< April 27 April 29 >
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 delete.  JGHowes  talk 01:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Nurmagomedov[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights in top tier promotion (UFC/Invicta) and fails GNG for the fights are routine reports. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nearlyevil665. I have copied the content to your sandbox - see User:Nearlyevil665/sandbox. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nearlyevil665. No worries. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BBC article is an interview piece of the subject and thus it is not independent soruce. The Insider, half of the article is also interview piece the subject is mentioned in 2 short paragraphs which does not meets significant coverage in depth of the subject. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Cassiopeia: MMA is not my area of interest. So consider me an intruder here. But your statement "The BBC article is an interview piece of the subject and thus it is not independent soruce." caught my attention. Could you please elaborate a little on this. I mean I do not understand how the BBC piece is "not [an] independent source" i.e., "independent of the subject" of this article. Is this because the piece is an interview? Best. Mosesheron (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mosesheron Thank you for the question. When a source content is derived from and interview with the subject/subject associate, that make the source not independent because the info/content comes from the subject themselves. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Cassiopeia: I still do not get your point. Perhaps a failure on my part. But I mean if "a source content is derived from [an] interview with the subject/subject associate", that may not be considered WP:SECONDARY as far as the "content" coming from that source is concerned. But how does that frustrate WP:SIGCOV and make the source "not independent"? Mosesheron (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mosesheron Primary sources are those of first-hand information on a topic, creative texts, experiment results, historical documents and etc. Independent sources /third party sources are those without of any direct influence with the subjects involved/view. A source is considered secondary if it contains an analysis, synthesis, discussion, evaluation etc. of primary sources. SIGCOV "significant coverage - subject is covered by sources in length and in details and not passing mentioned. The above BBC source is reliable but not independent. This is a AfD discussion. I think we would leave the discussion of type of sources discussion here. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, there's a thing about the corresponding criterions that is going under the radar- passing WP:NMMA can validate a fighter notable but its not vice-versa, i.e. failing the aforementioned criteria "is not the last word on the notability of a subject" and thus it cannot prove Usman non-notable. P.S. it should be noted that WP:GNG has a slightly higher importance than any other criterions which comes naturally from it being a set of "general guideline". Generally, we don't find subjects that pass GNG and not SSG because passing GNG demands a little more. So this looks pretty clear to me- it should be kept.
Please note that i haven't voted it a strong keep so there must be some scope of deletion based on any factor like content verifiability. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I appreciate your contribution to this discussion I reverted your latest edit to the article as the website linked looked like providing pirated recordings of UFC and Bellator fights. If I'm wrong please feel free to put those back in, but I had to act as per WP:BOLD. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah maybe. My only motive was to provide a source that referenced the time of the third fight. I think that's clear now. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pesticide1110 To pass GNG content of the subject need to have significant coverage by independent, reliable sroueces where by the source talk about the subject in depth and in details and not passing mentioned and no routine sport coverage. The link you provide, the sources are eidther, not independent (interview piece), passing mentioned, or sport routine couverage, thus it fails the requirements to have a standalone article. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should look at WP:GOOGLEHITS to see that the number of google hits has no bearing on WP notablility. The fact that you edited 140 AfD discussions in a 24 hour period leads me to believe you didn't put much effort into your research on any of those topics. In addition, those make up a large number of your edits and I would suggest you start more slowly and familiarize with WP criteria such as WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:N, etc. WP:NOTAVOTE explains that AfD discussions are passed on WP based arguments and not just votes. Papaursa (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The editors's who voted as keep almost fails to explain under which of the notability guidelines does the subject pass as a notable fighter. So relisting once again to generate more consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 23:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Anderton (RAF officer)[edit]

James Anderton (RAF officer) (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. Unremarkable pilot. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 01:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danyal bey Hallajov[edit]

Danyal bey Hallajov (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 mentions in the Nəzirli book appear to not be in-depth enough, and the rest are simple mentions. Fails WP:GNG. WP:NSOLDIER has been deprecated, so was not considered. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 23:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow deleted. Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chills (YouTuber). DrKay (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chills (entertainer)[edit]

Chills (entertainer) (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 internet celebrity who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing of substance. They are a rapper but do not satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uytae Lee[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a journalist, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. The overwhelming majority of the footnotes are just his own bylined work metaverifying its own existence on YouTube or media outlets he produced work for -- but as always, the notability test for a journalist is not just the ability to use his own work as circular verification that his own work exists, and instead requires the ability to use sources where he's been the subject of media coverage created by other people, to establish that his work has been externally validated as significant. But the most GNG-worthy sources here (The Tyee and CTV Atlantic) both just glancingly namecheck his existence within coverage of other things, and the only source that's about him in any non-trivial sense is a 113-word blurb in a listicle in a very minor magazine, none of which adds up to enough coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG. As usual, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative where people are automatically entitled to have articles just because they exist -- nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Uytae Lee from having to have a much stronger notability claim, and much better sourcing for it, than anything shown here. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I think it would be a mistake to delete this article, I was inspired to write this after watching an interview with him so maybe I didn't convey enough things, I didn't want it to sound promotional. He's more of an advocate than a journalist as all of his work is editorialized opinion pieces. He does things on contract as outlined in this interview: on another Channel. He's a pioneer with the format and the highest profile Canadian urban planner on YouTube. As the founder of PLANifax which is an established and staffed educational non-profit [1] he has had a lasting impact beyond his regularly ongoing advocacy and journalism work. --TheJoyMonger (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, you can never use YouTube content as "evidence" of notability at all — notability requires a certain specific type of reliable source coverage about him in a certain specific tier of high-quality media outlets, not just any web page you can find that has his name in it — and for another, notability also cannot be supported by Q&A interviews in which he's doing the talking, about himself or something else, in the first person. (Interviews can be sparingly used to source facts, but not as prima facie evidence of notability per se.) Notability requires real media outlets to be externally discussing and analyzing the significance of his work in the third person, and just asserting that he's "the highest profile" anything, or that his work "has had a lasting impact", doesn't count as a notability claim if you haven't used the correct kind of sourcing to demonstrate how those things are true. The problem is that as an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, there's nothing actually stopping any article from being filled entirely with lies and promotional braggadocio — so notability isn't measured by what the article says, it's measured by the quality and depth and reliability of the sources that the article does or doesn't use to support the things it says. Bearcat (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK it's been a bit of work but I've added in and reformatted around the two organizations he has founded as well as finding sources outside of the state broadcaster who contract him. Yes, I haven't used YouTube as a reference in the article for a reason. It's just everything he says in the video is backed by the public information I've found. TheJoyMonger (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you completely missed the point. The new sources you added still aren't media coverage about him, but the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with. For example, speaking on a panel at a film festival does not help to make him notable if your source for that panel is the film festival's own website about itself — it only helps to make him notable if a media outlet writes a news story about the panel to help establish why it might have been significant. No matter what he does or doesn't do, it's the same: the notability test is not passed by using primary sources to verify that he did the thing, it's passed by using journalistic coverage about the things he did to verify that his work has been independently seen as significant by people other than himself and the organizations he did stuff for. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't work for the Toronto International Film Festival, or the Tyee, or CTV, or this Argentinian radio station. It's literally journalistic coverage about what he did, what he does is make urbanism videos. I'm a volunteer trying to create my first article here about someone who is (in my field) genuinely influential and you've been so uncollaborative and frankly rude. In that way, that an anonymous person with moderator status gets to be. I get that you're making an argument, but I reject it. I think your dismissing valid sources and making it seem like the article pivots on Primary Sources, when they are simply there to illustrate that he makes videos about certain topics and has produced videos for major sources. I don't think that you would take anything short of a New York times article called "How Uytae Lee shook the foundations of Urbanism in Halifax" which, isn't the sort of coverage that a Canadian gets. We just don't have that many news organizations, if you create organizations that partner with news outlets, you're not going to get much beyond primary sources in Canada. I'm just going to go through and setup internet archive links so that if you delete my work, at least when it gets re-created again some day there will be something to work off of. TheJoyMonger (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there isn't a Toronto International Film Festival citation present in the article at all — there's a citation to Reel Asian, which isn't the same thing. But regardless, content self-published by film festivals to their own websites does not count as notability-supporting coverage — people are not automatically notable just because they spoke at a film festival discussion panel sourced to that film festival's own self-published calendar listing of that panel, if journalistic coverage about that panel cannot be shown to establish the panel's significance.
Secondly, that Argentinian radio station link is not coverage about Uytae Lee, it just briefly namechecks Uytae Lee as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else — which is exactly the same reason why the Tyee and CTV sources aren't helping either. So I'd recommend that you learn the difference between coverage about a person, and coverage that mentions a person in the process of being fundamentally about something else. The first kind helps to support notability; the second kind does not.
Thirdly, Canada does not have a dearth of media outlets that can be used to support notability, such that we would need to create special Canadian-specific carve-outs from our rules about what is or isn't reliable or notability-supporting sourcing — we've got at least ten television networks (hint: don't forget to count the French ones) that produce news programming, two national talk radio networks that produce news programming, literally hundreds of reliable and widely distributed newspapers and magazines, and likely millions of published non-fiction books. So no, Canada doesn't need any special dispensation to use bad sources as support for notability, because "but we don't have any real media up here" is not even remotely true.
And finally, "collaboration" does not mean that I have to let you just do anything you want and cite any weaksauce sources you want, or that I'm shirking my responsibilities as a Wikipedian just because I'm not telling you the things you want to hear. We have rules about what is or isn't notability-building sourcing, and telling you that some sources aren't acceptable is neither "uncollaborative" nor "rude". Bearcat (talk) 12:23, 25 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 22:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 01:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomotsugu Nakamura[edit]

