< April 19 April 21 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) gobonobo + c 00:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Luxembourg[edit]

University of Luxembourg (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 reliable sources discuss the subject. Ardenter (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Suonii180 (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ "Virtual open days for the University of Luxembourg". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. April 9, 2020. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  2. ^ "University of Luxembourg switches to remote teaching for one month". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. October 26, 2020. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  3. ^ Gautier, Nadine (April 11, 2021). "University of Luxembourg will remain closed until the end of the academic year". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  4. ^ "University of Luxembourg among the world's best 250 universities". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. September 3, 2020. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  5. ^ "Shanghai ranking places the University of Luxembourg among the 700 best institutions in the world". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. August 18, 2020. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
#1 Encyclopaedia Britannica Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A single-sentence mention in an article about the communications of Luxembourg.
#2 RTL Today Question? Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Question? 2 paragraphs + 2 sentences in an article about all higher education institutions in Luxembourg.
#3 University of Luxembourg Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Information about the university, on its own website.
#4 University of Luxembourg Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Information about university governance, on its own website.
#5 University of Luxembourg Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Information about the university rector, on its own website.
#6 RTL Today Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about several Luxembourg schools suspending classes.
#7 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about an open day at the University of Luxembourg. Provides details about the university's courses and current teaching arrangements.
#8 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about the University of Luxembourg switching to remote learning. An announcement, with further information about the spread of coronavirus at the university.
#9 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about the temporary closure of the University of Luxembourg. Provides information about the closure of the university and its impact on staff and students.
#10 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about video surveillance at the University of Luxembourg. Reports on concerns raised about video surveilance of student's exams at the university.
#11 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article the University of Luxembourg temporarily deciding not to use video surveillance. With an analysis of the announcement.
#12 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about the University of Luxembourg re-opening. Reporting on the COVID-19 precautions that the university will take.
#13 University of Luxembourg Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN 'Facts' about the university, on its own website.
#14 Times Higher Education Magazine Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An overview of the University of Luxembourg, along with the subjects taught, key statistics, and an independent comparison with other universities.
#15 ShanghaiRanking Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An independent comparison of the University of Luxembourg with other universities, no detailed analysis.
#16 Center for World University Rankings Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An independent comparison of the University of Luxembourg with other universities, no detailed analysis.
#17 Times Higher Education Magazine Duplicate of #14
#18 U.S. News & World Report Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY A detailed independent comparison of the University of Luxembourg with other universities, including individual subject rankings.
#19 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about the University of Luxembourg placing on The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings 2021. Reports on scores in different categories and comparisons with previous years.
#20 ShanghaiRanking Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An summary of the site's ranking of the University of Luxembourg since 2017, with no detailed information or analysis.
#21 RTL Today Question? Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Question? An article about the University of Luxembourg placing on the Shanghai ranking annual list. Reports on the University of Luxembourg's scores in previous years but mainly talks about Shanghai ranking.
#22 Center for World University Rankings Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A summary of the University of Luxembourg's statistics on the site, no detailed information or analysis.
#23 University of Luxembourg Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Information about a notable professor at the University of Luxembourg, on its own website.
#24 World Bank Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN A biography of a notable alumni of the University of Luxembourg.
Total qualifying sources 9 3
There is significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject

SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Celebration[edit]

Happy Celebration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Had been DEPRODed by the creator, No signs of sufficient notability per WP:NSONGS, all sources found self-published and/or unreliable CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:37, 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. Hog Farm Talk 23:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Catalonia[edit]

Coat of arms of Catalonia (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 Coat of arms of Catalonia never existed per se. There was a coat of arms of the king of Aragon, already covered in another page, and there is a modern Seal of the Generalitat de Catalunya, already covered in a third page. The coat of arms of the king of Aragon was, as all medieval symbols, exclusive of the king and his lineage. The different territories ruled by this king, of which Catalonia was just one, had no special symbol back then. In the 19th century, Catalan nationalists adopted the colours of the coat of arms, the so-called four bars, as symbolic of Catalonia, and it has become ubiquitous ever since for all things related to Catalonia and even for the Catalan language, including the aforementioned Seal of the Generalitat. However, the mere existence of a page for the Coat of arms of Catalonia implies that the particular link between the heraldry and Catalonia already existed before the 19th century, and that is simply false. Jotamar (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 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. Sandstein 07:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin's Soviet Elections (1936-1950) and Impact[edit]

Stalin's Soviet Elections (1936-1950) and Impact (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 basically appears to be an essay (a poorly-thought out subject from Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Miami/History of Communism (Spring 2021)), with nine of the sixteen references to other Wikipedia articles. We already have an article on Elections in the Soviet Union that could cover this topic. Article was prodded, but prod removed with no explanation given. Number 57 21:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Carson, George Barr (1955). Electoral Practices in the U.S.S.R. F.A. Praeger.
  2. ^ KOGAN, MICHAEL (2012). "SHAPING SOVIET JUSTICE: Popular responses to the election of people's courts, 1948-1954". Cahiers du Monde russe. 53 (1): 121–139. ISSN 1252-6576.
  3. ^ Getty, J. Arch (1991). "State and Society under Stalin: Constitutions and Elections in the 1930s". Slavic Review. 50 (1): 18–35. doi:10.2307/2500596.
  4. ^ Jessen, Ralph; Richter, Hedwig, eds. (2011). Voting for Hitler and Stalin: Elections Under 20th Century Dictatorships. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-3-593-39489-3.
I've never previously recommended a TNT before at AfD...but there's always a first time for everything. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix it, but yes, this content can only be merged to another page. I moved a part of the content. Now this page should be made a redrect. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Except for the fact that the title violates multiple elements of WP:TITLE, eg NDESC (how are these elections in the possessive ownership of Stalin?), LOWERCASE, PRECISION (impact of what? on whom? what of Stalin's <sic> 1931 election?) etc. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the article without leaving a redirect (whether the closer calls this "delete" or "merge") should not be controversial. TompaDompa (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armaan Franklin[edit]

