The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Lovejoy[edit]

Blaze Lovejoy (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:BIO. Good sources are lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Google search turns up nothing except the VoyageLA source, which is an interview with the subject and does not include any commentary from the interviewer which makes it neither secondary nor independent, and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above. I searched under Nian Aster and Blaze and could not find anything which would come to meet GNG or NBIO. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet GNG; there's a lack of RS supporting this subject. --Kbabej (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG Devokewater 18:47, 7 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. Missvain (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Anwar[edit]

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

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

Non-notable cricketer, limited coverage but not enough to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 13 FC matches but all for uni sides, not seeing anything significant in coverage at all. No suitable redirect as played for multiple FC teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 13 matches in first class cricket. Why is this even here. Tintin 17:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. GNG is the relevant guideline here, and it is clearly not met with what I could find online (and there's nothing offline on him in the UK from Newspapers.com). JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 13 FC matches, passes the 10 match threshold which was agreed to be a reasonable amount. StickyWicket (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Where is the coverage. scope_creep^Talk 18:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator, with no opposing !votes. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salutem Healthcare[edit]

Salutem Healthcare (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 more than native advertising. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 22:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Its a significant provided of social care and there is plenty of independent coverage. Improve the article. Dont delete it. Rathfelder (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The referenes are routine annoucement and there is many many of these care homes companies, making it a fairly generic category. What makes this stand out? I honestly don't see much as it stands and the reference fails WP:NCORP. It looks like a native business listing and has had advertising tag for some while now. scope_creep^Talk 15:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all routine. It's taken over all Scope's services. That makes it significant in itself. There are fewer big care homes companies than you might imagine (75% of care home providers run just one home), but the fact that there are other providers doesnt mean we shouldnt have an article about this one. After all there are also lots of hospitals. Social care is very significant and our coverage of it is poor. Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions but at the moment 5 out the 6 references fail WP:CORPDEPTH as routine announcements and the last one, which is the first one, fails WP:ORGIND specifically. Not one decent reference. A formulation of some kind of approach is required I think. Showing it is significant compared to other cares homes in the UK perhaps. But at the same time, Wikipedia can't be a listing service for care companies in general, or any company for that matter. We are not a directory. It would be a seriously bad thing if we were. scope_creep^Talk 17:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There isnt a huge amount of coverage of the company as a whole (and some of what there is is behind a paywall), but there will be coverage of most of the 130 services it runs, sometimes in considerable depth. Decisions to delete should not depend on what is actually in the article. NB this is not only a provider of care homes. Its a specialised provider for autism, cerebral palsy etc. The MBE also seems to indicate notability. Rathfelder (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think article has been updated per the WP:HEYMANN standard. I think we should withdraw the nomination. scope_creep^Talk 16:31, 4 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. Missvain (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Wolkstein[edit]

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

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

This article was nominated for deletion back in 2014 but the sources were seemingly not extensively researched. To meet WP:CREATIVE she would need to have:

created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews

Is this the case? She was a producer for the fifth season of Queen Sugar and directed a more limited set of episodes. Regarding coverage, I went over all the sources and it's mostly passing mentions and primary sources. Only this description+interview from Filmmakermagazine seems interesting. I searched the web and found:

• Shortoftheweek which I doubt to be a RS (and is barely more than a passing mention anyway)
• interview with moveablefest.com (RS?)
• interview with anthemmagazine.com (RS?)
• interview with nofilmschool.com (RS?)
• interview with pinnlandempire.com (Vimeo link, RS?)
• interview with Hammer to Nail (RS?)
• interview with Temple news (The Temple News is a weekly newspaper of Temple University, Wolkstein is a Professor at the Temple University)