Tomotsugu Nakamura (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 notability, not finding anything source-wise to support inclusion. Acousmana 21:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acousmana 21:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Taheri (painter)[edit]

Ali Taheri (painter) (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 painter. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that he meets any notability guideline.--- Possibly (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Willa Was Here as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did Ya' Understand That[edit]

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

I do not believe this article meets WP:NSONG. I could not find significant coverage on this song. The coverage that I found was limited to album reviews and articles about its 9/11 release date, but I do not think that is significant enough coverage for a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hossain High School[edit]

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

Non Notable school fails to pass WP:NCORP. I thought to improve this page but cant find sources. Sonofstar (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  JGHowes  talk 01:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Hsing-ching[edit]

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

Fluff and promotion, unsourced, and written by SPAs [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. A WP:BEFORE shows no significant coverage in English (just a few citations in the South. China Morning Post), or - from what I could find and translate - in Chinese (see also WP:ONUS). JBchrch (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. jp×g 09:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jp×g 09:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 05:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Don's[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable . Every reference is either a mere notice, or a promotional interview such as ref.2, or straight PR. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find rely entirely on the company's "echo chamber" of information and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which requires a stricter examination of references to establish notability than vanilla GNG referred to by Cunard above. Most importantly, each reference must meet WP:ORGIND *and* WP:CORPDEPTH. All three of the references quoted above by Cunard fail NCORP (as noted earlier above).
  • The Vulcan Post reference. The extracts provided above are trivial and fail *both* ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. True, the journalist provides his opinion on the affordability and wide range of menu items available at the restaurant chain but this is trivial information and does not add to notability. Extracts plucked from the article show the journalist provides a personal opinion on the Uncle Don's app - but the article is not about the app, it is about the organization. The working of the App does not contribute to the notability of the organization. The most important feature though is that this article relies *entirely* on an interview with the founder, Ian Ong. It says it clearly in the article. Even if you are inclined to accept the trivial comments as meeting ORGIND (really, they don't), this reference fails CORPDEPTH as all the information is provided by the founder which is not considered by NCORP for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • The Star reference. Again, this article relies *entirely* on an interview with the founder and on an announcement by the company that it plans to go public. Similar personal opinions of the journalist are plucked from the article and if you are inclined to accept those comments as meeting ORGIND for the purposes of "Independent Content", the information is trivial and does not assist with establishing notability. In addition, *all* of the corporate information has been provided by the company or (as noted in the article) by anonymous "sources familiar with the proposed listing".
  • The final Star reference. This is probably the worst reference of the lot. True, the article "includes quotes from people affiliated with the restaurant" - but that should have been the giveaway. None are "unaffiliated" with the restaurant. The article is an advertorial and relies entirely on information provided by the company and fails ORGIND.
The stricter interpretation of sources that may be used to establish notability are per WP:NCORP requires in-depth information that isn't sourced to the company. None of these articles meet the requirement. HighKing++ 19:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Shark attack. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Bites[edit]

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

Lacks references, does not meet WP:GNG, and consists solely of original research. Y'know, like what it says in the article.

Article details a fruit snack produced by Betty Crocker. Shark Bites is a real product that exists and is apparently produced and sold by Betty Crocker to this day, but the only information I can find about it are online retail sites selling boxes of the stuff and a few "foods from your childhood that you can still buy" list articles from sources that I'm pretty sure aren't proper sources. The article apparently had more content that was gradually trimmed and eventually almost completely removed in 2016; the article hasn't been edited since, and the unreferenced template has been on the page since 2013. AdoTang (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Premiership of Boris Johnson. Consensus is against keeping this, but for covering it somewhere appropriate, which most people here seem to think is Premiership of Boris Johnson. That doesn't exclude mentioning in a COVID-related article also if editors want to do so. I can't give much weight to the BLP concerns because the arguments that this alleged statement by Johnson is reliably sourced haven't been rebutted. Sandstein 06:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let the bodies pile high[edit]

Let the bodies pile high (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 enough for a separate standalone article, fails WP:GNG. Possible merge to British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic or Boris Johnson.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
You created it. Why do you not want it to remain? (Related if tangential question: why did you create it?) EddieHugh (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they have reconsidered. W. Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 10:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely why this has BLP issues. If a given source is unreliable, then it shouldn't be relied on. If a reliable source reports on a topic by saying "per [unreliable source]", then that is no different. If this can be verified by WP:RS, then a short sentence on Premiership of Boris Johnson or another related article would be the most appropriate. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spa-Franks and JackFromWisconsin:While it may have originated in the Daily Mail, it has been corroborated by other reliable sources - not simply then repeating what the Daily Mail reported. See this for example from the New Yorker: The newspaper’s reporting, which was corroborated by the BBC, ITV News, and other British media. SmartSE (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You missed out "Presumed", which is part of GNG. It has a link to WP:NOT, part of which is WP:NOTNEWS, which states: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". There's lots more there on why including what a famous person says isn't worthwhile (even as part of an article – not just as an article topic). So, no, it doesn't meet all of GNG. EddieHugh (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did miss out presumed. That's because I was only considering WP:GNG by itself and, perhaps foolishly, not all of GNG, as you point out, if that makes sense. Looking at at WP:NOTNEWS (which I agree applies), I can see how the remark might contravene news reports (at present, it's difficult to see what long term impact this comment might have, in comparison to, say, bigotgate), though not the other three points. I also can't see where it says that including what a famous person says isn't worthwhile? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holyman Undercover[edit]

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

Sources are one press release and two namechecks. The usual sites have no professional reviews of this movie. I don't think even God Awful Movies has reviewed it. In the 120 or so unique Google hits, I did not find a single usable RS that is actually about this movie. It exists, it's bad, it's almost universally ignored, and that's about all you can say. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender Restroom[edit]

Transgender Restroom (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 like an essay, unclear if this should be a standalone article, would probably be better getting deleted or merged with Bathroom bill if anything valuable can be salvaged from this article. nearlyevil665 17:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 17:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I struck my comment above about this standalone topic being notable. I wasn’t thinking of Unisex public toilet, which covers what is important. —Kbabej (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tasker[edit]

Paul Tasker (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 1 source cited 3 times for a small handful of facts. There's nothing that satisfies for this article's need to exist. -- Tytrox (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I've decided to withdraw the nomination. Perhaps I should've brought it up as a discussion on the Talk page first, but hindsight gets the best of me sometimes. I felt I had a reasonable understanding on how my nomination was justified, but it appears there's more than I thought. Thank you everyone for your input. -- Tytrox (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekow Smith-Asante[edit]