Armaan Franklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are a number of references about Armaan Franklin but all of them appeared WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:NCOLLATH, no major winning or participation. Chirota (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Delhi Sikh Gurudwaraa Committee Election Results[edit]

2021 Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Committee elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see how this is a notable election. Number 57 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kodak Photo Printer 6800[edit]

Kodak Photo Printer 6800 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub article apparently based entirely on a press release. Notability (or lack of it)- no evidence that this specific printer is especially notable in its own right (we don't tend to have individual articles for other manufacturers' printers either).

Despite having been created over 15 years ago, the core article remains almost identical to the original stub- nothing of note has been added since then, and likely never will.

(There are quite a few subsequent edits, but virtually all are administrative, or minor changes like corrections or adding links).

Ubcule (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of bus routes in London. Since List of bus routes in London already mentions this route, I'm just doing a redirect. If you need article history or anything just ask. Missvain (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 82[edit]

London Buses route 82 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just like most London Buses routes, this is another run of the mill bus route with nothing overly notable nor spectacular. Only ounce of notability is that it is a recently discontinued route. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most London bus routes are not notable, and those that two are covered thoroughly using independent secondary sources. You have not provided anything additional to what exists in the article to validate notability for this particular route. Ajf773 (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CENSOR applies to controversial topics. Is a London bus route controversial? WP:NOTPAPER also explicitly states "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." Also, notability guidelines state notability is not inherited. Being a part of something notable does not make something else notable. This is a discussion not for the London bus, but this specific bus route. Ardenter (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a discontinued route. If it's not notable there is no requirement to mention it. Ajf773 (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that these routes should be mentioned, given that the purpose is to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the subject not a travel guide. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because defunct routes aren't notable and it would set a precedent that this material should be in articles when it shouldn't. Readers wanting that sort of material can always hop over to Wikia or whatever it's called. –Davey2010Talk 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a list of current bus routes is a notable aspect of buses in London, and notability is not temporary, then why are former routes differently notable to current ones? Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an arbitrary fact, routes 10 and RV1 are defunct and still have articles. However I'm not debating those there, just route 82. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such a section did exist until deleted in September 2019 seemingly without discussion or an attempt to addresss issues. Have partially reinstated. Lilporchy (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. While most are completely non notable, there are a few exceptions, ie London Buses route 11. Otherwise you have given no clear reason for keeping. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Bus routes in London. Pretty much every one has an article. Procedurally, it makes no sense whatsoever to only nominate a single one. I tend to agree that most of them aren't notable, but nominating them piecemeal is not the way to change that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Necrothesp: what are you talking about? those are just the ones that haven’t been deleted yet. There are over 500 routes in London. SK2242 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes more sense to nominate each one individually than every single one in a group. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing 'attention-seeking' about this. AfD's have been used for at least 50 other bus routes in London and dozens more elsewhere. They are necessary sometimes to solve such disputes. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ajf773, On the one hand, AfD is not (and has never been) Articles for Discussion, so you should not open the debate unless you think deleting might be a satisfactory outcome. On the other hand, other avenues such as Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers sit for ages without much feedback, so AfD can be chosen in order to get a better and quicker feedback - which can be done per WP:IAR, if there is sufficient agreement it is a sensible idea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those saying merge, there is nothing really to merge as the List of bus routes in London page now mentions the route (alongside a few discontinued routes), the same as it does all other 500 routes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 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 Wipeout (2008 game show). (non-admin closure) gobonobo + c 01:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games based on Wipeout (2008 American game show)[edit]

List of video games based on Wipeout (2008 American game show) (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 list is comprised of only eight entries and no signs of getting any more. Not big enough to be its own list. Should be deleted or merged back to Wipeout (2008 game show) Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC) In addition, Not enough to meet WP:CONTENTFORK or WP:SPINOUT in my humble opinion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyburn String Quartet[edit]

Tyburn String Quartet (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, seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage of this quartet. The Royal Academy of Music's John Baker award they've won doesn't appear to be a notable award. Lennart97 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I couldn't find anything substantial either. Aza24 (talk) 06:52, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publican Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Publican Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. Recent discussions and consequent deletions for Independent Green Voice and Scottish Family Party which are active parties that are running candidates show there are recent precedents for the wider Wikipedia community agreeing that not all political parties are notable, and notability does not attach itself to political parties as a right. This article has sources, but no evidence of WP:GNG and WP:ORG and general achievement. This former political party has no evidence of achievement or notability prior to, or following, elections in its 2 years of existence 14 years ago. Angryskies (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting mentioned on the BBC News isn't a great test of notability. Even then, the BBC wrote a whole article on them in 2005. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:09, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Polyphonics[edit]

The Polyphonics (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:MUSICBIO, tagged for notability since 2010. Out of the cited sources, only the two Irish Examiner articles are reliable, but both of these only make a passing mention of the group. I can't find any significant coverage anywhere else, either. I think neither the claim of being Ireland's oldest barbershop chorus nor the various championships they've won make up for the lack of coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:25, 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 keep. Consensus was that the subject meets WP:GNG after improvements to the article.

