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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

French American Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles[edit]

French American Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NORG. A BEFORE search in English and French finds little more than trivial mentions. The French Morning article is the exception, but a single news story about a new organization is insufficient to establish notability under the deliberately strict NORG guideline. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minimal third-party sources are coming up in my searches. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NORG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find no additional sourcing that would raise this local chapter above the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 7 sources are from Facclosangeles.org. , so this leaves 4 total unique srouces, not enough for notablity. Webmaster862 (talk) 09:11, 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 (see discussion at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Time to close AFD)Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan[edit]

Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This wrestling promotion does not appear to meet WP:NORG. All the sources in the article are either self-published or based on press releases, and I'm not finding anything better through Google. I note that the article creator is a blocked sock who has previously tried to promote non-notable Pakistani wrestling content. I am also nominating all articles in Category:Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan, which are even less notable than the parent organization:

PWFP Ultimate Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PWFP World Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PWFP World Wrestling Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

– Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One of these must be the pro wrestling outfit and must be kept. So which one is it? scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Scope creep: What do you mean it must be kept? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2021

  @Lord Bolingbroke: Well one of them will the pro league for that country and should be coverage for that league and there should be an attempt to find references for it. scope_creep^Talk 14:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't follow your thinking. Just because the organization has "pro" in its name does not mean it is automatically notable. I did attempt to find references, and all I came across were blogs, press releases, and self-published material. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yip, that could be the problem. Is it a new sport across there? If it is, it will probably need some sportsman/expert type who can separate the wheat from the chaff. I don't know enough about it, but I'm sure one must be recognized in the country as the usual professional league. I would be surprised if there wasn't some kind of professional league. It might not be in this list. scope_creep^Talk 14:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  PWFP Ultimate Championship, PWFP World Heavyweight Championship, and PWFP World Wrestling Champions are all championships within the Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan. They are not different leagues, as you seem to be suggesting. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at the history of these articles, you will see they were all created by the same sock. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting article about a federation that I never heard of I must say. I must check this out before I vote. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, after reading through this article I now see that it is a successful wrestling federation in Pakistan, and surely is viable as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davidgoodheart: Can you explain how this wrestling federation meets WP:NORG? According to the pro wrestling WikiProject, that is the standard that wrestling organizations need to meet to be notable. As it stands, this !vote does nothing to show this federation's notability. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lord Bolingbroke: It says it is featured worldwide, that's notable to me. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Source? This article was created by a blocked sockpuppet and is full of unsourced and promotional claims. Taking the article's claims at face value as an indication of notability is ridiculous. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I may change my stance in a bit depending on how the voting goes. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be a fairly notable fed at least in Pakistan, and unless I’m missing something, we have pages for the specific championships which aren’t up for debate? Copper1993 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  They are. I bundled them with this AfD. Do you really think that fewer than 8k followers on Facebook and 2k followers on YouTube is "fairly notable"? Regardless, your comment doesn't present a policy-based reason to keep, namely how this federation meets WP:NORG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable organisation, a single piece in The News based on a media announcement (so press release based coverage) doth not WP:GNG pass, let alone WP:ORG. Also take on board that the articles were created by an indeffed user. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Smear campaign. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discrediting tactic[edit]

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

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

At first glance, this seems like it might be deserving of an article (possibly notable), but there do not appear to be any sources for it. A Google search comes up with less than 1000 results. Maybe there's another term for the concept that is more widespread? As of right now, I am saying this does not meet WP:GNG, but even if we could get pass that, this article is a candidate for deletion per WP:TNT. It reads like an essay and is what many people would call a WP:COATRACK article. Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep for now. On the one hand, Wikipedia is not a WP:Dictionary of phrases, and a lot of results I found in this search gave me five reliable articles using the term but not discussing it, making them passing mentions. On the other hand, Scholarly literature, which Wikipedia has a huge crush on, does use this phrase a heck of a lot more to accuse institutions and leaders and other stuff, and it's not like what this phrase means isn't a commonly-done behavior, especially in higher-up places. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per other comments. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholarly literature would have the right name for a propaganda technique though. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The motivation for this was the prevalence of articles (back then) on Goreism, Goreisms, Gore-ism, Gore-isms, Bushism (AfD discussion), Bushisms, and so forth, including List of Bushisms, Strategery (AfD discussion), Potatoe (AfD discussion), Misunderestimated, MAKE THE PIE HIGHER (AfD discussion), and Suicider (AfD discussion). We seem to have eventually solved that in a different way. Uncle G (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into smear campaign which is the more common name for this political technique. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this seems to have meanings outside of the political realm of smear campaigns (sources do exist to attest for this, ex. [1]; [2]), for example in legal cases ([3]); and also manifest in regular political debates (Interview with a Harvard professor about this). I think that's enough sources that discuss the concept and not just the term for this to be kept and expanded. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Smear campaign, which has examples of legal cases and other areas that are "outside of the political realm" so I'm confused by the suggestion that smear campaigns would be limited to that and discrediting tactics are a separate concept. Combining these overlapping names would be a good way to expand this. The opposite merge of smear campaign into this article would also work if sources have a greater focus on that, but I fail to see what would distinguish these names. HumanxAnthro, were you aware of the other article when you !voted? Reywas92^Talk 18:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't say I was, but now that I know about I have change my !vote to Merge. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think smear campaign wouldn't be an accurate title for topics which are outside of the political realm (a lawyer discrediting a witness at a trial is not a "smear campaign", it is in some cases unethical but it is nothing like what can be seen in politics); but that might be an issue for WP:RM and not AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:48, 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riversong Technology[edit]