Ekow Smith-Asante (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 with no multiple reliable secondary sources to attest to their notability. nearlyevil665 20:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.ghgossip.com/marriage-is-overhyped-ekow-smith-asante/ Yes No reason to suspect not. No "Gossip" is in the title of the publication. This is like referencing a redtop. ~ Ehh, of his views, yes. Of his work, no. ✘ No
http://lucky-wap-ams.op-mobile.opera.com/newsDetail/t6e1fa878200626en_ug?category=entertainment&time=6+days+ago&uid=84b906123b2bcb388fba1530a683370f&country=ug&language=en&page=11 ? Absolutely radioactive-looking URL, my firewall is saying don't visit. ? Absolutely radioactive-looking URL, my firewall is saying don't visit. ? Absolutely radioactive-looking URL, my firewall is saying don't visit. ? Unknown
https://www.pulse.com.gh/entertainment/celebrities/social-media-is-more-dangerous-than-jesus-christ-ekow-smith-asante-goofs-video/fxkjcsc Yes No reason to suspect not. ? Unfamiliar with publication. No Literally just an Instagram repost. ✘ No
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/My-love-for-you-deep-Smith-Asante-s-wife-to-hubby-895084 Yes No reason to suspect not. ? Unfamiliar with publication. No This is a reposted message from his wife, it doesn't confer notability, it's again just WP:MILL gossip. ✘ No
http://livefmghana.com/2017/03/15/ekow-smith-asantes-wife-sends-touching-message-birthday/ Yes See above. ? See above. No See above. ✘ No
https://www.pulse.com.gh/lifestyle/relationships-weddings/secret-wedding-ekow-smith-asante-marries-girlfriend-of-four-years/jc7xyvv Yes No reason to suspect not. ? Unfamiliar with publication. ~ A bit more in depth but still just TMZ-style gossip about a major life event. ? Unknown
https://austinemedia.com/ekow-smith-asante-biography-net-worth/ ? No "Biography and net worth" is in the title. This is auto-generated stuff that's less reliable than IMDb. Yes ✘ No
http://dailyheritage.com.gh/?p=4152 Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.ghmoviefreak.com/ekow-smith-asante-and-albert-kuvodu-to-feature-in-new-fiction-podcast-dem-times/ ? ? No Somebody started a podcast. WP:YAMB level blog gossip. ✘ No
https://ameyawdebrah.com/ecow-smith-asante-albert-kuvodu-and-barbara-newton-star-in-episode-6-of-dem-times/ Yes ? No See above. ✘ No
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Actor-Ekow-Smith-Asante-loses-mum-752081 Yes See 4 ? See 4 No See 4 ✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2921515/ ~ WP:IMDB ~ WP:IMDB ~ WP:IMDB ~ Partial
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)).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article appears to have been improved since it was nominated. Also received national attention when he died. Missvain (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Coffie[edit]

Eddie Coffie (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:BIO1E. Non-notable actor. nearlyevil665 20:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 20:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)'t[reply]
Don't Delete: The reason is he is a veteran Ghanaian actor and has featured in a lot of movie before he passed on so kindly maintain it, you can also research about him to get much fact done tagging for speedy deletion.Jwale2 (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You will have to be more specific as to how this subject - and other articles of yours that I have tagged for deletion - meet the notability requirements outlined in WP:ENT or WP:GNG. These have to be demonstrated through reliable secondary sources. nearlyevil665 21:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject in the article is a veteran actor in Ghana. 3 out of 4 sources provided in the article are reliable and independent sources. These references are top news outlets in Ghana. Myjoyonline, Citi Fm Citinewsroom and peacefmonline. Article needs to be improved rather than deleted. Ampimd (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chart pattern. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top (technical analysis)[edit]

Top (technical analysis) (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 has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. See WP:NEXIST for more information.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Touch Football World Cup squads[edit]

2015 Touch Football World Cup squads (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 list of more than 1000 people, of which 2 are linked to an article (these are notable for their other achievements, not for their participation here). The 2015 World Cup itself is only a paragraph in another article, and is of minor notability. The squads are serious overkill. Fram (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  JGHowes  talk 01:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Asiedu[edit]

Mercy Asiedu (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 actress. nearlyevil665 20:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 20:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The subject in the article has demonstrated meeting the notability tag for both actors and the general notability tag. She is a veteran actress in Ghana. The article needs to stay to give the chance for expansion and addition of more reliable sources. From the research done, for a period of about 10 years out of every 10 top movies in the local twi dialect in Ghana, she featured in 8 and won awards from those movies, She is known for playing controversial roles in those movies, which somehow made her also gain that popularity and notability. Ampimd (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foxhall A. Parker Sr.[edit]