A wp:requested move can be used to determine where to move the article to. Alternatively, a wp:bold move could be done. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Amin (athlete)[edit]

Nurul Amin (athlete) (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 sportsperson, sources cited barely mention him, no sigcov; fails WP:GNG / WP:ATHLETE. (Note: careful if searching, plenty of people by the same name!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closing this as 'keep' as there are no arguments for deletion after the nominator withdrew their nomination. How the content of the article might be organised, whether by way of a merge or into a list, can be discussed elsewhere. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016 North American storm complex[edit]

May 2016 North American storm complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:LASTING. I realize it set a record, but are weather records really all that significant? A cursory search didn't reveal discussion of meteorologists, climatologists, or disaster management specialists continuing to show interest in this event. Daask (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Loosening up on WP:LASTING for a minute, I'm thinking about WP:IAR and reconsidering this on the basis of whether keeping this content is a net positive or net loss for Wikipedia as a whole. I'm inclined to think that it is a net benefit after all. I also don't trust my ability to find relevant sources on this subject area. I apologize for my rash proposal. Daask (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daask: I don't know off the top of my head where this should go, but it should not be deleted from Wikipedia. It should be merged upward into another article. NoahTalk 13:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hurricane Noah: Are you content to keep the article as-is or should we merge it? If you are content to keep it, we could close this discussion with a Speedy keep. Daask (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daask: We are currently looking at all of the Wikipedia articles that involve the weather, in the hopes of combining them into one wikiproject and improving the content/driving standards up across the wiki. One of the ideas that has been proposed is to create a list of significant floods by country (State if needs for the US/Others). As a result of the disaster declarations, I see no reason why this so called storm complex wouldnt go into lists for Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas.Jason Rees (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject meets WP:NCRIC, and found and possible existing sources have sufficient coverage of the subject.

It would be ideal to integrate sources found below into the article. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jahid Ahmed[edit]

Jahid Ahmed (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) 18:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Greyhawk#Significant player characters of the home campaign. Content can be merged at editors' discretion. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Eight[edit]

Circle of Eight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Only real world information is primary interviews with the creator. There do not appear to be any third party sources giving the topic significant real world coverage. TTN (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: If you'd like to verify, please follow the Google Books link already given. The sentence(s) are at the bottom of the section named "Status und Obere". If someone had access to the English original, that would of course be even better. Daranios (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daranios, The link doesn't work for me, all I get is "Keine Leseprobe verfügbar" error which google translates to "No extract available". But I am happy to accept it at good faith that you can verify it and that the relevant content there amounts to a single sentence (which means it fails SIGCOV, so my rationale still stands). Again, no objection to merging that one-useful-sentence worth of content, now that it is AGF verified. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject is notable and AfD should not be used for cleanup (though the article did get cleaned up, which may have resolved the deletion argument of WP:NOTPROMOTION). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulysses String Quartet[edit]

Ulysses String Quartet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written in a promotional tone. Zai (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 17:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Strad writing about this quartet gives it enough notability. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Plakalo[edit]

Emir Plakalo (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:NFOOTBALL as he played his last Bosnian league game in 2016, and according to WP:FPL the league only became professional from the next season. Minor league career after that, except for 1 game in the Greek Football League which ceased to be professional. Geschichte (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 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) 22:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Odunsi[edit]

Faith Odunsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Had been deproded by the author, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, she just won a school competition and WK is not News CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:56, 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 merge to Golden State Collegiate Baseball League. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific West Baseball League[edit]

Pacific West Baseball League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Shares a name with a Canadian baseball league, which made searching for sources difficult, but I couldn't find much newspaper reporting on the league beyond this article (which is on a player in the league), this article (which is from the year after the league folded?) and a small amount of agate. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 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. Per User:Mamushir Missvain (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Testing Board[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hungarian Testing Board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ICICB Group[edit]

ICICB Group (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:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. 16 employees. scope_creepTalk 13:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Article is about a topic that doesn't meet notability guidelines. Zai (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 16:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telling Right From Wrong[edit]