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

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

Not enough sources and promo content. Setreis (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Despite having a number of references, not many are reliable. –Cupper52^Discuss! 08:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : No reliable sources found. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 14:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to others: This user is a suspected sock of ProudMallu. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man Metedeice (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking comment from blocked sockpuppet. Cunard (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per featured in notable reliable websites like The Economic Times, The Financial Express, Deccan Herald, Yahoo News, Business Standard, The Telegraph, National Chronicle, Business Line etc. Metedeice (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage is available in WP:RS. Meets GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and the Keep !voters above appear to be referencing GNG and not NCORP. Having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are more than enough sources available to pass this article for both GNG and NCORP. Some of sources can be seen below.
• https://www.deccanchronicle.com/technology/in-other-news/020617/riversong-gears-up-to-take-the-indian-tech-industry-up-by-storm.html
• https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/riversong-air-x5-plus-review-an-airpods-look-alike-that-costs-only-rs-2999-8333701.html
• https://www.telegraphindia.com/science-tech/earbuds-for-crisp-and-clear-bass-sound/cid/1719777
• https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/riversong-bets-big-on-india-eyes-rs-100-cr-revenue-by-2020/69244614
• https://in.style.yahoo.com/riversong-technology-appoints-gurbinder-sodhi-sales-director-085506438.html
• https://www.asianage.com/technology/gadgets/030919/riversong-motive-review-budget-apple-watch-rival-for-the-smart-consumer.html
• https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/riversong-wave-s-smart-and-stylish-fitness-band-at-an-affordable-price/2060304/
• https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/specials/technophile/riversong-motive-plus-smart-watch-wearable-review-price-specs/article31518280.ece
• https://www.digianalysys.com/riversong-launches-wave-o2/
• https://www.deccanherald.com/business/technology/realme-c20-c21-c25-series-with-mediatek-soc-launched-in-india-971931.html
• https://download.cnet.com/RS-Motive/3000-2129_4-78133044.html
• https://digitalterminal.in/news/riversong-technology-appoints-mrmanvendra-k-chandola-as-new-ceo-for-india-operations/14816.html
• https://www.adgully.com/riversong-technology-appoints-mr-manvendra-k-chandola-as-the-ceo-for-india-operations-82860.html
• https://www.bisinfotech.com/wearable-technology-becoming-mainstream-in-the-healthcare-sector/
• https://www.mobilityindia.com/riversong-aims-to-be-the-leading-mobile-accessories-brand-in-india-driven-by-a-robust-growth-and-strong-partner-network/
• https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/riversong-technology-appoints-gurbinder-sodhi-as-new-sales-director-118031500611_1.html
• https://www.techpluto.com/riversong-india-is-aiming-to-become-among-the-top-three-players-in-the-future/ Metedeice (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response There is nothing in either of GNG or NCORP that says that the volume of sources is an indicator of notability, so your comment that there are more than enough sources available carries no weight. I posted the relevant sections from NCORP and emphasised CORPDEPTH and ORGIND in the hope that an editor would avoid posting links without providing any valid rationale.
  • Deccan Chronicle is PR from a product launch, fails ORGIND. No in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Firstpost is a product review but the topic of this article is the company, not the product. No in-depth information provided about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • Telegraph is a product review, fails for the same reason as above
  • Economic Times India relies entirely on information provided by the CEO, fails ORGIND. Also provided no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • Yahoo is a company announcement, fails ORGIND
  • Asian Age is a product review, fails CORPDEPTH for the same reasons as the other product reviews. The topic is the company, not one of their products.
  • Financial Express is another product review, fails for the same reasons as above
  • Hindu Business Line another product review, fails for the same reasons as above
  • DigiAnalysis is yet another product review, fails for the same reasons as above.
  • Deccan Herald (second article) fails to even mention the topic company, no idea why this was included
  • CNET Download written by the topic company, primary source. No idea why this was included.
  • Digital Terminal company announcement of a new CEO, fails ORGIND
  • AdGully company announcement of new CEO, fails ORGIND
  • BISInfotech entirely relies on a Q&A with the CEO, fails ORGIND
  • Mobility relies entirely on an interview (or interaction as it is called) with the CEO, fails ORGIND
  • Business Standard company announcement, fails ORGIND
  • TechPluto interview with CEO, fails ORGIND

Not a single reference comes close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability, they're all "echo chamber" articles which rely on interviews and information provided by the company, or they're product reviews which don't provide any in-depth information on the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Noting in the article proves the notability of the company Alex-h (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable and lack of reliable sources. 2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:69F9:FD38:CB6C:FB95 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and consider rename to Riversong Technology products or List of Riversong Technology products. Metedeice (talk · contribs) has posted numerous reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Riversong Technology's products through reviews. The products meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the article should be retained and possibly moved to a title that represents what the sources largely focus on: Riversong Technology's products.