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

U.S. Navy Commodore (United States) who commanded USS Constitution for a year or so in 1842. Also apparently commanded the Home Squadron in 1851. Page has only one ref and has been tagged refimprove since 2008. While there are a few sources I don't believe they amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he held the post is not disputed, nor is it inherently notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he commanded the Home Squadron or East India Squadron doesn't establish notability. Where is "historic and major positions" a notability guideline? Only SIGCOV in multiple RS establishes notability.Mztourist (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indy beetle: additional sources and information added, including: one of two signatories of the historic Treaty of Wanghia which was historically the first Sino-American pact; his role in releasing hostages from Cuba; his role in a dispute with the British that almost led to a Anglo-American conflict; advised the German government on how to organize their navy. A Google Books search on "East India Squadron foxhall" came back with nearly a dozen pages of results and there might be more with similar key terms like "greytown foxhall", etc.. -- GreenC 16:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the provision of more sources I think this passes GNG so I'm switching my vote to Keep. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography the "country's standard national biographical dictionary" as required by ANYBIO #3? Mztourist (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millie Lawson Bethell Paxton discussion, where the closing comment was A clear consensus for keep based on the presence of the subject's entry in the Dictionary of Virginia Biography, and some of the discussion was based on WP:ANYBIO and suggested that when there is an entry, it indicates a likelihood of other sources existing; in this case, that has also been established by the sources added to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems the closer made a mistake, because a state's biography isn't the "country's standard national biographical dictionary" as required by ANYBIO #3. Mztourist (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems possible that the closer was reflecting the rough consensus of the discussion about the significance of the entry and the indication of the likely existence of additional sources. And at the time of the closing, the WP:ANYBIO criteria had not been edited diff to remove the "or similar publication" language - I have not been able to find whether there was any discussion on the change to the criteria and the apparent past consensus about the support an entry in a 'similar publication' can provide for notability, but regardless, the entry appears to be one of multiple independent and reliable sources that support notability per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC) And thank you for calling my attention to the change in the criteria, it is appreciated. Beccaynr (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the article is based on one major RS" (emphasis added). That source is used 3 times out of 21 citations, or 14% of the article. GNG says nothing about "major" sources. -- GreenC 02:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it was misquoted at least twice and exaggerated one additional time. And in any case, the references are more namechecks than anything else...the basic gist being Parker was there and didn't screw anything up. The other sources are family history or obituaries. Evaluation of sources matters, and the job of a family history or obituary is to talk up the person in question. The one RS that wasn't an obit or family history piece is, at the end of the day, mainly namechecking. Intothatdarkness 14:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your characterization of the sources ("family history or obituaries" except for one is plainly untrue; so is the "namechecks" when is playing a role in events described; and obituaries in RS are perfectly acceptable); and of Foxhall Parker Sr himself ("was there and didn't screw anything up."). For some reason have take an extremely dim view of this article that has extended even to the person himself. -- GreenC 15:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the point when it comes to obituaries. And Long's mentions of Parker clearly convey his impression of an officer who wasn't especially dynamic but wasn't going to make big mistakes either. Long's quote about Parker during his Havana mission (which was changed) sums it up: "It is hard to say to what extent his appeals contributed...but clearly Parker's arguments could have done no harm." In the end, an average officer of no major notability. Intothatdarkness 16:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that if you go back to the actual Army & Navy Journal article Parker's descendant was responding to (27 May, on page 918 of the source listed as reference 7 in the article), it doesn't confirm the offer of flag rank to Parker and notes as an aside that he took with him "several officers of our Navy who had been dismissed for dueling or other offenses not affecting their professional reputations." The same article also mentions an exchange of German naval officers during the same period. Letters to the editor (which is what D. Parker's piece in the ANJ was, after all) aren't always reliable. Intothatdarkness 16:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains multiple reliable sources, some old some new, notability does not expire with age, we don't favor newer sources over older. GNG says nothing about a requirement for major sources. -- GreenC 02:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say anything about the age of the sources? With the whole "major" thing, the requirements are that they not be trivial. Feel free to use whatever word you want to describe "non-trivial", I could really care less, but I went with major and last time I checked we can do that. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC says, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and WP:GNG says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and while the first source in the article is a relatively trivial mention despite including some career information, other sources have more than a trivial mention, including the USS Constitution Museum, which is focused on Parker, Sr., The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, which includes biographical and career information, the Annual Obituary Notices of Eminent Persons Who Have Died in the United States. For 1857, which includes career information, The Army and Navy Journal, which also includes career information, and the Virginia Encyclopedia of Biography, which also includes career information. Beccaynr (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The key word there is "may be combined", not "should be." Sure it's an option to combine sources so something is notable, but it's not obligatory. Nor is it the correct thing to do in every single instance. Obviously context matters. Outside of that, obituaries are by their nature trivial, especially for anyone in the armed services, and ussconstitutionmuseum.org is not an independent source. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My read on the 'may' is that it allows the combination when notability is challenged. The context of this particular obituary is in a collection of 'Eminent' persons, so it seems to support notability, and the USS Constituion Museum was incorporated in 1972 as a private, non-profit and non-government funded interpretive complement to USS Constitution, so it appears to be independent. Beccaynr (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a private mesuem for the ship he commanded. They have a vested interested in writing about him a way that will attract people to said mesuem. In no way is that independepent. Anymore then a webpage for a certain featured animal on a zoos website or one about a ride on the page for Disney Land would be. Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a regular zoo and especially a Disney Land ride are comparable, because the museum also has a research library, so the information it publishes about Parker, Sr. appears to be based on WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Beccaynr (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if that page was something put out by someone from said research library as part of a research project/printed journal article then I'd be cool with it because the information would be peer reviewed and attributed to someone. As it is though, its just a random page on a website without any attribution except the museum. So there's zero evidence the information was vetted by the research library let alone came from an expert in field or anything. For all we know some random IT person could have created the page based on some version of a Wikipedia article. That kind of thing happens all the time. There at least has to be some kind of attribution in the meantime to prove otherwise and there isn't. Even if it was though id still argue it isn't independent though anymore the various "research magazines" put out by religious groups like the Seventh Day Adventists or Scientology foundation are. Adamant1 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence that this is a scholarly institution includes the Impact + Recognition page of the museum's website, e.g. "accredited by the American Alliance of Museums," and affiliated with the Council of American Maritime Museums and the Smithsonian Institution. Beccaynr (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. That's not my argument, it never has been, and I don't appreciate the Strawmaning that it is. Also, it doesn't matter who they are affiliated with. Notability isn't inherited and it's completely ridiculous to say a random anonymous blog post on a website should be used for notability just because whoever runs the website it's hosted on is affiliated with some other organization that is legitimate. Whatever janitorial service cleans the Smithsonian's bathrooms is affiliated with them. That doesn't mean I'd take anything they have to say about 18th century French Impressionism as gospel. Seriously, there should more then that behind your argument to keep an article. Really, if this article was about an actually notable subject everything wouldn't hinge on that one source or you desperately trying to legitimize it in this discussion anyway. Hopefully other "voters" will take of that. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To quickly clarify, because I do not wish to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion, I was trying to respond to the suggestion that it might be possible for some random IT person to have created the page based on some version of a Wikipedia article, and I am also not solely relying on the source to support notability, as noted above. And when focusing on the scholarly nature of the institution, I have been thinking of WP:INDEPENDENT, e.g. An "independent" source is one that has no vested interest in the subject. For example, the independent source will not earn any extra money by convincing readers of its viewpoint. A "third-party" source is one that is not directly involved in any transaction related to the subject, but may still have a financial or other vested interest in the outcome. [...] Except when directly specified otherwise in the policy or guideline, it is sufficient for a source to be either independent or third-party, and it is ideal to rely on sources that are both. This is a nonprofit, non-government museum and a research institution, not a random anonymous blog, and it therefore appears to be sufficiently independent and/or third-party to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a random anonymous blog post on the website of the institution. Which you seem to be ignoring. Whatever the status of the institution is, it's really second to who wrote the page. I'd love to know how you can ascertain that the page was written by someone with the necessary expertise in the field to be considered an expert or would otherwise be knowledgeable enough on the topic, because there's really no way to know that. It's ridiculous to say that because the "institution" is not anonymous that any given page on their website isn't or that because they are associated with the Smithsonian that every single person all the way from their CEO to their door man is or that they all have the same level of expert knowledge. Like a random cafeteria lady at my local university is just as knowledgeable about history as a Phd history professor is, or even that the librarian chick who organizes the books in the library (and likely writes the random pages on their libraries website) knows as much about Sociology as the people in the sociology department. Let alone that would have same clout anywhere "because hey man, their part of the same institution right?" So a random cafeteria lady or librarian is totally the same as a tenured research professor. Or a random page on the libraries website is exactly the same as a Masters thesis. Whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that libraries are typically in the business of publishing stuff written by randos with no fact-checking or editorial oversight. The fact that an individual author isn't listed does not seem like a requirement for most sources (dictionaries, encyclopedias, government documents, et cetera often don't specify authors), so it doesn't seem reasonable to apply such a requirement here. jp×g 22:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any how you count it, "the majority of sources are obits" is factually not true. It's easy to tell, obits are published around the year someone died, look a the source dates there is one obit the rest are biographical or monologues. And even it were true (which it is not) so what? You are going out of your way to misrepresent the sources with negative opinions and characterizations. First you said there was was one reliable source ("major") now you admit there are multiple "scholarly sources". You say they make "scant" mention, but the sources describe the events he was involved in sufficiently - it would be hard to write an article with "scant" mentions. The Army & Navy Journal is just one citation of many, the letter itself is a WP:PRIMARY (acceptable) but the fact it was re-published in a RS tells us something about the notability of the topic and the letter - this how we determine if a primary source is notable enough for inclusion, mentions in secondary sources. -- GreenC 16:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The letter was published, not republished. It appears only in ANJ. And at the time I made my comment regarding one major RS there was only one in the article. Perhaps if you had backtracked to the original piece in the ANJ you would have understood the context of that letter. And clearly it's possible to write an article of sorts with scant mentions...we're discussing one now. Intothatdarkness 16:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  JGHowes  talk 01:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia High School[edit]