Only Filmmaker Magazine could be found on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. I think it's worth discussing and perhaps someone manages to find better sources that could establish notability. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is completely ridiculous and arguably unhinged. Alexis Jazz's edits to Lauren Wolkstein's page have advanced into vandalism and I removed the "nominated for deletion" panel because it is vindictive, groundless and frankly stupid. Lauren Wolkstein is a PRODUCING DIRECTOR on a five-season major TV series created by Ava DuVernay. She has won awards for her short and feature films prior to then. Her work has appeared at ALL of the top film festivals in the world (Cannes, Sundance, SXSW). What on Earth does a director have to do exactly to qualify for notability on Wikipedia if that doesn't qualify her? I wish to propose that Alexis Jazz be banned from editing Lauren Wolkstein's page. He or she has shown stunningly poor judgment with this absurdly unwarranted move. Zedembee (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the bot coming back and repeating the vandalism initiated by Alexis Jazz. I am not sure how to do that. The fact that literally no one else has felt compelled to second Alexis Jazz here should SPEAK VOLUMES. This is a lone operator apparently intent on disrupting the page. Please close this page so that the bot does not come back. This is deeply unfair to the yearslong accomplishments of the subject of the Lauren Wolkstein page. Thank you. Zedembee (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I've removed some headers and added the !vote to this statement. Original/pre-collapse is here. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - At a recent AIV, Muboshgu stated "Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting." (diff), and after a re-report, Malcolmxl5 stated "Declined. Second opinion: This is not vandalism." (diff). Beccaynr (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but this is not of any relevance to whether the subject is of sufficient notability for a dedicated Wikipedia page.Zedembee (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CREATIVE because she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...]. In addition, such work has been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent [...] reviews that I have found and added to the article: LA Times, The Hollywood Reporter, Vulture, NPR, Variety, Chicago Reader, and the Austin Chronicle, in addition to the two reviews that were already in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beccaynr, the reason I'm unsure The Strange Ones qualifies is that it must be a a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. As I read it, "significant or well-known" is a higher bar than "notable". The Strange Ones meets Wikipedia notability criteria, but I don't think it's a "significant or well-known work" like for example Star Trek, The Incredible Hulk or The Simpsons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my view, the film is objectively 'well-known' due to the volume of reviews; however, with the 2013 Filmmaker profile and the way the 2017 - 2018 reviews provide specific commentary on her work as a director/writer/editor, it looks like WP:BASIC notability is also supported; this recent interview with Xtra includes biographical information; and Variety has a 2016 review of another one of her works. Beccaynr (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC) As does the NY Times, Slant Magazine, Film Pulse, and The Austin Chronicle. Beccaynr (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC) As I continue to research and revise the article, I also found brief but non-trivial 2014 coverage from the NYT's T Magazine. Beccaynr (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Beccaynr. Certainly "significant" is a higher bar than "notable", but it's not that much higher. If the bar for "significant" were "as well-known as Star Trek" we'd exclude nearly everything. pburka (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:CREATIVE. The Strange Ones has won significant critical attention which makes her notable. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:02, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Fellowship Ministries World Outreach Center[edit]

Faith Fellowship Ministries World Outreach Center (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 get 119 unique Google hits. The sources are directories and a passing mention. I see no evidence that this passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a very large, visible church. The two New York Times stories are typical of press attention. A search on Google Books gets snippets that indicate plenty of additional coverage:
  • Faith Fellowship Ministries Faith Fellowship Ministries World Outreach Center 2707 Main St . Sayreville , NJ 08872 www . ffmwoc . org Faith Fellowship Ministries was founded in 1980 by David T . Demola , who also leads Covenant Ministries ...
  • Faith Fellowship Ministries , Inc. v . Limbach , 32 OS3d 432 , 513 NE2d 1340 . 45. ( 1987 ) To qualify for exemption from real property taxation as a house used exclusively for public worship under RC 9 5709.07 , such property must be used in ...
  • David is the pastor of Faith Fellowship Ministries in Edison , New Jersey . He bought a piece of land at the intersection of the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway , where he and his congregation planned to build a huge new ...
  • In Faith Fellowship Ministries , Inc. v . Limbach , a church was denied a full tax exemption for their building , which included a cafeteria and gymnasium , on the basis that two of the uses were merely supportive of public worship instead of ...
  • Vincent Longo is a minister and evangelist at Faith Fellowship Ministries in Edison , NJ . For over 10 years , Vinny , the founder and director of Victory in Jesus , has taken the gospel and the victorious power of Jesus Christ to the unchurched in ...
  • Faith Fellowship Ministries , Inc . v . Limbach , 513 N . E . 2d 1340 , 32 Ohio St . 3d 432 . — Tax 2355 . Ohio 1949 . Where primary use of one and a half story building was for public worship , the build - ing was used exclusively for “ public ...
  • She is a member of Faith Fellowship Ministries in Sayreville , New Jersey , where she serves as a deacon and teacher . Ms. Lucas is the founder of Esteem Ministries , which is committed to helping believers live victorious Christian lives .
  • Give and it will be given unto you ; a good measure , pressed down , shaken together , and running over , will be put into your lap ” ( Luke 6 : 38 ) . Abounding Grace Ministries is now an outreach of Faith Fellowship Ministries World Outreach ...
  • There the revival has not ended but has Faith Fellowship Ministries in NJ — their belief in the prosperity message instead become , as the Urapmin say , a church . After demonstrating that is that if they give their finances to the church , God will ...