  Cunard (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Better than nothing but all sources look like rewritten press releases or fail SIGCOV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esteghlalish Blue (film series)[edit]

Esteghlalish Blue (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails Wikipedia:Notability 90 TV (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 90 TV (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 90 TV (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 90 TV (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 90 TV (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Some Iranian news agencies have covered this film with advertising labels on the text-footer. 90 TV (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable, or perhaps mention at Esteghlal F.C. at most. GiantSnowman 09:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:45, 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. The "keep" !votes point to the number of fc matches, but do not show the in-depth sources that should go with this. Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1955)[edit]

Abdur Rehman (cricketer, born 1955) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan) 9 FC matches, but as usual with Pakistani cricketers we're struggling to find sources of significant coverage. Coverage may exist on him offline or in local language sources though. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD and could possibly have been BOLDly redirect to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One of the youngest first-class debutants ever [4]. StickyWicket (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you know his age is fake. Everyone knows how they recorded age back then. Störm (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources which contradict the ACS info? StickyWicket (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable cricketer. Fails WP:NCRIC. Though CricketArchive is saying that the player played 9 FC matches, I can't find enough sources of significant coverage that tells that the player is notable. Besides, the article is fully unsourced, and reliably sourcing is a very important aspect on Wikipedia. Also, there is no profile/stats page of the player in ESPN Cricinfo or any other stats website except CricketArchive. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 13:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If his allegedly young age at debut made him notable we would be able to find reliable sources that discussed this. My search turned up nothing. So asserting that this makes him notable would be orginal research on our part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First class cricketer who played 9 fc matches. Tintin 17:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tintin1107, So what? I wrote 9 blog posts and ate 9 candies today. Random number, random activity. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Played in 9 F/C matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG/NBIO. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 09:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tacoma Mall shooting[edit]

Tacoma Mall shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

2013 AfD closed as no consensus. Especially because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, is not encyclopedic to include an article about a failed shooting. This event fails WP:EVENTCRIT and a review of the sources yields only local and regional publications. If there is no consensus to delete, redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States. KidAd • SPEAK 21:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. NPR's 2013 article "Armed 'Good Guys' And The Realities Of Facing A Gunman" discusses Dan McKown, who was paralyzed by the gunman. It was also the subject of a Call 911 episode.[5] Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – it has enough sources to pass the GNG, so it's good in my opinion. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep RS'es continue to cover the shooter when he does something newsworthy. Even if it didn't, WP:NTEMP. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I doubt McKown, who to the best of my knowledge remains paralyzed thanks to his choice to intervene, would call it a "failed" shooting. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 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 speedy delete. This has been an advertisement for a decade, exhorting the reader in the second person and speaking in the first person. And when it hasn't been that it has been vandalism criticising the advertising. I've revoked the single-purpose account's editing privileges. Then there's the small matter of much of the content being copy-pasted copyrighted non-free content from the subject's own WWW site, cleaned up over and over, and put back in over and over. Uncle G (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hayfield University[edit]

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

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

This article concerns a private university in Fullerton, California. The article was created in 2011 yet for the last decade has cited no sources. The article is also in incredibly poor shape with broken English throughout and an extensive discussion of trivial or promotional matters. And looking at the history, it seems highly likely that a major contributor was someone with a COI. But most importantly, in conducting a BEFORE search, I was unable to find any reliable sources demonstrating that this university meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. So, for all these reasons, I think this page should be deleted. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Tularam Rajkiya Sarvodya Vidyalaya (Surhera)[edit]

Rao Tularam Rajkiya Sarvodya Vidyalaya (Surhera) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Utterly non-notable school, poorly sourced and search finds nothing beyond the usual social media and directory listings. Yet another example as to why educational institutions really should have their own speedy category. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Appears WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing useful found on my WP:Before. Happy to change my vote if somone comes up with some good sources. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, i cant find anything to show the school is notable Alex-h (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non Notable and search for sourcing came up empty Redoryxx (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable School. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Muni Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandir Madhupur[edit]

Mahendra Muni Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandir Madhupur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Poorly-sourced article about a non-notable school; fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. I previously moved this to drafts, and publication was subsequently rejected at AfC; this is just a recreation (copy & paste?) of the same content yet again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there doesn't appear to be much else out there other than the school's own website, social media and the usual profile pages on indiscriminate school database websites. I did, however, find a passing mention in the news here. Would support redirect if an appropriate target is available, otherwise, delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable School. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:51, 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 merge to Deaf culture with proper sourcing. Sources that may make the content wp:verifiable are available here and on the article talk page.

There is no consensus to delete the content outright or keep the content standalone. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing (person)[edit]