Telling Right From Wrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Significance/notability of book not established SecretName101 (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are cites in the article plus [5], more of these sources, [6], [7], plus many other newspaper articles, other books that cite and discuss the book, plus it made its way on best-seller lists, and so on. Plenty of sources to find on Archive.org as well. Some of these works label the book as an example of literature discussing fake news in the mainstream media, which I think is pretty significant. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: none of which is in the article. Please add that (sourced) to the article. Even then. It is not clear the book itself is notable. Many unnotable books have been written on notable subject matter. SecretName101 (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grrrrrrr, it is not up to editors who list sources at afd to add them to an article, indeed WP:BEFORE (at point D.) suggests that before nominating, a search for sources should be made, a simple gsearch ie. ""Telling Right From Wrong" by timothy cooney book reviews" brings up multiple useable (for wikinotability) reviews (including some of those listed above) that shows this book is wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. WP:BKCRIT alone is enough to preserve this article because two New York Times reviews have been published. More probably exist. The editor above me has also provided solid proof of WP:GNG. Per WP:NEXIST, the sources do not actually need to be in the article to save it from deletion. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem! Honestly, I'm surprised that this isn't more known nowadays as far as the literature world goes. It's kind of a sordid little tale, honestly. It'd make for an interesting film as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh wow, the more I find, the sadder this actually becomes. The guy was the ex-husband of Joan Ganz Cooney and apparently helped bolster her confidence when it came to Sesame Street. However at the same time her success chafed since he felt unimportant. I wonder if that played into his reasons for the forgery. In any case, he became pretty self-destructive in his later years as the whole issue surrounding the forgery ultimately kept him from achieving the recognition and success he craved in philosophy. The forgery was wrong, but you can't help but feel for the guy a little. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentol Pecah[edit]

Mentol Pecah (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 is an advert for a web broadcast. Before showing nothing RS but there is some coverage on social media. The article says the webcast was "up and coming" in 2013 - the page hasn't been updated since. Created by a SPA, tagged advert since 2013. The refs in the article are dead. Desertarun (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Worcestershire Cricket Board. Missvain (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Jamshed[edit]

Imran Jamshed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Rana[edit]

Irfan Rana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tauseef Ali[edit]

Tauseef Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apna Nawada[edit]

Apna Nawada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all the current sources are a copy of the same press release and there is no evidence of satisfying WP:NWEB. GSS 💬 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 12:43, 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 keep. There seems to be consensus that there are sources now present in the article that satisfy the GNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bald and Bankrupt[edit]

Bald and Bankrupt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a popular YouTuber, but there's very little out there in terms of notable/reliable coverage. Is what is included enough to justify the article? I lean no at this time. Nemov (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a variety of sources not just UK publications. But American and Russian language ones as well. Eopsid (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having "a lot of subscribers" is not a valid justification for keeping an article on Wikipedia. It is reasonable to argue that the YouTuber has received enough attention from notable sources, but I still lean it's not enough for the article to exist. --Nemov (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per WP:ARBITRARY, having a lot of subscribers does not make an individual notable. That said, further discussion is needed on whether he's good enough to pass WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has sources, but The Daily Express and The Daily Dot articles are the only ones that are specifically about the channel. Are those sources reliable and significant enough to justify the article's existence? The Vice (magazine) source mentions the channel, but only in passing. There are a few local sources in the countries he visited, but does that rise to the level of significant coverage? --Nemov (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I spent about 10 minutes digging around and this Youtuber is actually featured in alot of eastern european news sites. Unfortunately it looks like because he mostly tours India and eastern European nations much of the coverage is limited to those areas.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
He doesn't have as much coverage in the western news outlets. I was quite surprised to find that that Der Standard published a piece about him. DavidDelaune (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Research

  1. ^ "Jutjuber pronašao najjeftiniji hotel u Evropi: "Toliko je jeftin da nema ni ime, a da im vidite tek sobe!"". Blic.rs (in Croatian). 2021-03-22. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  2. ^ Nikolić, Ivana (2021-02-18). "Da nije bilo srpskih doktora umro bih: Čuveni britanski Jutjuber opisao svoju borbu sa Kovidom". Telegraf.rs (in Croatian). Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  3. ^ "VIDEO - Maailmakuulus reisivlogija külastas retrotrammiga Tondit: lõpuks olen jõudnud Nõukogude Eestisse!". Kroonika (in Estonian). 2021-02-01. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  4. ^ "Verschwörungstheoretiker attackieren Youtuber nach Video über schwere Corona-Erkrankung". DER STANDARD (in German). 2020-07-13. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  5. ^ "Британец снимает свое путешествие по всему СНГ. Такой России вы еще не видели". Daily Afisha (in Russian). 2020-07-13. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  6. ^ ""Приключения в Гопниквилле". Популярный британский блогер снял видео о Харькове". Харьков (in Russian). 2021-03-15. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  7. ^ ""Prague is the most liveable city"–YouTuber Bald and Bankrupt on his new home and Soviet fascination". Radio Prague International. 2020-09-11. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  8. ^ Magazin, Index (2021-03-22). "VIDEO Pogledajte kako izgleda unutrašnjost hotela u kojem noćenje košta 26 kuna". Index.hr (in Croatian). Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  9. ^ "Bald and Bankrupt". Famous Bald People. 2020-02-18. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  10. ^ "British Vlogger Who Visited Minsk Military Parade, Now Infected With COVID-19". BelarusFeed. 2020-07-10. Archived from the original on 2020-12-17. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
Comment - Is famousbaldpeople.com a reliable source? Eopsid (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure if English is your native language but that was exactly my point. There aren't many reliable sources and most of the news coverage is eastern European. This is a talk page, those are not article citations/references. DavidDelaune (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I changed the title on the Reflist-talk box to reduce the confusion. DavidDelaune (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could use source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also (and I'm not sure what specific policy to cite here) but there's evidently an ongoing directed campaign to attack this page — edit wars, sock puppets, increasing anonymous contributions, a whole bunch of brigading tomfuckery. Other editors have ascribed this to users from Reddit, particularly the /r/BaldAndBaldrDossier subreddit, but I haven't dug very deep. If I can find a specific post I'll link to it. Though it's perhaps not an argument for Keep per se, it does make the original AfD nomination smell rather dubious. Knowing that, Delete at this time really rubs me the wrong way.
Nemov has clarified that they put the article up for deletion and have been watching it for some time, so it's unrelated to posts coming from /r/BaldAndBaldrDossier. They also helpfully linked two threads where calls for action are being made: [10][11]. So the timing of the nomination is simply coincidental. As far as I can tell, no sources cited from that subreddit have made it into the article (which is unfortunate, from a certain perspective). I'm still rankled by the targeted harassment and brigading, but oddly enough a group of 3.4k members dedicated to "exposing" the host of the show is actually a persuasive argument for notoriety and retaining the article — though obviously not possessing citation-quality. If only they were so dedicated to verifying their information! Sigh. Still Keep, all things considered. –OrinZ (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mac MacLeod. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND as there is no independent reliable sources that could confirm that the subject is notable or eligible. Earlier, the article was also tagged as unreferenced and tagging is an alternative to deletion. But when the article is not improved even after tagging, then it should be deleted or performed an alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) — A.A Prinon  Conversation 08:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amber (band)[edit]

