deletion, this isn't a case of WP:CSK#4. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a sock nominates an article, I decide (mostly) on the merits; it's still not even close to notable. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The school is extremely run of the mill, there isn't any references about it in the article, and it looks nothing else is out there to help it pass WP:NORG. So there's zero reason not to delete this. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:09, 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. Several improvents have been made on the article which makes it passes GNG (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Environmental Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no RS coverage of this group. The page was the subject of a AfD in 2012 which resulted in a no-consensus. In the decade since then, no RS content has been added to the page. In short, the group does not meet notability requirements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Listed sources insufficient, does not appear notable. Also completely unverifiable since the page lacks inline citations. Aasim (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It IS a thing here in the Emirates, it's just got a hugely neglected page. It needs an editor who cares to do the work, is all. There aren't a lot of them around here though. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the article to at least 'keep' standard - it needs more work, for sure (from someone more engaged in this area than I), but it's the leading environmental organisation in the Emirates. Any attempt at a BEFORE would have established that. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements of Alexandermcnabb. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP multiple exclusive coverages from 2006 in national news. Chirota (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 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 delete. ✗plicit 06:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mboka Mwilambwe[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:NPOL: Mayor-elect of a city of about 78,000. WP:PROD (within 3 hours of creation) and WP:Draftify (within a day of creation) reverted, so here we are. Closeapple (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per own nomination: Bloomington, Illinois isn't big enough for a mayor to be considered inevitably notable. Mwilambwe's only other elected office is as an alderman, which is a district member of the same city council. His highest professional position is on a department's staff at Illinois State University in the same city. The biography is lifted straight from his campaign site; the only independent coverage on Google web/news searches appear to be local routine coverage of city council and campaigns. WP:PROD was removed by the article creator Uinko (talk · contribs) without comment; move to WP:Drafts was moved back to article space by GoldAu79 (talk · contribs), another relatively inexperienced user, also without comment. --Closeapple (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, misses multiple coverage for BASIC. RockOften (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I think the page should stay as the current mayor, Tari Renner has a page already, though I understand that since Mwilambwe wouldn't be considered notable enough yet, I suppose it could be placed back under draft until he would be considered notable enough. GoldAu79 (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I re-created the Renner article relying more on his professorship than his mayoral position. I'd be unopposed to that deletion if opposed. --Mpen320 via mobile
- Tari Renner's notability seems marginal at best, and Mboka Mwilambwe has less notability than Renner; for example, Renner was at least Democratic nominee for Congress and had a minor regular spot on WEEK-TV, and those aren't even enough to match Wikipedia:Notability. As Mpen320 implied, the only way even Renner might be notable is if he's particularly well-known in his academic field of political science, not necessarily as as actual public politician, and right now I don't even see much proof of that. --Closeapple (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.--Mpen320 via mobile
Move to Draft I see, well Could you move it back to draft so then I could continue working on it until the page is considered notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldAu79 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you plan on establishing that the subject is notable, though? Or are we just waiting it out a couple months and see if something spectacular happens? --Closeapple (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bloomington IL is not a large or important enough city to guarantee the "inherent" notability of every mayor it's ever had — but the article is not sourced well enough to clear the bar that mayors actually have to clear (which is the ability to write and reliably source a substantial article that demonstrates his political significance, not just the ability to verify that he won the mayoral election.) And no, just because his predecessor has an article doesn't mean he automatically gets one too, either: his predecessor is demonstrating preexisting notability as an academic, and isn't depending on mayoralty alone, but even when it comes to the mayoralty he's still showing considerably more substance and sourcing than this is. Again: the notability test for mayors is not "verifiably elected as mayor = automatically in" — it requires much more significance and much more sourcing than just showing minimal verification that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 04:02, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mottezen (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HP Data Protector[edit]