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

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

Unsourced article that serves no purpose. All people are "hearing persons" unless they are deaf, there is no such term to refer to people that have normal hearing as "hearing persons". We don't have articles on "seeing people", "walking people", or "talking people". Rusf10 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You probably could find sources if you looked for them; the academic discourse on disability and especially deafness is weird. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire. "someone whose sense of hearing is at the medical norm" is a made-up definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable topic that is studied at depth in deaf studies. Studies abound on hearing persons and their interactions with those who are deaf, e.g.: 1. Efficiency of a hearing person learning sign language vocabulary from media versus a teacher, 2. Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States, 3. Deaf Parents and Their Hearing Children, 4. Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: Biological constraints and effects of experience, 5. Participation in a Global Hearing Culture: Hearing Mothers’ Translations of Their Childrens’ Deafworlds, 6. Deaf Community Culture components and its relation to Hearing culture. The hearing culture is nearly alien to deaf culture, and doesn't make use of coherent visual communication, and studies of the hearing from a deaf perspective are significant.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The deaf and hearing divide is different from most other categories (e.g. blind / seeing), as deaf people have their own languages (Sign languages which are totally distinct from the verbal languages of the countries their are based in) and as a result a separate, sometimes closed, culture. This is very different from, say the blind, as while Braille exists it is essentially a font that renders the verbal language. Sign languages have their own distinct written forms (SignWriting, si5s) and the language itself is separate from the regional verbal language (e.g. American Sign Language, Auslan, and British Sign Language are not mutually intelligible).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A hearing person is a person who can hear. Is this a simple description or is this some specially recognized category in the deaf community or academia? I don't see anything in the articles you've cited that suggests the latter is true. Also, I don't see what your last comment has to do with the topic at hand. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Non-signing hearing cultures (perhaps this BBC piece on the effect of the hearing on the deaf) are distinctly different from deaf cultures. Being able to hear is not a simple description here, as the consequence is that non-signing hearing people use a different medium of communication (voice as oppose to visual) and have different languages and cultures. Hearing people, and their cultures, are the subject of significant study by deaf cultures and the wider deaf studies.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 'All people are "hearing persons" unless they are deaf'. Right, just like all people are men (unless they are women), all people are adults (unless they are children), and all people are white (unless they are some other race). That is a ridiculous argument. Being the unmarked term does not render a category beyond consideration. Added: Most likely merge to Deaf culture, but it's possible that it could be expanded to an article. What is there at present is an essay without cited sources. A quick search found some sources, which I have listed on the article's talk page. It's not clear whether this topic is notable in and of itself, beyond consideration of Deaf culture, but it is possible. In any case, I would argue that the page be kept in some form, either expanded in its own right or within Deaf culture. Cnilep (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC); amended 08:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Baby hands that move to the rhythm of language: hearing babies acquiring sign languages babble silently on the hands for instance studies hearing babies, contrasting hearing babies that were exposed to speech ("speech exposed") to those who were exposed to sign ("sign exposed"). The "sign exposed" hearing babies exhibited "babbling" behavior with their hands (2.5Hz vs. 1Hz for linguistic activity with hands).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a ridiculous argument. No, it's a solid argument and you just made a bunch of false comparisons. all people are men (unless they are women) its roughly 50-50 all people are adults (unless they are children) 25% of the world's population are children all people are white (unless they are some other race) Most of the world population isn't white. But, almost all people can hear, making this article and your defense of it ridiculous.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying that's not a valid argument, but academia definitely wouldn't see it that way. Since we have articles for cissexual and endosex, I see no reason not to have this article, at least as an explanation of an academic concept. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Like Cnilep, I find the nom's argument bizarre. The unmarked ("normal") member of a conceptual opposition doesn't automatically become non-notable just because it's unmarked. This has nothing to do with the relative proportions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete because it's a valid encyclopedic topic, and sources have already been brought forward. I have no opinion on whether the topic is best treated in an article of its own or as part of another article. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Deaf culture per Cnilep's argument. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep. Subject is definitely notable as a term among the deaf community. Erinius (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is an unsourced essay-like article, at best it could be a paragraph or two at Deaf culture - with references to suitable sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Deaf culture with redirect. It is a reasonable search term, but IMHO doesn't need to be a stand-alone article. --Slashme (talk) 16:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Syazwan Kassim[edit]

Mohd Syazwan Kassim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Alleged two appearances for Kuala Muda are unsourced and I couldn't find a source to verify them. Soccerway and Tribuna are the only reliable databases that list him but there are only a few second tier appearances, nothing more.

Google searches and Malaysian searches came back with nothing about the player. There is clear consensus now that such players must meet WP:GNG to be kept. The player has no ongoing career; there is no reason to believe that they are notable or likely to be notable any time soon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 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)} 18:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG and NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Fails notability and WP:NFOOTBALL. Alex-h (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:01, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syafiq Rahman[edit]

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

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

Taking this to AfD as Syafiq has played 1 min of professional football five years ago but done nothing of note since. The weakest possible passing of WP:NFOOTBALL is not enough when WP:GNG is not met. It is worth noting that Soccerway and Tribuna have no top tier appearances recorded and Playmaker Stats has the one.

Searches of Syafiq Rahman and Syafiq Abdul Rahman brought back only one passing mention in BH. The rest were just the usual database pages and Blogspot pages, which do not count towards notability. Clear consensus that such players aren't notable unless they meet GNG. 1 minute of football isn't enough to ignore that. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worth adding that he doesn't appear to have an ongoing career and doesn't seem to have played football since 2017. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 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)} 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, 1 min is by far not enough, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator Fails GNG Aloolkaparatha (talk) 09:58, 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 merge to Native Americans in film. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Indian[edit]

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

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

No reason for this to be separate from Native Americans in film - the article doesn't even spend that long talking about stereotypes! I would also question that there even is one "Hollywood Indian" stereotype - that the article says "the stereotype has undergone significant changes from the beginning of cinema to the present day" is an indication that we are not dealing with one stereotype but several. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Native Americans in film for the same reasons as above. Mukedits (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Native Americans in film. There is plenty of content here that needs merging, not just redirecting. While we don't need two articles on what is essentially the same topic, and the 'Native Americans in film' name is more clear, this really should be just a regular merge discussion, not an AfD listing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Native Americans in film. Notable topic, with solid referencing, but as stated above the two articles are basically on the same topic. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B-17 Flying Fortress No. 42-29532 Memorial[edit]

B-17 Flying Fortress No. 42-29532 Memorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Training crashes happened all the time during WW2; this one was no different. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and WP:NOTMEMORIAL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify There is a slim chance the park is somehow notable, which is the only reason I include draftify as an option. Otherwise doesn't meet GNG. Intothatdarkness 18:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not relevant here; that applies when Wikipedia itself is being used as a memorial. As a physical memorial and memorial park, this falls under WP:NBUILDING: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Since this only has local significance, it does not pass the bar. I suggest that an entry be added to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1943–1944). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus to keep the article (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alycia Pascual-Peña[edit]