Amber (band) (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 article does not cite any sources, fully unsourced and thus also difficult to understand whether it meets WP:GNG/notability guidelines or not. A.A Prinon (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. A.A Prinon (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a reference as we find here, there may be more. At least the band's existence is confirmed in association with Mac MacLeod. I can not confirm if the band is eligible as per WP:BAND since we don't see such coverage at least till now. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Shamim Osman. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khela Hobe[edit]

Khela Hobe (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. Yes, there are a couple of decent sources, but still — are we to have an article on every 'political slogan' that gets mentioned in newspapers? (And lest we forget, having sources only gives rise to the presumption of notability; it does not guarantee it.) Also comes pretty close to dicdef. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoodAI[edit]

GoodAI (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 indication of being notable. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 14:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About GoodAI https://www.economist.com/1843/2017/07/05/teaching-robots-right-from-wrong
General AI Challenge https://qz.com/911515/theres-5-million-in-prize-money-to-build-facebooks-vision-for-artificial-general-intelligence/
https://www.redherring.com/investor-interview/goodai-founder-marek-rosa-future-ai-important-mustnt-panic/
GoodAI Grants https://www.czechcrunch.cz/2020/08/miliony-na-podporu-vyvoje-obecne-umele-inteligence-goodai-marka-rosy-vypisuje-stedry-grant-pro-vyzkumniky/
unsigned comment added by Ronin Librarian (talk • contribs) 2:55, 15 April 2021
Another WP:SPA writing a paid article. The first references above, is a press-release, the rest fail WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. They are not independent. scope_creepTalk 10:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I agree regarding those sources except I don't see how the Quartz article isn't independent from GoodAI. Are its content or its author connected to GoodAI? — MarkH21talk 05:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first is an annoucement of a competition, and a partnership as it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It comes from a press-release and is not independent. The second one is an interview with the Marek Rosa, so it dependent source. It fails WP:ORGIND. It is not organisationaly independent from the company. It is an interview with the founder. So it fails WP:SIRS. The core problem here, one a trade journal starts talking to the company directly, then it is not independent. It a not a true source. Most of the trade operate like that, as they supposed journalist, but they are not really journalists as would get from e.g. the old Baltimore Sun, or the LA times, or AP News, or the Guardian or the Telegraph. They don't understand the tech, as it very complex, so they operate by inteviews and what the company puts out, so they're not creating journalistic stories, in the same sense of the Baltimore Sun. It is really jaundiced articles they put out, that are really only valid until next issue of the mag or stories. scope_creepTalk 07:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OrgSync[edit]

OrgSync (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no in depth, independent coverage of this former software. GHits are a red herring as colleges had an OrgSync site to run their colleges, and those come up. Its successor, Campus Labs does not have an article and I can find no information on them that suggests significant notability to build an article there to merge to. StarM 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Puppet Designer[edit]

The Puppet Designer (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 wonderful project that had it's debut as a prior iteration at a festival and as of this writing, had not made its world premiere in final form. A BEFORE shows no indication of a subsequent premiere, nor any other indication of independent, reliable source coverage. Ahead of anyone flagging it, it's very close to a copyvio of here but paraphrased enough to avoid a G12 and there was already a declined A7 so bringing it here for discussion. StarM 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:36, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. O'Hara[edit]

Christopher J. O'Hara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some claims of notability are made, but I don't see this musician clearly satisfying any of the criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN. Most importantly, there seems to be a lack of coverage outside of specialised trumpet-related outlets. Lennart97 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonpreet Jawanda[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sonpreet Jawanda (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 article was soft-deleted last year after a delete vote by Devokewater and then restored after the deletion was challenged by anon. The subject appears to have played some minor supporting roles in major productions or major roles in minor productions. Almost all the current sources are name checks and I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG and looks like WP:TOOSOON. GSS 💬 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2402:8100:394E:4460:4534:2CA5:9FC9:4261 (talk) 17:22, 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. Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P & P Cable Holdings[edit]

P & P Cable Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any reliable source coverage on this and do not know why it is notable. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoCal Premier League[edit]