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

School does not seem notable. No reliable sources currently in the article, a search of the school only turns up Facebook pages and such. EpicPupper 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the references. That aside though, your quotes of the school being "legendary", having "a historic past", and so on sounds more like hyperbolic advertising then anything else. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to LessWrong#Roko's basilisk. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roko's basilisk[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Roko's basilisk (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 sure this is all that notable, way too many primary sources or youtube videos. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Urve (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Zygon item is apparently part of a conference proceedings collection (see the intro), which in some fields would suggest a lower standard of peer review than a typical journal article. XOR'easter (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense, thanks, will keep in mind for future reference. Think it's still the greatest claim to notability but not enough, redirection is best outcome here Urve (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is already notable AND it will become more relevant. All the more reason to expand it. Nweil (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that yes, its (somewhat) notable, but the problem is that there aren't enough reliable sources for it. User-generated sources, like videos on youtube, aren't reliable sources and need to be cited alongside other, more reliable sources. ThetaRokosBasilisk (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our job to speculate about what might become important one day. Nor can we declare things to be important without documentation to that effect. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the increase in page views since this article was created if you are disputing the increase in relevance. In addition, speculation on a talk page or in a deletion discussion is quite different than speculation in an article. But I'm sure an experienced editor such as yourself knows this. Nweil (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page view counts do not imply notability (nor would their absence imply a lack of it). Notability is about what has happened, not what might happen. XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contending the page stats imply notability. The notability comes from appearances in a wide range of publications and in popular culture. Nweil (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And what if a future AI punishes us for deleting the page? ;) Hyperbolick (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The chance of a SAI/CEV actually going through with its threat to punish those who did not create it is extremely low. It's been debunked on RationalWiki. ThetaRokosBasilisk (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're convincing me that we should delete this article on the grounds that it is an infohazard. Not Wikipedia policy, but we're going to have a real problem if the idea catches on and hordes of deluded people start coming here to spread the idea of the basilisk as far as they can. Tercer (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certain we have pages on worse ideas than this. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* It is not Wikipedia policy to remove a page based on the fact that it can be psychologically distressing to others. Should we remove the school shootings article because it visiting the page triggers a flashback in a PTSD sufferer who survived a school shooting? No. Read WP:CENSOR ThetaRokosBasilisk (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one but deluded lunatics take QAnon seriously also, but nevertheless they manage to cause a lot of trouble. That's the thing with infohazards, talking about them even to debunk them spreads the poison to more vulnerable people and causes more problems. That's not my reason for defending a redirect, though, the reason is simply that the basilisk does not have notability independent of Less Wrong. As infohazards go the basilisk is very low on the list of dangerous ones. Tercer (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also went a bit into the first two pages of Google Scholar there at the end, with many more things to look at. I didn't even use my Wikipedia Library access to search through there, so there's probably a lot more to find. Also, it's pretty cool there was some sort of theatre art/presentation entirely on the subject. SilverserenC 18:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter:, @Wingedserif:, @Chalst:, @PaleoNeonate:, please see above for available reliable sources. SilverserenC 18:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These look to be either sources that are already mentioned in the LessWrong section, ones I found in my own WP:BEFORE search and ultimately didn't think much of, or already mentioned above (e.g., the "Journal of Religion & Science" item is the Zygon article discussed earlier). For example, the Herald item is marked as an opinion piece and moreover discusses it in the context of LessWrong, suggesting that it is not sufficiently separate from its origins to merit a stand-alone article. Likewise for the Orbiter item, and I'm doubtful on the editorial standards of that publication (glossy website, but it seems to have more people doing marketing, "strategy" and social media than editing nearly everyone involved). Document Journal, which appears mostly to be a fashion magazine with a little "culture" coverage, skims past the basilisk in its opening paragraphs on the way to discussing AI risk and its perception in Silicon Valley more generally. Nowadays, the Basilisk is a joke even to such people. Again, this could potentially be used to augment the section in LessWrong, but I'm not seeing how it adds to the case for a dedicated article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a total of 5 of the references above used in that other article. And there are far more than 5 sources above. You seem to have purposefully picked out only the weakest sources to argue against and ignored the rest. Such as the books and journal articles outside of that one you mentioned. SilverserenC 18:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ignored them. It's just that I've long since grown accustomed to flash-in-the-pan sensationalism and clickbait on the margins of science, so I personally have rather high standards for such topics to meet, and all the more so to get articles devoted to them. In this case, I've noticed a few general patterns. The first is that there's been a drop-off in even the marginal sources since 2018 or so. The jokes have been made, and the world has moved on. If the subject has not seen sustained interest (in a verifiable way), then it's probably best for us to write about it in its historical context. LessWrong#Roko's basilisk, maybe with a little expansion, does that. The second general trend is that the sources do not indicate there is all that much more to write than we already have; repeated explanations of what the basilisk is do not amount to a reason to make our explanation longer. Third, the sources tie it firmly into LessWrong. Indeed, what they find interesting about it is what it says about the psychology of the LessWrong crowd. The review of Sandifer's book [12] is a good example of that. The sources justify our writing more about LessWrong, not more about the basilisk independently. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This just seems like an acknowledgement by you that you stopped looking at the list halfway through and didn't bother looking at the sources in 2019 and 2020 from books and journals at the end. You know, the ones directly dealing with the subject matter in a scientific focus. SilverserenC 19:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd call their focus scientific, but what am I neglecting? The book from 2021 starts by saying, In 2010 on LessWrong forum, a user named Roko posited. I didn't say that sources stopped existing, just that from what I could tell, what ones there were seem to have petered off. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With such a list of sources, this is time for WP:THREE, I think: can you name three of those sources that best support keep over redirect to LW? The list of sources you found is a bit longer than I expected, but your accompanying text does not really argue that the LW article would be not be a good home for Wikipedia's content about RB. I'm generally a bit concerned about the potential for biased editing with respect to LW/Scott Alexander/etc articles, and the fewer of these I have on my watchlist, the happier I am. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have an opinion on LW, since I didn't even know about them prior to this AfD. As for sourcing, sure. I would probably go with the entire prologue of this upcoming book from Springer Nature, probably the Russian scholarly article that is entirely on the subject, so is more of a discussion than the other sources, and for the third you could take any of the news sources, but i'm rather partial to the art/theatre piece that was made on the subject. SilverserenC 16:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's like this for all subjects, but for physics and mathematics, the peer-review standards for Springer monographs are in practice lower than they are for journal articles. Reviewers have to approve a book proposal before the book can happen, but the content of the book doesn't get careful attention. My guess is that something similar holds true for their publications on Lacanian psychoanalysis. Reading through that preface (we may apprehend the möbius structure of the relationship between AI and psychoanalysis, etc.) I don't see how it detaches the topic from LessWrong. Sure, it says (without evidence) the Basilisk was influential in a wider community, but we can write about the influence of LessWrong in the article about LessWrong. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could just openly admit that no amount of sourcing would be good enough for you. You'd try to find technicalities on every source and if it even mentions LW (which is the background and would obviously be at least mentioned by any source discussing this further), you're going to claim that means no independent notability. Despite that not being how notability works. You're essentially arguing, as a hyperbolic example, that we can't have an article on natural selection because every source discussing the subject is likely to mention or refer to Charles Darwin, therefore we should just put everything on his page. SilverserenC 18:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to "openly admit" something that isn't true. And I don't think your hyperbolic example is really a parallel situation. There's plenty to say about natural selection that doesn't fit into a biography of Darwin (just like there's plenty to say about inertia or gravity or differential calculus that wouldn't fit into a biography of Newton). The concept had a history before him and continued to develop long after. Here, we have something that started on LessWrong and is typically discussed as something that happened in their community. It's treated as something that illustrates the psychology of the people who hang out there. For example, among a certain set of mostly white, young, tech-savvy men, this simple thought experiment sired nightmares [13]. Or, the Basilisk had already wreaked havoc among the forum’s readers many of whom had started to experience psychological difficulties [14]. Or, the Roko’s Basilisk thought experiment is particularly revealing regarding the nature of the neoreactionary community that has so many roots in LessWrong’s culture and norms [15]. What isn't just restating the original idea or saying what it means for LessWrongers tends to collapse down to a single line, e.g., "A community theatre group staged a play inspired by the Basilisk at the Christ United Methodist Church in Washington, DC". As WP:N says, even if a topic meets a notability guideline, that is not a guarantee that [it] will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. The LessWrong#Roko's basilisk section could probably be expanded a bit, and the sources you enumerated could help with that. Seriously, genuinely, thanks for listing them and filling in all those citation templates! If the text of this article had been in better shape, I might have suggested a merge, but it read pretty much like a redux of what was already there with some WP:OR on top, so I !voted for a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even within the subject of the LW article, you're actually making an argument for keeping this one, as the amount of information to be added to that section would be far longer than should be in that article. This meaning that it should then be WP:SPLIT into a separate article with a linkback from the LW article. So even under the argument that the material should be there, it should still be an independent article. SilverserenC 19:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section LessWrong#Roko's basilisk plus two sentences would still be the section LessWrong#Roko's basilisk, not something heavy enough to need its own page. XOR'easter (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think just about everyone at this point agrees that the basilisk article needs to be spiffed up. Thank to the sources from Silver seren it is eminently possible to do that now. Your claim that this is firmly tied to LessWrong does not hold up. None of the headlines of those sources say "message board phenomenon Roko's Basilisk" or something to that effect. It's not even mentioned except in the body of the article to provide insight and context into the provenance of it all. Nweil (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The one person who has !voted since the list of sources was posted above suggested a redirect, so I'm not seeing a strong level of agreement forming that the basilisk article needs to be spiffed up. And headlines, even of reliable sources, aren't reliable sources themselves: Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles. XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"We will offer one final example, due to the noteworthiness of its driving force, of a fictional scenario contingently impacting not only public perceptions of AI, but the attitudes and behaviors of the researchers themselves: the notion of Roko’s Basilisk. Although purely speculative and up until this point nothing more than an imaginary entity, Roko’s Basilisk is having an effect on part of the community of friendly AI researchers, particularly the rationalists working on existential risk, to the extent that it has been deemed a dangerous idea and the mere mention of it has been strongly discouraged. What could make a purely fictional creature so terrifying and so worthy of these cautionary measures?
Roko’s Basilisk is a hypothetical future artificial superintelligence, that, if it came into existence, would retroactively institute, through coercion, the set of policies that would have hastened its coming into existence. More concretely put, it is presumed to be so powerful as to be able to torture all those who knew of the possibility of its eventual existence, but did no invest a significant amount of their efforts and resources to actualizing its potential. Not even death would be a safeguard against this nightmarish scenario, as the Basilisk is presumed to be so advanced as to be able to create perfect simulations of the transgressing researchers which it would eternally punish. Far-fetched? Most certainly, and yet there’s no denying that this egregore, this collective mental entity, has a certain psychological pull, and that many who have learned of the concept dearly wish they’d never heard of it."
Giuliano RM (December 2020). "Echoes of myth and magic in the language of Artificial Intelligence". AI & Society. 35 (4): 1009–1024. doi:10.1007/s00146-020-00966-4. Retrieved April 30, 2021. SilverserenC 19:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right and no "firm tie" to LessWrong there. It's become detached from LessWrong and deserves a separate article. Nweil (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it uses very direct terminology toward it's notability, such as "noteworthiness of its driving force" and describes the impact the subject has had on both AI researchers and the general public. SilverserenC 20:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It uses rather grandiose language, but it doesn't actually contain significant coverage, not being more substantial than the passage we already devote to the topic in LessWrong. (It also seems to be sloppy in its scholarship, not actually citing a source itself for what the basilisk is. That's not a killing flaw; it just contributes to the general air of superficiality.) For that matter, an article that contains no less than seven citations to Yudkowsky and spends a paragraph praising Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is not exactly outside the LessWrong sphere. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, both The Herald and Slate are reliable sources per WP:RSPSOURCES. Vice/Motherboard is no consensus although the discussions have had nice things to say about motherboard vis a vis tech issues. Nweil (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horton, California[edit]