Alycia Pascual-Peña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Simply, fails WP:NACTOR. Doesn't also appear to pass the GNG. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article already cites profiles of this actress in sources including Entertainment Weekly, Teen Vogue, and Vulture.com. That would seem to cover the general notability guideline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I believe Moxie and the Saved by the Bell remake are both notable productions and she has had leading roles in both, i.e. "significant roles in multiple notable" per WP:ENT. I don't know whether complex.com is a reliable source but this article contains biographical details as well as an interview. There are over 240 matches for "Alycia Pascual-Peña" on NewsBank - I've glanced over a couple of dozen of them, many of which are incidental mentions or focus on the productions rather than her specifically, but there does seem to be plenty to support additional content in the article if it's kept. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per all meets WP:NACTOR as her role is notable for well known notable productions. Zackdasnicker (talk) 17:56, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Windle (baseball)[edit]

Tom Windle (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There was some strangeness regarding PRODs and redirects in late 2020, so bringing this to AfD - no issue if this is redirected. I agree with the PROD: non-notable minor league baseball player, fails WP:NBASE/WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable minor league player. Can be restored if he is ever called up.-- Yankees10 17:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't meet any of the WP:NBASE criteria. And other than being traded around by some teams, not many sources about him to meet WP:GNG. Agree with Yankees10 to be restored if he ever reaches the majors. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 00:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only articles about him are trades and college statistics. If he plays games in the majors in the future the article can be restored.WP:TOOSOON. Mukedits (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coverage is passing mention in transfers and databases, nothing at all demonstrating GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler 1606[edit]

Kepler 1606 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. No published papers primarily this star or a small number of stars including this one. No lay coverage. See also Kepler-1606b, the only English Wikipedia page that links to this one. Lithopsian (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a very minor English correction today that doesn't affect the suitability for deletion, about which I have no opinion. Athel cb (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2016. The star itself is non-notable per WP:NASTRO and lack of studies. The planet article at Kepler-1606b is probably also non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see the point of making an AfD for the star separately. If the exoplanet is notable, the consensus is to merge with it. If the exoplanet is not notable, both should be deleted. In this particular case, there only two papers that mention the exoplanet [6][7], and only in a big list, so both articles should be deleted. Tercer (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just nominated the exoplanet for deletion. I deliberately didn't bundle them in the same discussion to avoid the situation of one being notable and the other not leading to a confused outcome, and also because I wasn't sure about the notability of the exoplanet. Now I guess we'll find out. Lithopsian (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's more work for you, but it would be better for everybody else if you researched the notability of both before bringing the matter to AfD; then either the planet is notable and the articles can be merged, avoiding AfD altogether, or both should be nominated in a bundle. Tercer (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable star with non-notable exoplanet. Tercer (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Lithopsian and Tercer.PopePompus (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex DiBranco[edit]

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

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Regular academic without doing anything significant, possibly pursuing Doctorate as it appears from this source. Fails to pass WP:NACADEMIC.Chirota (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Delete fails WP:NPROF. she has written two books one book chapter and a paper that have no citations so far on GS and no reviews on JSTOR. So far notability it not evident, her other publications are for a think tank and not an academic journal and this website describes her as a PhD candidate. However, she is mentioned in 20+ news segments including reputable newspapers (Chicago Tribune, Guardian etc), however none of them are about her but interviews about her work / current events so I would say she still fails WP:GNG at this point. --hroest 18:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With only single-digit numbers of publications and numbers of citations per publication in Google Scholar, her citation record is not enough for WP:PROF#C1. I don't know what the "two books" mentioned above might be (her Yale profile lists only shorter selected publications) but with no book reviews there is no case for WP:AUTHOR. And there seems no other claim to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• sorry, I fixed that above. She did write a book chapter and a paper according to GS. --hroest 19:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - too few citations to pass WP:NPROF, and the occasional press interview is inadequate to meet the GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Normally I avoid disciplines that aren't well-suited to Scopus citation metrics, but this case was clear enough from just a brief glance at her GS cites and (lack of) JSTOR hits. Way, way too soon. JoelleJay (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is too soon for NPROF, and she doesn't meet GNG.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as others have said. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khari Waithe-Alexander[edit]

Khari Waithe-Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't read The Southern articles in the article, but a newspapers.com search brings up precious little and he's not mentioned significantly in any other papers apart from being listed as an underclassman who declared for the draft. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:NCOLLATH. Chirota (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. My searches also fail to turn up SIGCOV required to pass under GNG. And his collegiate accomplishments (as reported here) do not bring him within NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH; playing Southern Illinois Salukis football doesn't attract notability. The Southern Illinoisan is the Carbondale local paper so it wouldn't establish WP:SIGCOV by itself anyway. --Closeapple (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs)
• Delete. Coverage isn't in depth enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebun Feludu[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not satisfy WP:GNG or any known notability criteria. A before search fails to turn up anything concrete. All I could observe were unreliable sources such as this, this & this all of which are unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the references are no way near WP:SIGCOV. Chirota (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreliable sources. 81.131.132.199 (talk) 15:47, 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. On the basis of a lack of SIGCOV. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Williams (soccer)[edit]