SoCal Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable amateur league, fails WP:GNG, the only sources in the article are primary/not independent and the only two hits I came up with were describing a USASA team playing in the Open Cup and something about rugby, which was unrelated to the league. SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Himesh Mankad[edit]

Himesh Mankad (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 Wikipedia:NJOURNALIST. Gazal world (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 10:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Blend Hawke's Bay[edit]

The Blend Hawke's Bay (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 find any significant coverage from independent sources and there is nothing cited in the article. My search only came back with a job advert asking for presenters for a new radio station. I was going to draftify the article but, if there aren't any decent sources out there, it would be better to actually delete it. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. No deletion rational, offered. Further discussion at the article's talk page about how to properly name and preserve attribution history appear called for. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High episodes[edit]

List of Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High episodes (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 have split this article into two separate ones: List of Degrassi Junior High episodes and List of Degrassi High episodes, as the two are considered individual series, and there is no point or reason as to why the two are grouped together. The existence of this article is now redundant. ToQ100gou (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: on February 2021, you moved the page List of Degrassi episodes to List of Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High episodes (see this diff). Now, you've split off episodes from the two disparate series and deleting this long-standing article, resulting in the loss of nearly 16 years of editing history. Why didn't you just split off List of Degrassi High episodes from the original article instead? I propose to delete the current List of Degrassi Junior High episodes article, restore the content in this article, then move it to List of Degrassi Junior High episodes so that full editing history is retained. Mindmatrix 11:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mindmatrix: I moved List of Degrassi episodes because not only did the title insinuate that it was a list of all of the episodes in the entire franchise, but because there is an entire part of Degrassi: The Next Generation that is officially titled just Degrassi, and this would have likely caused confusion. Then recently, I realized that the two series being grouped together was unnecessary and needed a split.
I was also then unable to move List of Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High episodes post-split (it gave me a 'either page already exists or name isn't valid' error, despite page being empty), so I had to create an entirely new article for DJH instead, therefore the current mix-up. That being said, I agree with your proposal. ToQ100gou (talk) 12:28, 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. Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etoosindia[edit]

Etoosindia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An online cram school. Fails WP:ORG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:28, 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. Sandstein 07:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah-Jane Varley[edit]

Sarah-Jane Varley (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 significant coverage. Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sakthi Sugars[edit]

Sakthi Sugars (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 citations in the article and very little appeared on searched. Fails WP:NCORP Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 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. Sandstein 07:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cafe Table[edit]

The Cafe Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete Promo. Most of the sources here are their own website or goodreads. Fails WP:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Downing Developments[edit]

Downing Developments (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:COMPANY. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:25, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space Invaders Invincible Collection[edit]

Space Invaders Invincible Collection (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, wholly unsourced, no evidence of notability whatsoever. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IceWelder [✉] 09:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GiftRapped[edit]

GiftRapped (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. Has appeared on a notable show but that's not wholly sufficient to cross notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emannuel Bawa[edit]

Emannuel Bawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC, having only played at an U19 level. Article was prod'd, but the prod was removed without any reason. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were all created by the same editor, who removed the prod from all of them, and they have only played at U19 level:

Navod Paranavithana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cooper Connolly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ollie White (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Avinash Mahabirsingh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrittunjoy Chowdhury, which was in the same batch. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate: hopefuly gone soon, as they are a sock of a banned user. Spike has linked to the SPI report, above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: they're still creating Under-19 cricketers, despite being told not to. No hope for some! StickyWicket (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've logged this at WP:ANI to hopefully speed things up. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:33, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karmic Debts[edit]

Karmic Debts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably fails WP:NBOOK. It is possible that the author herself (Inga Raitar) is notable for enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrittunjoy Chowdhury[edit]

Mrittunjoy Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed, this article has been created multiple times and there hasn't been any indication that the player is anywhere near to passing WP:GNG. All I can see is he has played Under-19s crickets and has yet to play for the top level national team. Also suggest SALT'ing. Govvy (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a more expansive Draft:Mrittunjoy Chowdhury. Spike 'em (talk) 17:44, 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. Participants determined that the available references do not satisfy guidelines and that the subject is not notable. ✗plicit 11:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slidebean[edit]



AfDs for this article:


Slidebean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail of WP:ORGCRITE. References demonstrate trivial coverage or unreliable sources. nearlyevil665 06:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 06:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This company has gained new coverage in the past months, which, to my perception, fulfills the GNG requirements for the publication. I have added those publications to the table.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
TechCrunch 1 ~ Yes ~ Nothing about the company, and a pretty minimal overview of the software ~ Partial
TheNextWeb ~ While a guest writer, the writer has 100+ publications. Yes Yes ~ Partial
La Nación Yes La Nación is a one of the major news publications in the country. Yes Yes Article dedicated to the company. ✔ Yes
Bloomberg Yes Yes No Just an index entry for the company ✘ No
Ethos3 Yes Presumed ? Publication is another company in the presentation field, so conflict of interest is a possibility Yes For the software, not the company ? Unknown
Hongkiat Yes Presumed ~ Presumed Yes For the software, not the company ~ Partial
El Financiero Yes Presumed Yes Presumed ~ Brief coverage of software; very little about company ~ Partial
Frenchweb Yes Presumed Yes Presumed ~ ~ Partial
500.co No Ad copy written by the company itself No ✘ No
Crunchbase ? Source of data and editing process are not clear ? Yes Good detail on finances and personnel ? Unknown
Success in Business podcast Yes Presumed Yes Presumed Yes The business is the central topic of a 15-minute interview ✔ Yes
TechCrunch 2 ~ Yes ~ Pretty minimal ~ Partial
Slidebean 1 No Company's own website No ✘ No
TechCrunch 3 Yes Yes Yes More in-depth coverage of both software and company ✔ Yes
Slidebean 2 No Company's own website No ✘ No
The Washington Post Yes Yes Yes Brief mention of the founder and software. Compliant passing reference. ✔ Yes
Business Insider Yes Yes Yes Piece fully dedicated to the company. Protected under paywall, so unlikely a paid ad. ✔ Yes
Introduction to Computers for Healthcare Professionals Yes ~ ~ ~ Partial
Small Business Management Yes ~ ~ ~ Partial
El Periódico Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).