Horton, California (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 one is so obscure it doesn't appear on USGS topographic maps and doesn't even have a GNIS entry. I found it difficult to search for this one, as it's not entirely clear what this site is, and Horton is a common name. Found last names, a Bureau of Land Management campground named Horton Creek, a creek, a lake, and a court case involving a dispute over an Inyo County ranch named Horton. Maybe others can find better sourcing that I could, but this isn't looking like a notable location. Hog Farm Talk 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the directions in the article are incorrect (it's actually WSW of DVJ), but the result is basically the same: the grades are still plain, ninety years after abandonment, and again there is just nothing there besides, which I must admit don't go back all that far, but still.... Evidence is still that it was a rail point which hosted a construction camp, presumably to build the junction itself. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aviv Ezra[edit]

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

Promotional piece about a diplomat who certainly doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sourcing to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to XEDIT. Missvain (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hessling Editor[edit]

The Hessling Editor (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 prodded this few months back with "e coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". The article has been deprodded and slightly improved since, sadly, I am afraid the coverage shown is still a far cry from what GNG/NSOFT requires. Can anyone find anything to save this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per discussion with @Djm-leighpark: and the lack of a prior relist, I'm going to relist this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chart patterns. Missvain (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom (technical analysis)[edit]

Bottom (technical analysis) (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 references, and tagged since 2009 as having no references. With no references, does not satisfy general notability because no reliable sources are listed that report significant coverage.

See also Top (technical analysis), which is also unreferenced. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Butler (musician)[edit]

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

BLP referenced only to Discogs (user-generated content, not a WP:RS) and an article about his brother. 59 results on Google News exist for "Leslie Butler", most of which seem to be quoting an agriculture professor of the same name. None mention him. Google results do not turn up anything remotely useful either. I will withdraw this nomination if someone can find something I couldn't. jp×g 02:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khatereh Asadi[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 12:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Going with keeps. I did a Google news search for the subject and I do believe with the right sourcing, etc, he qualifies via WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Wood (veteran)[edit]

Jake Wood (veteran) (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 why this guy is notable. Fails WP:BIO scope_creepTalk 08:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 08:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. jp×g 08:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. jp×g 08:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the reviews? scope_creepTalk 21:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Asher Heimermann: There are no notability policies on Wikipedia that says if you found an NGO or a company then you are notable. I founded an NGO or more explicitly a charity once, am I notable? Could be by your rules, but of course, I'm not and neither is this person. Where is the reference to support it? Three per WP:THREE would do it. scope_creepTalk 13:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He might have a couple of honourary degrees. If you could find them, it would be ideal. scope_creepTalk 13:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus to keep, meets WP:NMUSICBIO (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Ankley[edit]

Julianne Ankley (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:SINGER, article created by SPA, virtually its sole contributor. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a lot of very good verifiable references and follows guidelines for number 7 of outlined qualifications. With 13 Detroit Music Awards, this musician is contributing and shaping the Detroit Music scene right now. Please don’t delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenInTen (talk • contribs) 12:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ashley Winn (29 October 2020). "Singer-Songwriter Julianne Ankley Proves It's Never Too Late To Follow Your Dreams". Hour Detroit. Retrieved 28 April 2021.
  2. ^ Grace Turner. "Julianne Ankley to debut new single at Lexington concert". The Times Herald. Retrieved 28 April 2021.
  3. ^ Dale Hemmila (7 February 2020). "JULIANNE ANKLEY: Musically Talented". Blue Water Woman Magazine. Retrieved 28 April 2021.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W RUGBY[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. I cannot find any news references at all to this company. The links provided are either primary sources, sites about rugby, or sites of organisations sponsored by W rugby. Daiyusha (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Slough Feg. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight of the Idols (Slough Feg album)[edit]

Twilight of the Idols (Slough Feg album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music), simply just an introduction and track listing   Kadzi   (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashleyyoursmile: yes, I was confused too – I was on the point of suggesting that this would have been a potential A9 speedy deletion as it didn't appear the band had an article, and then I found the article under the band's new name. I've changed the links on the band's first four albums so that they correctly link to the band's article. Richard3120 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Slough Feg. Anyone is free to contest the name at the RfD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord Weird Slough Feg (album)[edit]

The Lord Weird Slough Feg (album) (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 album, fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music) , merely just a track listing and a short introduction.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the existing redirect mentioned in the above vote is actually for the original long version of the band's name, not the album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diba Zahedi[edit]

Diba Zahedi (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 actress. Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. nearlyevil665 10:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 10:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subject does not appear to be notable. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 11:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aliasghar ghorbandokht: Please do not add multiple comments in a (really bad) attempt to act like there's consensus against deletion. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 11:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aliasghar ghorbandokht: you made the same irrelevant point about copyright in the last AfD you tried to bludgeon. Also it’s really irritating of you to tell everyone else to do research when when it is mainly you who needs to do research into Wikipedia’s notability guidelines before creating articles. Mccapra (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
دیبا زاهدی
@Hemiauchenia:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mi7 Records[edit]

Mi7 Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:INHERITORG, association with possibly notable bands or groups don't make the record company inherit notability and there is nothing in WP:NMUSIC or WP:NCORP that record labels have separate SNG, so this should be evaluated against NCORP, which I don't find the company meets the requirements. Graywalls (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Author blanked and requested WP:CSD#G7. Katietalk 18:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Folajimi Olubunmi-Adewole[edit]

Folajimi Olubunmi-Adewole (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 brave act that falls squarely into WP:BIO1E. The event itself is daily news. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 12:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenXPKI[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. We discussed this in detail on User talk:Mbartosch, page belonging to co-founder of OpenXPKI project and the article's main author. Please consider Wikipedia:Userfication. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales.