Tyler Williams (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The NASL was technically fully professional, but he played only 200 minutes in 8 appearances, mostly as a sub. The only sources are to Soccerway and the team's website, and I can't find any other WP:GNG-qualifying coverage - all I can find is transactional agate. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 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)} 17:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets NFOOTBALL by some way. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't really matter - the NASL wasn't the best covered league in the world and from what I can tell, he doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with SF here. 200 mins of WP:NFOOTBALL isn't enough when GNG isn't met. In my own search, I found a couple of YouTube videos where he is interviewed and then some minor mentions on the NASL's own website, like this, I have no doubt that SF already did a much more comprehensive WP:BEFORE search than me. This article, in its current form, is just synthesised from the bare minimum stats coverage and there's no indication that it can be meaningfully expanded in any way from the sources available. I'll happily change my vote if significant coverage is brought to the discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage about the subject so he fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete despite passing WP:NFOOTY there does not appear to be any significant coverage of the individual, and they appear to fail WP:GNG. Additionally, as the player appears retired from the sport, they are unlikely to re-attain that presumption of notability. Since GNG ostensibly takes precedence over NFOOTY, I think deletion is the more clear decision. Jay eyem (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. GNG is the relevant criterion at AfD, not NFOOTY, and SIGCOV has not been demonstrated whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 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. No delete !votes apart from mine, and the sources added to the article demonstrate WP:GNG is likely met. (non-admin closure) SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West End AFC[edit]

West End AFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A PROD was removed in 2017 since the club technically has played in the New Zealand cup. Coverage I found included a local league write up [8] and another local write up featuring their reserve team [9] but both are WP:ROUTINE and so the article fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 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)} 17:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - playing in the national cup is a general guideline to notability. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but the discussions going on over at WP:NSPORT continue to demonstrate that articles can/should be deleted if WP:GNG isn't met. New Zealand isn't a country where sources would be unavailable, either - they might exist, I might have missed them, but I certainly can't find them. SportingFlyer T·C 18:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• NSPORT doesn't apply to sports teams, see WP:NTEAM. GiantSnowman 11:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• NSPORT specifically says Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline. WP:FOOTYN says Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, teams are required to meet the general notability guideline. The following guidance may indicate at what level teams generally have enough coverage to meet the GNG. Therefore, a "general guideline" just means "likely meets GNG," but I don't think this particular team does meet the GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is just a matter of knowing where to find the sources, I have done a bit of a decent update of the page around their Chatham Cup history using a couple of Football Project reliable sources in RSSSF and the Ultimate NZ Soccer website. There will probably be more Stuff write-ups as well. I have added some already, as well as from the Otago Daily Times.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Found all the following that can be added into the article as well. I will try and read through and add what I can at a later point from the below.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 09:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/103869270/defending-champions-west-end-undefeated-in-south-canterbury-football-league
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/97072453/coaching-not-about-the-accolades-for-west-ends-damian-gawne
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/95958423/west-end-increase-competition-lead-with-tight-victory-over-northern-hearts
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/96464043/west-end-secure-first-south-canterbury-football-league-title-in-18-years
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/94279047/west-end-earn-bragging-rights-in-table-topping-battle-with-northern-hearts
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/91105414/karens-cox-trophy-returns-to-west-end-after-son-bags-double-in-win
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/96201024/northern-hearts-and-west-end-keep-league-chances-alive-with-victory
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/97035067/west-ends-tyler-cox-and-roncallithistles-ruby-anderson-scoop-major-football-awards
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/91909580/west-end-too-clinical-for-cross-town-rivals-thistle-in-chatham-cup-qualifier
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/92299373/daniel-campbell-double-sinks-timaru-boys-high-as-west-end-win-league-thriller
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/91005264/west-end-out-to-win-back-karen-cox-trophy-in-timaru-city-clash
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/94049031/west-end-deliver-cox-perfect-birthday-gift-with-win-over-timaru-boys
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/92123012/womens-footballers-back-scoring-goals-at-west-end-football-club
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/96573359/west-ends-connor-allnutt-completes-successful-transition-to-goalkeeper
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/sport/84085852/west-end-and-meadowbank-to-clash-for-south-canterbury-cup

Most of the Otago Daily times ones are more passing mentions but carry result information

• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/three-cup-games-anzac-day
• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/abandoned-match-after-injury-be-replayed
• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/eight-teams-cup-ties
• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/tech-drawn-meet-rovers
• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/football-major-southern-clashes-first-round
• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/first-blood-minnows-top-teams-prevail
• https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/head-clash-takes-gloss-queenstowns-win

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgeNotFound[edit]