Finally, this company's Youtube subscriber count exceeds the audience of This Week in Startups and many other Youtubers listed on Wikipedia.

Jpczcaya (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Don't get discouraged. The table was copied from the first AfD, written by an experienced user. nearlyevil665 08:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse of the Prime Minister of Singapore[edit]

Spouse of the Prime Minister of Singapore (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 is no such official position, and spouses of the prime minister do not undertake any official dealings on behalf of the government. They accompany their husbands on diplomatic trips, but are not accorded any special rights or privileges separate from their husband. The entire article is unsourced, and complicated further by Ho Ching's activities undertaken as CEO of Temasek Holdings, which does not reflect on her position as a spouse of the Prime Minister. Seloloving (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely agree with the above. Athel cb (talk) 09:40, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Reinisch[edit]

Helmut Reinisch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Survived PROD as not technically unsourced, however neither of those is reliable sources and a BEFORE shows sources like this press release about shows at his gallery. There is nothing in German or English to indicate he's a notable gallerist, not that his gallery meets WP:ORG. StarM 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:50, 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. Missvain (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Cunliffe[edit]

Freddie Cunliffe (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 actor per WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 04:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 04:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An earlier Afd was closed as keep all , because most of the items listed were on the NHRP, which proves notability . This one isn't, [12] and I can find. no other information. The web site for the hotel occupying the house [13] gives no indication of historic status

(There's a Pink House in Savannah Georgia, which is on the register--this make searching just a little trickier.) DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added content to the article with refs. Based on the refs, I did not get the impression it was a tourist attraction, but rather a historic site and landmark. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Young Scots for Independence[edit]

Young Scots for Independence (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 is no real indication that this is a notable organisation. Little to no coverage, and what there is mentions the organisation briefly. Vitalis196 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:33, 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. Bearcat makes a very convincing argument, and their interpretation of policy is spot on. While the numbers are 3/2 to delete, based on the strength of the arguments, consensus is clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Livesey (journalist)[edit]

Bruce Livesey (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly sourced as passing WP:JOURNALIST. As always, the notability test for a journalist is not passed by using his own work as metaverification that his work exists -- it's passed by using third party coverage about him and his work as verification that it's been externally deemed as significant by sources other than his own employers. That is, he doesn't become notable by being the author of media coverage about other things, he becomes notable by being the subject of media coverage written by other people. But this is referenced almost entirely to his own bylined work, and the only sources that actually represent independent coverage or analysis about his work are from a podcast and an advocacy organization, which are not solid enough to clinch his notability all by themselves if they're the best sources on offer. And while there are valid notability claims here that would qualify him for an article that was sourced properly, there's nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Strongly oppose deletion. There are now 21 references in which Livesey is profiled or his work reviewed. Thanks for drawing my attention to this and also for your work promoting more First Nations journalists, a worthwhile project. I would like to see more Wikipedia articles about Canadian journalists and Canadian news outlets.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, even after your changes there still aren't 21 notability-supporting sources here. Six of the footnotes are "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of his own past and present employers, which are not notability-making sources. Another six are still his own bylined work metaverifying its own existence. Three are still from the same podcast, two are still from the same advocacy organization, one is from a student media publication, and one is steadfastly refusing to actually load at all in order for me to verify exactly what it is or isn't (but is stated in the citation as coming from a cable community channel, which is the Canadian equivalent of public access television and thus wouldn't be notability-making sourcing regardless of what it is or isn't.)
Only two of the 21 footnotes are actually starting to build any case for notability at all — the National Post and Quill & Quire are steps in the right direction, as they're actual reviews of his work in real GNG-worthy media outlets, but a person still needs more than just two of those to clear the bar. Articles about journalists, as a rule, frequently run into this problem: content self-published by their own employers, such as staff profiles, don't help to establish their notability at all, and it can be very nearly impossible to actually devise a viable search term that finds coverage about the journalist (which helps notability) while filtering out primary source staff profiles and coverage produced by the journalist (which do not help notability) — which is why, in reality, most of the "work" I've done on journalists recently has involved redirecting redlinked names of potentially notable, but not yet properly sourceable, journalists like Melissa Ridgen and Asha Tomlinson and Chris Ensing to their employers. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat To avoid deletion of this article, I have been re-reading various protocols on the AfD process to better understand the process. While previously articles I have created have succeeded in AfD, it is always helpful to learn more. As suggested in the deletion policy section, "Alternatives to deletion" I have added two maintenance templates. I am hoping through the article stub template to invite more participation from the Journalism Project to this discussion. I added the "more citations needed" template, to respond to your major concern.
The policy Notability in a nutshell reads: "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." In your statement you narrow in the case of journalists, by saying that the notability test for a journalist is only valid when it is, "passed by using third party coverage about him and his work as verification that it's been externally deemed as significant by sources other than his own employers." The problem with adding "other than his employers" is that a journalist who has worked in Canada's mass media industry for over 35 years, has worked and/or published in almost every major newspaper and outlet in Canada along with PBS, NPR in the United States and the Guardian in the UK. There are many journalists in Canada whose notability would suffer from the same dilemma—they have worked for too many major media outlets. I was surprised to see how few Canadian newspaper reporters and correspondents, and Canadian investigative journalists have Wikipedia articles. Of those that do, there are many with weak sources. For many, their obituaries were the main source. If there are notable in death, why not when they were living?Oceanflynn (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that any coverage of him that ever appears in a news outlet he previously worked for is permanently inadmissible forever even if it's published long, long after he doesn't actually work there anymore — that's very different than his own current employer writing about stuff he did for that self-same current employer. But the single most important thing you cannot do is stake his notability as a journalist on the existence of "our staff" profiles in his own employers' websites — you need journalist-written news stories about him and his accomplishments, not "meet our team" staff directories, to make a journalist notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep this is an award-winning journalist, awards convey notability. While only co-winner of the Dupont award, he won the 2008 national magazine award (and apparently again in 2013), a Canadian Journalism Award and a national newspaper award for the Irving story. There is clearly enough here for notability. Also his book was nominated for an award. see [14]. --hroest 14:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An award gets a person over our notability standards only to the extent that said award garners reliable source coverage about the presentation of said award to demonstrate that it's seen as a notable award. If you have to rely on the article subject's own staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer to source an award win, because independent third-party media coverage that treats the award win as a news story is nonexistent, then that award is not a notability-making award — no award is a notability claim until you can source the presentation of the award to journalistic reportage about the award ceremony. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:04, 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 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. Not a lot of participation, but even searching the links provided shows nothing, so the one keep argument is too weak to override the consensus to delete. It isn't likely that breaking tradition and relisting again would provide a different outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hackolade[edit]