It would be extraordinary if an operation of this size was not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- A church with 10,000 worshippers weekly ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has reliable sources coverage as shown in this discussion including the New York Times and book sources so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 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 delete. Cabayi (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of MiniDisc releases[edit]

List of MiniDisc releases (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:LISTCRIT and WP:LISTN. This is simply a catalog listing of releases on a particular format, and there's no way this can ever be sourced except by linking to Amazon and other online stores, because there are no sources that describe all the albums released on MiniDisc. Why not List of CD releases or List of vinyl LP releases? Richard3120 (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No comment on whether this is of indiscriminate scope (though certainly far fewer albums were released in this format than CD or vinyl), but the mass-produced discs are themselves sources for their own existence and content, fundamentally no different than a list of books. Any information not contained in the disc releases themselves would clearly need a separate source, like if the list purported to be comprehensive. postdlf (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if the thing itself is enough to be a source for its existence, then what's stopping editors creating lists of everything that exists? And just because there were fewer of something doesn't make it more list-worthy. Richard3120 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not the question I was answering. You’re welcome to move on to different points, but your nom claimed these couldn’t be sourced and compared it to lists of media that basically every album ever had been released under. That’s as far as I was commenting. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't dispute the existence of these albums on MiniDisc, but I wouldn't make List of CD releases based on the fact I could source their existence either. But my main point was that I don't believe this meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, whether the individual entries could be proved to exist or not. Richard3120 (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, simple case of WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:48, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Missvain (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANCRA Marketing Model[edit]

ANCRA Marketing Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the sources mention the subject. An online search doesn't produce any reliable secondary sources for said model. Might be just a cover-up for backlinks provided in the references list, much of which is primary source-based. nearlyevil665 19:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scottwrites (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ok. well... the whole point was I found several sources for the model because I was using it. But when I came to wiki and didn't see an article I thought, ok, write one. Now as to the whole cover-up for backlinks in references; I'd never heard that before. But don't really care. Because if that's a concern, if you want I'll just go find completely different sources and change every single one of them. That seems kind of odd given they talk about the steps, but whatever. If that's ok, great. If not, say so and I won't go to the trouble. Not important enough to debate much.[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-04 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Vinu Nair[edit]

Aishwarya Vinu Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

She doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NMODEL. The references available are either only sponsored content or passing mentions in non RS. Not a single significant coverage in a RS. Roller26 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more articles and there are hundreds of articles on the internet which is in her name for winning the national pageant. The articles have come up after a period of time and not all at once. Her achievements have been covered in the newspapers etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aayat1998 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: While I dont know whether winning Miss Teen Diva 2020 makes her passes WP:NMODEL, she seems like passing WP:GNG to me as she has recieved sigcov from two reliable sources. This source [1] from The Print makes her pass WP:BASIC. And if we combine it with this[2] Malayalam source from Manorama, which is the leading national daily in Kerala, I believe it will makes her pass WP:GNG. This source is almost covering her entire career even though it is partially an interview. Some other sources were also found. But Im not bringing here as I am not sure about its reliability. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, the Print article has clear attribution to ANI Press Release (same one which Business Standard carried). It cannot be used to establish notability. MM is more than half interview, we need three WP:THREE independent RS significant coverage to keep the article. Roller26 (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The references are all based on PR material. No clear assertion of notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The references have been added which are independent and not only from the press release. Times of India, India Times, Khaleej Times, Bhaskar, etc are the independent articles that are not based on the PR material. There are more articles available on the internet which are independently written. Aayat1998 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article failed to satisfy WP:GNG.---Richie Campbell (talk) 14:05, 7 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; all other !votes were to keep. See WP:SKCRIT #1. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Late-life mortality deceleration[edit]