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

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

Youtube who is mentioned in various articles about the Minecraft community, but I'm not see sufficient depth-of-coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO criteria. The TechTimes article used as a reference in the article is more about him being banned for an unusual reason (harassing himself via an alt account) than anything else. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment:, the article in question was previously a redirect and was being discussed here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_15#GeorgeNotFound.JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 15:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article is a stub, with very few information, and it is not marked as one. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Burgundian Feudalism:, stub classifications do not matter in AfD debates, as we only care about notability. Similarily, an article may have a million cleanup tags, but if it is notable (meets WP:GNG), then it is kept. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 15:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but there are barely any information in this article. Compare that to an article on Dream. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Burgundian Feudalism No one prevents you from tagging it as a stub while the article being discussed here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After taking a good look at the sources, there isn't much if any significant, reliable, independent coverage of this particular person. Also of note is the recreation of this article 7 times (3 CSD'ed, 4 via usurp the redirect). Serious salt should be applied. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 18:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Search results talk more about his proclivity to getting banned than about him and those that are about him are not WP:RS. –Fredddie™ 18:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article is mostly just fancruft and WP:BLP violations (personal life only containing something about color blindness). This article also appears to have been recreated many times, so I'm going to recommend WP:SALT as well. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - having searched, I haven't found significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so I believe that the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above (seems to be a bit WP:TOOSOON), but don't WP:SALT. Instead convert back into a REDIRECT to Dream (YouTuber)#Career as a "related topic", redirecting to an article on a YouTuber whom this individual's notability stems from. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There has been no significant coverage of this person, unlike Dream (YouTuber), I think that the redirect should be deleted to avoid allowing the recreation of the article to bypass AfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am personally against keeping the redirect, you could only do it by having it have Extended Confirmed protection, and then have this article incubate in draft space (so it gets submitted to AfC). JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 12:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per above, nowhere near enough high quality sourcing to write a BLP, repeatedly recreated and deleted. Any attempt at writing an article should go through AFC. I oppose redirecting to Dream (YouTuber), as the entire coverage of GeorgeNotFound there consists of In a video from January 2020, Dream and another YouTuber, GeorgeNotFound, connected an Arduino board to an electric dog collar which emitted an electric shock whenever a player lost health in the game Minecraft, which is nowhere near enough content IMO to justify redirecting to another youtuber. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Perhaps a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. A redirect won't do since this is not a case of WP:INHERIT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above. No reliable sources. I believe this shouldn't revert back to a redirect. Although Dream makes content with George, this shouldn't be redirected to Dream. Edl-irishboy (talk) 00:21, 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. Fails WP:GNG. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith and partcipating in this discussion! Missvain (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Yeromenko[edit]

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

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

Discovered when going through notability tags. I'm not super familiar with the boxing SNG but that doesn't matter since this article fails WP:GNG, it's sourced only to a statistics website and I cannot find any significant coverage in English or Ukrainian in a WP:BEFORE search which would demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I could only find passing mentions of results in English and nothing in Ukrainian. – ².O.^Boxing 10:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apart from the arguments above, the subject does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NBOXING. Nsk92 (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mati Zata[edit]

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

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

Discovered this article while going through articles tagged with the sports notability guideline. Zata played 21 minutes over 3 games in the Scottish League One, which is two divisions below the only fully professional division in Scotland (he did have eight cup appearances with four starts over three years), and has been released by Dumbarton and is currently without a club, failing WP:NFOOTY. There has been some local coverage of him mostly as a pre-debut youngster, so I didn't PROD this in case there's an argument he meets WP:GNG, but I also don't think that's met. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 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)} 13:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant as above. RockOften (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. Sonofstar (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has not played at a high enough level either at Dumbarton or Dundee United, where he only played in Challenge Cup ties, to meet notability standards. Dunarc (talk) 19:51, 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lovitt Records[edit]

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

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

advertisement masqueraded as an article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Recording labels/companies do not fall under WP:NBAND, but rather NCORP, so appears according to a most recent discussion on this matter at WT:Notability#Appropriate_SNG_for_record_labels/recording_companies and there seems to be no overruling sustained consensus that it should be evalutated otherwise. Graywalls (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is this and this, but they do not amount to significant coverage. Mukedits (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a new editor has added these and other sources to the article. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I do not know any of these bands, but if any have significant accomplishments, then perhpahs this label should be kept. The way it is, it doesn't appear so. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that several of the bands have significant accomplishments. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear to me why deletion (i.e., redlinking) would be preferable to merging into the page for Dischord Records, this (genuinely influential) label's distributor. There is encyclopedic value in being able to interlink, and thereby show a relationship, between The Mercury Program, Division of Laura Lee, Engine Down, and the myriad other bands associated with each other by the fact of having all been signed to this label. Chubbles (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article is about a non notable independent label, plus it heavily lacks sources. --K. Peake 11:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the article no longer heavily lacks sources. Another editor, who has not weighed in at this AfD, has added a large number of new sources to the article. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the recent activity shoring up this article, I am changing my !vote to Keep, as the article now demonstrates independent notability such that merging is no longer a better option. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment Chicago Tribune, Chicago Reader, and Washignton City Paper, Paste Magazine, Indy Week are not significant coverage. As for DCist, Multiple coverage by the same journalist/publication is considered one source, and this source is not independent since much of the contents is based on interview with Lovitt. In order to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, there must be significantly, intellectually independent, secondary coverage in multiple sources and thus far, this article fails this criteria. Graywalls (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - according to [10], the label was featured in magazine Punk Planet, pages 58-61, no. 23, March-April 1998. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment - [11] indicates the label is long-established as important to the Washington D.C. music scene. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  comment ok, although I'm not seeing what amounts to significant coverage in the context of WP:SIRS. The coverage needs to be significant, intellectually independent, reliable and secondary (does not include "dependent" secondary); and there must be multiple such sources to satisfy the absolute minimum requirements of NCORP. It's possible that Punk news could be too narrow of a focus for WP:AUD satisfaction and it could be an industry magazine? (see ORGIND). Graywalls (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I reiterate, as you do to the contrary, that I do not believe NCORP is the most appropriate standard for record labels, as NMUSIC #5 has been the lonstanding precedent. NMUSIC #5 is very clearly met in this case, but I also do not believe it the only notability standard that should be considered. The mentioned disussion was very poorly attended and did not include editors familiar with the topic area. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Personally, I believe that WP:ORG and specifically WP:CORPDEPTH are the perfect examples of where WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP has overrun common sense. As far as I am concerned, WP:ORG should simply now not be used, ever, and we have to evaluate notability of organizations directly based on WP:GNG. However, in this case, the sources given in the article are too weak to support the kind of significant coverage addressing the subject directly and in detail that WP:GNG requires. The only possible exception is the DCist ref[12]. However, that's an interview with the label's producer and we generally consider interviews as not counting towards notability. The other possible source (not currently cited in the article) is the 1998 Punk Planet piece mentioned by 78.26 above. I found this source online[13] and it turns out to also be an interview. All the other sources that I could see provide coverage that is either too brief or too indirect or both. I don't think there is a plausible case for passing WP:GNG here. Regarding the WP:NMUSIC argument, I am somewhat sympathetic to it (and I don't view the talk-page discussion reference above [14] as establishing any sort of consensus on the matter). But until and unless there is a more clear determination of whether and how WP:NMUSIC may be applicable to music labels, e.g. via an RfC, I think we have to assume that it doesn't, particularly based on WP:NOTINHERITED principle. In particular, I really can't see how NMUSIC #5 (a criterion which talks about a band's records being released by a major label) could possibly apply to a record label itself. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Appears to fail WP:NORG and WP:GNG (Artist doesn't really make sense to compare, FYI.) Missvain (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Centre of Attention[edit]