Hackolade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mentioned in various sources; most of the refs are refs to other software with which it can be used, Not one substantial 3rd party reliable published source DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2016-07 ✗ G11, 2016-07 ✗ deleted, 2016-07 ✗ deleted
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Velella  Velella Talk   21:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of substantive sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:59, 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 keep. It would have been better if instead of linking to a google search result in a foreign language, specific sources were presented, but there nevertheless seems to be consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saranyu Winaipanit[edit]

Saranyu Winaipanit (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 reliable sources on the subject, and I couldn't find any to add except mirrors and copies of the Wikipedia article. No significant coverage, fails WP:NMUSIC. Chlod (say hi!) 02:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 04:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 04:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 04:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:07, 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. In almost a month of listing (and 15 years of the article existing), no one has been able to demonstrate that significant coverage in reliable sources exist, so the arguments that they don't is compelling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Meat Science Association[edit]

American Meat Science Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My beef with this article is that it cites no third-party sources (tagged since 2015) and makes no claim to notability. (Which would make it speediable, but it's been around since 2006.) A search establishes that the organization exists, but reveals no in-depth coverage of the sort we'd need for notability per WP:N. Sandstein 20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Tower (1998 film)[edit]

Ivory Tower (1998 film) (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 found no significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability guideline requires more than one source. You mentioned that it's an internet-era film and that you couldn't find anymore sigificant coverage which should be a good enough reason to vote delete. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I only made a passing search, and found that in a few seconds. I've dropped a note at WT:FILM for more input. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 23:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 04:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Vardaro[edit]

Rob Vardaro (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 notable as a soldier or as an actor. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:G11. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mouna Gummadi[edit]

Mouna Gummadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Had done costume designing only in a single movie. Hence fails NENT. Also no reliable sources were also found on doing a WP:Before to establish general GNG criteria Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nandapal Mahathera[edit]

Nandapal Mahathera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Religious leader whose notability is not established by article or references. This article is obviously incomplete, with empty sections. It was also evidently written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally. Moving the incomplete article into draft space would be appropriate, except that the originator has also created a draft, either out of impatience, or in order to game the system.

This article was tagged for deletion as an unsourced BLP once, and sources were added, but do not make the article ready for mainspace.

The draft is a copy of the third reference, and has been tagged for deletion as copyvio.

A very brief check of the references shows that they do not provide independent significant coverage.

Reference Comments Independent Significant
1 In Bengali. Machine translation says that subject preached. ? No. Passing mention.
2 Appears to be local newspaper. No. Editoral reportage praising the subject at length.
3 Own web site. Copied by draft. No
4 Appears to be local newspaper. Yes? No. Could not find mention of subject.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marygiri Senior Secondary School, Sreekandapuram[edit]

Marygiri Senior Secondary School, Sreekandapuram (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 only source in the article is giving a routine coverage. On doing a WP:Before, I got the school website and some list of school rating. This fails NORG as well as GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:01, 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.
More