Late-life mortality deceleration (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 huge chunk of original research; basically retelling a 2011 paper. Other references are just for tangential issues, a background of the paper. Not a single ref after 2011, i.e., no peer review cited, andd the nearly whole text is coming from a single primary source Lembit Staan (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• withdraw per Weburbia and Danbloch. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Late-life mortality deceleration is a fundamental topic in gerontology and longevity demographics. The term has been around since at least the 1970s and is widely used. There are plenty of references in both primary literature and secondary sources. Try scholar, book and news searches. The mortality plateau is the ubiquitous example of mortality deceleration models and many more references can be found under that name. This article does not do the subject justice because it focuses on just one paper, but it is not original research and the topic is highly notable. It just needs someone to go through the sources available and update the article. Weburbia (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Did you read my nomination? I am not talking about the subject, I am talking about the wikpedia page, which is basically retelling a new primary source. If the subject is valid, then NUKE and write from scratch. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The article has a source, so it is by definition not original research. Having only a single source is an issue, and I've added a maintenance tag to reflect that, but nothing in the OP's post is a grounds for deletion. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm going with the keeps on this one. There are additional sources that can be added. You can also build a great article using passing mentions with support from more significant coverage. Let's try improving the article, discussing it on the talk page, and feel free to re-nominate if you're losing sleep that this subject does not merit inclusion. Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godi media[edit]

Godi media (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 subject is merely social media slang, used by a certain group of people and some unreliable so-called "online news outlets", which were created a few years ago. The majority of the refs used are WP:QS do not pass WP:RS. Last but not least, the subject clearly fails WP:N. LearnIndology (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S There is no indepth coverage of the topic. Mere inclusion of a "word" in few articles doesn't make it notable. LearnIndology (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Run n Fly (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Run n Fly (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Run n Fly (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Run n Fly (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I strongly support this wiki. this should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.201.145 (talk)
• Delete I totally agree with deleting this. At best, it could be included as a subsection in a wider article on Theory of Lapdog journalism, something this article had a section on previously. Agent raymond232 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Please do add (*Delete) in the beginning of your comment. LearnIndology (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It clearly fails WP:N and article is full of WP:OR. desmay (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I trimmed the article of WP:OR. Please explain why it "clearly fails". Lembit Staan (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - slang or not, no matter who uses it, it refers to a certain phenomenon in India social media and certainly a nontyrivial searchable term, with reasonably reliable sources which explain it. NOt to say that it was coined in a reliable source. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. The following cited sources are good (if one claims they are unreliable, please establish this at the special place: WP:RSN):

  1. Philipose, Pamela @ The Wire gives the definition, connects "godi" and "lapdog" terms, gives the usage and an explanation how they operate;
  2. Washington Post reasonably elaborates on the subject as well
  3. Frontline is under paywall, but "godi media" and "lapdog" aree searchable by browser in the article
  4. Gulf News shows that Kumar is not a random journalist to invent a random term and gives some more bits on the subject
  5. Clarion India Describes several anti-Muslim godi media

  I din't look into other refs. IMO the ones above are sufficient to establish notability. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not required to claim they are unreliable. They are not reliable by the virtue of them missing in the list of reliable news sources. If you claim they are "good", you need to prove them to be WP:RS. Opinion pieces contributed to organizations known to publish content with a specific slant which are not well established news sources are not reliable enough to justify a reference. Now, coming to your specific items,