Notability on English Wikipedia does not always hinge upon whether or not something is "true", or factual. For example, note some of the entries at List of hoaxes. These articles include content about topics that are not literally true or factual in nature, but the topics are generally notable, relative to the topics themselves meeting various notability guidelines.

No prejudice against a speedy renomination that includes a valid rationale relative to Deletion policy. North America1000 20:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Republic of Eastport[edit]

Maritime Republic of Eastport (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 a true "micronation", a joke: "tongue-in-cheek", "mock secession", "jocular". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Though it is not a "true micronation", Eastport is in fact an actual neighbourhood community of Annapolis, Maryland with about 2,500 residents. It is officially recognised as a neighbourhood by the Annapolis authority, and has been covered in reliable sources (like The Washington Post), which I believe passes the general notability for geographic features. I chose to establish this article in this way as the neighbourhood was best known for its claim as a micronation with several mentions of it in reliable publications. Though, if you would prefer, I could rephrase the article to reflect the micronation claim as less important than the community and neighbourhood itself (like changing the micronation infobox to settlement or something similar instead for starters) rather than resorting to deleting the whole article? (Like L'Anse-Saint-Jean, Quebec) – also I would like to add that there are a number of satirical/jocular micronations, like for instance Nutopia or the Kingdom of Wallachia. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Lynn Calhoun[edit]

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

Subject is a model but fails to satisfy WP:NMODEL and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources discussing the subject are unreliable as they mostly lack editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. This source is the closest to remotely being reliable but isn’t sufficient in establishing notability. A before search turns up nothing concrete. Furthermore the first x to achieve y isn’t a yardstick used in determining notability. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cabayi (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral[edit]

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

Church is not in and of itself notable, only being mentioned on the church's own website and in some very small photo captions on the Winnipeg Free Press. I was able to find one opinion piece on the Ukranian Christian community that mentions the cathedral in passing, but this doesn't provide much content outside of the fact that it exists. Proposing a deletion or possible merger with the page for Vancouver (even then I don't think it's particularly worth mentioning nor is it notable enough to grant much content). Deku link (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Deku link (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Deku link (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  JGHowes  talk 01:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merritt Lamb[edit]

Merritt Lamb (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. The claims that he was the "founder of Scouting in West Michigan" and "the 13th Eagle Scout" in the U.S. are both unsourced. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:24, 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashleyyoursmile! 05:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD has been open for almost a month with no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello • contribs 16:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--evrik (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus.  JGHowes  talk 01:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerable (Selena Gomez song)[edit]

Vulnerable (Selena Gomez song) (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:NSONGS. No indication of notability except for four chart positions, of which the only official chart position is for Canada. The rest are barely top 100. The song has not received extensive review/coverage regarding its music and/or lyrics. Not enough material for a standalone article. HĐ (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that entering any charts by itself inherently equates to notability is a common misconception. WP:NSONGS specifically says charting indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable. Don't treat "may be" as a synonym for "is". What truly matters per WP:NSONGS is whether any publications not affiliated with the artist cover the track in pieces that aren't album reviews, and not just brief mentions (e.g. a cumulative paragraph or less isn't enough). Commentary from artists themselves or involved labels, producers, or songwriters discussing the works don't count towards notability because that's just self-promotion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Commentary from artists themselves or involved labels, producers, or songwriters discussing the works don't count towards notability because that's just self-promotion." That is total nonsense. I could understand if it's WP:PRIMARY sources doing this, like an Album commenterary, Twitter posts from the artist, or liner notes, but if independent secondary sources are the ones interviewing, that is so not true. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashleyyoursmile! 04:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Most Magical Celebration[edit]

The World's Most Magical 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)

One sentence article for a Disney marketing slogan. The only source is an article/press release from a Disney corporate blog. Delete as non-notable per WP:EVENT. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that GNG is met 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends: Misty Island Rescue[edit]

Thomas & Friends: Misty Island Rescue (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 minor Thomas and Friends movie that doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The recently added review (thank you Donaldd23) is the only reliable one I can find via Google searches and is the only one listed at Rotten Tomatoes. So this subject fails both WP:FILM and WP:GNG. Laplorfill (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Laplorfill (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, each article is judged on its own merits with consideration to the amount of reliable sources coverage for each one, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Missvain (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korhan Basaran[edit]

Korhan Basaran (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 am aware I may be missing something as sources will mainly be in Turkish. I couldn't find the coverage though to show this can meet WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years - hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm slightly leaning towards delete, but there's also enough sources that mentions the person (although there's not a detailed coverage based on the person as far I see). In addition to Styyx, I've found those news: [30] [31] Ahmetlii (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Augustinian Abbey School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: In this particular case I'm mostly going with the whole "schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both" part of WP:NSCHOOL. Since we are talking about a school that is K-12, but only has 750 students (which is only like 60 students per grade level) in a place with a population of almost 600,000. So I doubt it's anything more then support for more mainstream schools there. I admit that there's probably some leeway allowed there though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Going with keeps. Please improve with provided sources. Missvain (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boozefighters[edit]

Boozefighters (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 has been tagged for years. There is no inherent notability in this line of business, there are no reliable secondary sources attesting to the importance of the organization--nor can I find any. Not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would take some time to go through each book and news source from these search results to discern the level of coverage in each one, and whether or not it is significant or below the threshold of significant coverage. This is due in part to preview availability being inconsistent at times. Hence my commenting here at this time, rather than !voting. Any takers? "What do you got?
– North America1000 16:15, 18 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 00:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Feel free to improve the article and return to AfD if needed. If you propose redirecting, please do so on the appropriate talk page. Missvain (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fame Looks at Music '83[edit]

Fame Looks at Music '83 (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 has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further scrutiny required, especially in light of newly added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs further discussion - no consensus for any of the proposals so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 06:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Falls High School[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. This is a pretty obscure school. I'm pretty uneasy about nominating a Public High school for deletion, but I'm struggling to find any evidence of independent coverage. The only solid evidence I could find was a newspaper story in Montana. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that lots of dependent coverage in local sources exist, but little independent coverage. 95% of the reliable sources I found were local. Others were only trivial. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfC recently that determined the relevant notability guidelines for high schools is WP:NORG. Although it still sorta depends on if it's a public or private school though. Public schools are treated a little loser then private ones. Which are usually treated the same as any other type of company/organization. Something like a single primary source or just a name drop in a independent directory doesn't cut it for either though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. I think I was able to find a source in Montana during my initial WP:BEFORE check, but now I am unable to find it. All I can find now is a one-paragraph story on Newspapers.com. @Grand'mere Eugene: Could you point to me to where it says that WP:GNG does not require national or regional sources. I can't believe I forgot about WP:AUD. If this means that one regional independent source satisfies WP:ORG, I will happily withdraw the nomination if someone can provide proof. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grand'mere Eugene and Adamant1 thank you both. This is what I was looking for but wasn't able to find it myself. There are guidelines for most everything, so I had a feeling it'd be somewhere. Appreciate it. Redoryxx (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help Grand'mere Eugene. That source in the Idaho Statesman does seem to indicate that WP:ORG is met. I did not come across it in my WP:BEFORE. Also, the wording in that policy claiming that private schools need to meet both WP:ORG and WP:GNG was confusing. Should I reword it to specifically say that both guidelines need to be met? Scorpions13256 (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scorpions13256, I agree the language is a bit confusing. In the sentence For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria, "for profit educational organizations" is equivalent to private schools, which must meet both GNG and ORG. But public schools do not operate at a profit, so a public school like American Falls is not required to meet ORG requirements. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), public institutions may meet either GNG or ORG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"for profit institutions" are not the same as private schools. Most private schools in the US are non-profit institutions. Any religious school is, and a large number of private non-religious schools are as well. So the thousands of Lutheran, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish and many other religious schools are all non-profit. "for profit" is not by any stretch of the imagination the same as private. The line being drawn is not between public and private, it is between for profit and non-fprofit. However I think this line makes a lot more sense at the tertiary level. There are very few secondary for-profit institutions in the US. The most common occuarance that is close to that is charter schools, which in some cases are operated by for-profit institutions. However they operate with a specific charter from the government, so the issue is very complex. I would note that this article was very, very pporly written. It made a reference to "an official from Moscow State University" which was clearly actually a reference to an official from the University of Idaho.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Johnpacklambert: I stand corrected on the npn-profit/private issue, thanks. On the reference to "an official from Moscow State University", that was what the source said, and on newspapers.com there are many more references to Moscow State University until about 1928, when news of the Russian Moscow State University became predominant, but "State University" was still used in reporting local sports scores, for example. What's interesting is that there was a struggle between the northern Idaho community of Haley and the Moscow interests who eventually won out. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I also found a newspaper archive for The Power County Press and will be adding content from sources there to the article. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:29, 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 Draftify. Consensus was to move this article to Draft: (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Walker[edit]