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

The sources included are either sponsored posts, primary sources, or articles where the topic is only mentioned in passing. The only good source is this: [45], and it's from 1992. There is also a user guide on google books, but I don't think it's independent from the subject. Mottezen (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After nominating this article, I tried searching "omniback" on google books and got lots of results. Omniback is described in the article as the previous name of this software, before 2004. I'm now thinking that this subject is only notable historically, under a name different than the title. What should we do in this situation? Mottezen (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See whether it is possible to use those sources to make the article better. Consider how in-depth they are. Cite the good ones in the article. And boldface the alternative article title so that the next editor along spots this more easily. ☺ The question that you have to answer for yourself is, on the basis of what you have found, whether you still want this entire edit history deleted; and whether it now seems possible to write a proper in-depth article from good in-depth sources. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's possible to write an unbiased article about this subject during the 1990s, but the promotional and primary nature of all the sources available since makes this current article little more than a promo page. I will withdraw my nomination, delete all the promotional text, but stop short of rewriting a new article because I'm not very familiar with backup softwares at all. Mottezen (talk) 18:27, 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 06:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Oak Music Group[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable, independent sources that provide significant (or any) coverage of this music group. Either delete outright, or merge the important 10% of this article into California State University, Chico. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 04:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 04:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 04:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 04:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Loads of information on the page is unsourced and ultimately promotional. Deku link (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 13 year old article is promotional, original content by an SPA editor. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misses multiple coverage to qualify for BASIC. RockOften (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most likely copied from the department's own promotional website (2012 version), and there is no outside notice of any significance. The department's existence can possibly be mentioned briefly at the university's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds promotional and no citations provided. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:58, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1:6 scale modeling[edit]

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

I see no evidence that a 1:6 scale model is particularly notable. Article is full of WP:OR. If it wasn't for the about.com article that is cited, I would say that the term "playscale miniaturism" is made up because it isn't used anywhere else. Rusf10 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have an article HO scale, but that's actually a thing. This content is effectively unsourced. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability and it seems to be mostly original research. Suonii180 (talk) 11:25, 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 withdrawn by nominator. ✗plicit 06:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chamaki[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly zero in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "040333" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Again, Chamaki probably does exist (otherwise an IP editor wouldn't have added the detail about the church and the place being inhabited by Assyrians) but no reliable sources show it to be a legally-recognised populated place. FOARP (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Psst! The article isn't the only thing that spells it Saint Merry. Uncle G (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has a picture. Uncle G (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The church is a reality. There were and are Christians in Iran. Nevertheless, this ābādī has been completely abandoned. Again the ābādī may be notable only because of its church, so maybe moving the page and making the article about a church is a better approach than deleting it. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that if we can, we should. English language sources are suggestive. Perhaps there are even better ones in Persian. Uncle G (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4nn1l2: Being abandoned acutally makes a case for meeting WP:GEOLAND: Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it can be notable, but one needs to prove it. Can denotes possibility here, as far as I understand. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @4nn1l2: There's a church, some freak occurrences aside that means it's near certain the place was inhabited at some point. It's very unfortunate the IP didn't add a source. I tried searching, but the language barrier prevents me from finding anything. Is there any older census publicly available? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Alexis Jazz: As I told you before, I love your resilience :-) Everyone is so done with Iranian abadis (me in two projects, fawiki discussions really got on my nerves), but you still continue! Anyway, yes, this abadi can be saved, as 33 people in 7 families lived there, according to the 1986 census. See page 51, line No. 33 (25th line if you count from above). Unfortunately all data are in Eastern Arabic numerals, so you may have difficulty reading them. Here is the same file from an official website (not Commons). 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @4nn1l2: Great, I added it to the article. Also noted that the 600 Assyrian are also mentioned by the Tehran Times article Uncle G linked above, but I fear this might be WP:CITOGENESIS. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, Tehran Times cannot be trusted with such statistics. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as the article has been expanded and some sources have been added. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devico AS[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Unsourced and no coverage can be found outside of press releases in industry journals. Should be deleted per WP:CORP. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are no sources and no evidence of notability. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. SunDawn (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did a Google search and Google News search, all I can find are some press releases and maybe 2-3 article mentions, which is not enough for notability. Peter303x (talk) 19:35, 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 speedy delete. Log entry:

2021-04-17T08:21:12 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page Marco Parisotto (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)

(non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Parisotto[edit]

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

Reads like an advert, full of primary-source quotes instead of facts. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and start over It may be eligible for speedy deletion (G12 or G11), but the subject is clearly notable, because a Google News search yields countless results. I'm pretty sure it meets WP:ANYBIO too. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Holy crap. I now see that the whole article plagiarized his website. Blow it up now. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reylynn Caster[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The actress does not seem noteworthy actress as per the policy WP:ENT. This article should be discussed to see if it fits. Dixiku (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as she has significant enough appearances in various shows. The article should be expanded, though. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has a significant role in this The Young and the Restless thing, which seems to be a pretty notable show, based on the amount written about it on wiki. Furius (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the in-depth feature articles that were in the article, and the sources, including reviews, that have since been added, per WP:NACTOR, she has had significant roles in multiple notable [...] television shows. Beccaynr (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passing the notability. Sonofstar (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She acted in multiple shows out of which acted in major roles in Me, Myself and I and The Young and the Restless. So passes WP:NACTOR for which the actress need at least two major roles. Kirtos67 (talk) 22:34, 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. KaisaL (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E.C. Illa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks to fail GNG and NMUSICIAN. There are some mentions of him out there but only in unreliable sources, and even then there is no in-depth discussion. Article is also very promotional in tone. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't done a complete WP:BEFORE search, but I did find significant coverage in a Chicago Reader article. There is also a very short review from the Chicago Tribune. Otherwise, there is some minor coverage elsewhere, like this Chicago Reader article, this brief local volunteer newspaper mention, and a short AllMusic bio. I don't see enough for GNG yet, but more sources might be out there.
Not really within the scope of this discussion itself, but it may also be worth looking into the notability of E.C. Illa LP as well. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: Since I still haven't found a complete case for WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN yet. Plus, the existing article is basically completely unreferenced anyways. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page appears to contain legitimate historical facts about the artist. Unsure what the issue might be. Keep page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:501:26e0:2c17:3cb6:b9a2:2f67 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC) — 2601:248:501:26e0:2c17:3cb6:b9a2:2f67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I don't know where most of the information in the article is coming from - none of it is cited, and the only sources linked are a couple of brief bios on Discogs and AllMusic which support hardly any of the content. Agree with the nom that the writing is very promotional, but that could be addressed if there were better sources; I can't find anything giving the subject significant coverage though, so I suspect it's a GNG/NMUSIC fail. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:04, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A c Kadlur[edit]

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

The person did not win a single election. Doesn't satisfy the minimum criteria set by WP:NPOL. Dixiku (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, failed WP:NPOL as he is unsuccessful on his political endeavors and have no other notability. SunDawn (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searching online with "A. C. Kadlur" -wikipedia does not yield sources not present in the article. From the sources of the article, I have only found two sources that are slightly removed from a trivial mention.^[1]^[2] However, they are not wp:significant coverage, meaning the subject fails WP:NPOL on top of not being elected and WP:GNG. The combined coverage also does not make the subject satisfy WP:BASIC.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no redirect target. "XXXX Karnataka Legislative Assembly election" are invalid as there are four choices. See also WP:XY. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved A c Kadlur to A.C. Kadlur. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Maybe redirect to Janata Dal (Secular)? Suonii180 (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The main fight is between Congress and BJP in Yadgir district". February 15, 2016. Archived from the original on February 16, 2016. Retrieved April 17, 2021 – via www.thehindu.com.
^ Naraboli, Ravikumar (March 17, 2018). "JD(S) may have to sweat it out in Yadgir". Archived from the original on November 9, 2020. Retrieved April 17, 2021 – via www.thehindu.com.

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