The Centre of Attention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to be notable – I can't find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I added a couple of references after the recent PROD but being one of 49 groups presented in a curated show does not seem sufficient for WP:ARTIST notability. Their earlier Viva la republique show gets mentioned in career lists of other participants, but that would fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. Unless more can be found, this fails WP:NORG / WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The entity exists but does not appear to be encyclopedic (NORG/GNG fail). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 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 Hank the Cowdog. After two relists, there is still a weak consensus to not keep the article. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drover's Secret Life[edit]

Drover's Secret Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lack of notability, was unable to find any reliable sources to incorporate. As it stands, the article relies on a Google books entry of the book itself, and an entry on Fantastic Fiction, a database of fiction novels. Waxworker (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, to Hank the Cowdog , per WP:PLOT. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle Angels School[edit]

Gentle Angels School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsourced article that has horrid writing style as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zero coverage in reliable sources; fails the GNG. The writing style is sufficiently promotional that a G11 might be possible. No redirect target is apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Del per nom. Article history dates its creation in 2011, with an unencyclopedic, narrative, and seemingly promotional tone with the original intent of promoting the school (IMO), thus violated WP:PROMOTIONAL. It was later fixed but still didn't address the issue on lack of references, and at some point it was tagged with Notability template but someone seemed to have removed this tag. Up to now, no references and no sufficient evidence of coverage by independent and reliable sources. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Hope Christian Academy[edit]

Blessed Hope Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A non-notable school. SBKSPP (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above. HouseBlaster^talk 16:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Missvain (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P. Terry's[edit]

P. Terry's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 12:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 18 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) 00:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2017-05 move to → P. Terry's Burger Stand, 2015-02 ✗ G11

• Weak delete: mostly cited to promotional materials from the company, no significant coverage outside of local media and the Daily Beast. If other susbstantial coverage in independent reputable sources is found, it could stay. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, coverage limited to press-releases and their rewrites about business-as-usual except Daily Beast's coverage but that's not so much about the company but about how its labor practices are different from some bigger competitors. Not enough to make the company notable IMHO. The source and fact could be reused somewhere in the article about labor practices in the USA, and that's really the only place the company deserves a mention in an encyclopedia, if at all. Nothing encyclopedic here, just a business listing. WP:CORPSPAM... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 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 no consensus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Manyika[edit]

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

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

Business executive does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is largely inherited from McKinsey & Company management consultancy. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• He is notable in his own right because of the work he has done. While McKinsey provides a platform, Manyika seems to be a big figure in current thought around technology, automation, and the future of work, in a way that can't be blamed solely on his position. The New York Times brought him in to speak on the topic, and he's often interviewed on subjects in that area. Moreover, I'm pretty sure he meets point 3 under WP:AUTHOR just for his work on the recent Race in the Workplace report, which isn't even in his main field. He played a major role in writing it, the report is significant, and it has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles. GenomeFan92 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 18 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) 00:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create

• Keep - I'm supporting the keep of this article as the subject is regularly featured as a subject matter expert in major news publications, as mentioned by GenomeFan92. That works for me as passing WP:GNG. Saying you can't work for a business and represent that business in decent media coverage is sort of irrelevant. It would be like saying a Michelin-starred chef who gets interviewed about food a lot is not relevant enough to have her own article because the interviews always mention she owns the famous restaurant. Missvain (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Emotes. ((R from plural)). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emotes[edit]

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

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

Subject lacks notability at this stage, with reliable sources neither cited nor discoverable through a quick online search. Possible conflict of interest, as page creator and major contributor both appear to be single-purpose accounts. Meticulo (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and also posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Children's_literature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meticulo (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to emote as ((R from plural)). Current article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. I can't find anything out there to establish how this series meets NBOOK or GNG. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:04, 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 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Millward Brown[edit]

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

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

The appropriate guideline for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP. While there are a lot of references listed in this article, none meet the criteria for establishing notability as they either fail WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 2 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, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2009-04 ✗ G11

• Comment These three sources perhaps together perhaps satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, [15] (detailed coverage in local newspaper), [16] (detailed coverage in national newspaper), [17] (three pages of critical commentary about one of their products). I used to work for them many years ago so I'll not vote in this discussion, although this isn't a topic I can get particularly excited about.----Pontificalibus 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]