Tyson Walker (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 suffers from WP:CRYSTAL. There are a number of references about Tyson Walker but all of them appeared WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't appear to be any clear consensus yet; although current arguments against keeping this (in mainspace, at least) seem to be stronger. Has anybody considered any other WP:ATD, such as redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 12:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah, Georgia, in popular culture[edit]

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. Despite the seemingly impressive number of sources, the vast majority are to IMDb, and there are none that are about the actual topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile, Alabama, in popular culture[edit]

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Discussion has remained stalemated over an extended period of time, and there is no reason to expect any further extension of time to yield a consensus. Editors !voting to keep make a well-reasoned argument that sources discussing the subject city's place in pop culture suffice to meet the WP:GNG. Structural issues that are fixable are beyond the purview of AfD. BD2412 T 03:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco in popular culture[edit]

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. Even if this topic meets WP:GNG, there is no encyclopedic content worth keeping (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, on a similar list that got replaced by an encyclopedic overview), not least because the Category:San Francisco in fiction tree contains hundreds of articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uncle G: Despite first appearances, the future San Francisco does feature in episodes of Star Trek: Voyager (five to be exact, as the nice persons from Memory Alpha have counted for us here), with the usual Star Trek time and space shenanigans, and the ship finally getting back to Earth in the end. For example this short review praises "Non Sequitur" with what translates as "especially good is also the San Francisco of the future". Of course ideally this should be spelled out based on secondary sources, but that can be done. Daranios (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Acid trips, black power and computers: how San Francisco’s hippy explosion shaped the modern world
  2. Popular Culture on the Golden Shore
  3. The Essential Guide to San Francisco Pop Culture
  4. San Francisco: A Cultural and Literary History
  5. Top 12 Bay Area cultural milestones of the decade
  6. Hollywood in San Francisco
  7. Which TV shows would make it into the San Francisco Hall of Fame?
  8. 10 Movies Filmed in San Francisco That Defined '90s Pop Culture
  9. Consuming Identities: visual culture in nineteenth-century San Francisco
  10. How San Francisco broke America’s heart
Note that Wikipedia itself is now headquartered in this city. Me, I live in London which is another cultural capital. When I visited SF, one of the places I went to was the highest point which has some personal signficance as it's called Mount Davidson. But the most outstanding thing up there is the Easter cross. I already knew this well because it appears in Dirty Harry. "It's a question of methods. Everybody wants results, but nobody wants to do what they have to do to get them done." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Next to talking about popular culture sections within articles, WP:INPOPULARCULTURE also explicitly refers to splitting out such sections into their own articles when warranted by the amount of information here. Daranios (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pickyourtrail[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pickyourtrail (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'm not seeing significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. This article in The Hindu Business Line is a blatant promotion of the website, which makes me believe that the other The Hindu article might be sponsored too. The article was created by a user who is banned for spam/advertising (Also see the deletion log of PickYourTrail and Pickyourtrail.com). M4DU7 (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so there can be a firmer deletion consensus given concerns about article's creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 12:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Believers Church Residential School, Thiruvalla[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Believers Church Residential School, Thiruvalla (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 private educational insitution without any reliable independent sources to establish GNG. Nothing useful were found on doing a WP:Before. Bringing this again to AFD because this was previously kept as a procedural keep due to involvement of sockpuppetry.Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given comment by non-sock in the last (recent) discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charis School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The London Theatre – New Cross[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The London Theatre – New Cross (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 30-50 seat theatre. Google news isn't returning any coverage I can find. There are no refs in the article. Tagged advert since 2011. Note the first AfD ended Keep based upon a series of references which actually aren't references - they are internal WP links. Desertarun (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Police Rugby League Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Australian Police Rugby League 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)

Twinkle aborted my PROD because this already went thru an AfD (I only checked the page history) so here we are again. There's no secondary coverage of this league at all, the only two sources are primary. A WP:BEFORE search brought up very little. SportingFlyer T·C 20:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This is an association. Was the Rugby League project notified?Fleets (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saintgits College of Engineering[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Saintgits College of Engineering (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 private, tertiary, degree non-awarding institution which has no inherent notability and does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as no WP:RS satisfying ORGDEPTH was found with a WP:BEFORE. I have cleaned up the advertising cruft. The previous AFD did not address these core issues and hence the renomination. VV 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. VV 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. VV 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We just had a keep consensus in March, so more discussion is needed before a delete consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm going with the keeps on this one. Feel free to improve the article with the many sources presented. (And you can use primary sources - but sparingly, of course!) Missvain (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rock[edit]

Karl Rock (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 BLP has been sitting at the back of the NPP queue for many weeks. The subject might be notable but it looks pretty doubtful to me and I think we’re in BLPIE territory. Bringing it here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion is needed to gather consensus on whether the links given by Nexus000 show notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus that WP:GNG is met. However, consensus has yet to develop as to whether the topic surpasses WP:BLP1E
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this a third relist in hopes that the BLP1E element will receive more discussion and thus a clear consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Probably the article with the most about Karl, telling how he speaks hindi and is travelling/living in India
  2. Next best article introducting him after plasma went viral, again doens't say a lot of indepth about Karl still
  3. Just a bit about him travelling and why he is in India
  4. Story about donating plasma
  5. Racist attack and blurb about donating plasma
  6. Mentions the Humans of Delhi story about trying to impress girlfriends parents and blurb about the plasma
  7. A paragrath saying he lives in India but went to Dubai to confront scammers then a link to his video
  8. Karl is in Pakistan and talks to a young boy
  9. What happens next will surprise you.... title and its a nothing story. He was riding where he shouldn't by mistake but left off with a warning
  10. Only brief mentions by name in articles
  11. His own first person account of how to travel in india
  12. More to check out still but seems to be more of the same, more on his moving on to busting scams
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Going with the keeps on this one. Please improve the article using sources provided! Missvain (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Deutsch[edit]

Erik Deutsch (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 NSINGER and GNG, was submitted through AfC and was declined before being moved to articlespace by creator. Noah 💬 21:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Tone 12:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nazargunj[edit]

Nazargunj (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, most citations are either fake or contain passing reference. Also spam and advertisement websites are used, see here:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Fables characters#Snow White. Logically anyone linking to or searching for Snow White + Fables is going to want the Fables version; hence, targeting to the character list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White (Fables)[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. Coverage on the character appears to be limited to passing mentions and plot summaries. TTN (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is for a redirect or merge, but which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of bodies of water of capital cities of the United States[edit]

List of bodies of water of capital cities of the United States (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:LISTN This set of items isn't notable; the only Google results about bodies of water that state capitals lie on are either this page, mirrors of this page, one blog, and one quiz (about identifying capitals based on a body of water). In addition, the article was initially declined by AfC due to lack of sources (indeed, the page has zero citations), then abandoned. It was then [for speedy deletion] due to being an abandoned draft, then for some reason it was accepted for creation less than 2 hours later without any message on the creator's talk page. Note that there weren't any changes in the interim months and the only changes since the initial rejected draft and the current state are fixing some links to ambiguous place names and stylistic changes (smart quotes, bold). I understand that current issues with the article shouldn't be the main reason for an afd because it could be improved but there are no reliable sources regarding the topic (not notable) and the article doesn't seem like it should have been created in the first place.

Sorry if I did anything wrong, this is my first afd discussion. 20UF6 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 20UF6 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 20UF6 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 20UF6 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More