  1. The Frontline, Gulf news, Washington Post and Clarion India articles are opinion pieces. They don't talk about the usage of the term Godi media in common parlance nor do they provide any evidence for this. They only talk about this term being coined by the aforementioned journalist. A phrase being used by a certain journalist is not notable enough for having its own page. To justify its own page, the content should be well researched and sourced to justify this page's claim in the second paragraph that it was widely used. As per Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable news sources, "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." That is not being done here.
  2. The only evidence of this term being used in common parlance is in the Wire article, but the Wire is hardly a reliable source of information. It is known to be biased against the current political party in power at the centre. It has on several occasions referenced fake news from other sources or has created fake news on its own. I can mention two incidents off the top of my head but that is beyond the purview of discussion here.

  Agent raymond232 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not required to claim they are unreliable - you got it upside down, colleague. We get the list of proved reliable sources in order to avoid repeated evaluation. Simlarly we hv verifie unreliable souces, to aoid repeated discussion. For all unlisted sources you have to prove that they are not reliable. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is known to be biased against the current political party in power at the centre - So in your opinion we have to forbid reference from the government opposition and we have to forbid to present their point of view. and hence your vote is to turn wikipedia into a "godi media": no bad word agaist the goverment. This violates our fundamental policy WP:NPOV. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are only two reliable sources (Frontline and NYT) cited in the article, and both of these sources nowhere use the term "Godi media". LearnIndology (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Frontline has used "Godi Media" an the NYT has used "lapdog media". There is also a Caravan source, several from The Wire and Newslaundry, all of which are reliable sources for Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) Where on Frontline and NYT editions do you find the reference of "Godi media" ? Also, I checked the list of reliable sources and it does not even list The Wire, Caravan and Newslaundry. Further, a lot of those pieces are written as editorials, analyses and opinions, hence do not abide by WP:NEWSORG for reporting facts. To summarise, only New York Times is listed as a reliable source in Wikipedia and even that too does not mention the word "Godi media", even if you were to be believed.Agent raymond232 (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  NEWSORG are about reporting facts which are news, i.e., events. We are talking about a concept, a term. These things are not necessarily defined in the news, but in the analyses. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The term in question here cannot originate from analyses. It has to be backed by news covering events mentioning its use. If those news items are not reliable or are not news at all, the WP:N of this term is put under question. Just because some opinion writer thinks of coming up a new slang to malign a certain group of people, it does not become Wikipedia worthy. Agent raymond232 (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes political terms can originate from analysis, and its proponent is an award-winning journalist, who knows what he is speaking about. And he does not malign, he accuses, with arguments. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Also you are mistaken of wikipedia rules: mere mentioning its usage is insufficient to establish notability. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "Yes political terms can originate from analysis," Where is it mentioned so in Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, the qualities of the proponent you are proclaiming here is your point of view. In my point of view, he does selective journalism and shows half truth to support his propaganda. But that is beside the point. Also, as you rightly mentioned, mere mentioning its usage is insufficient to establish notability, and that is why this page is up for deletion. It is not a notable topic at all. Agent raymond232 (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are enough good sources, and this is apparently an important topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) As the other user points out, hardly any of the sources mention the term Godi media. Also, this topic hardly warrants a page for itself. At the most, this can be kept as a subsection of a page discussing the Theory of Lapdog Journalism.

  Wrong; see my "P.S". Lembit Staan (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  See my reply to your "P.S". Agent raymond232 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a term that is notable per multiple reliable sources. It is not the case that only sources listed in WP:RSP count as reliable; please read WP:RSPMISSING. Neither is it the case that an opinion piece in a reliable source can never be used to support the fact that a term is used – it is a question of context, per WP:RSPUSE. It is a problem that names of media outlets are added indiscriminately as examples of godi media without sources to support the use for that particular publication, but that is not a reason to delete the entire article. [Adding: Note that there are sources supporting the claim that "Godi media" is used about those newspapers and TV channels that are currently listed in the article.] --bonadea contributions talk 11:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I have added links to the previous WP:AFD at top-right manually as this article had a different title previously. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can someone provide significant coverage found in multiple reliable sources concerning this term? Passing mentions are not enough for creating an article about a pejorative term. Shankargb (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several references in the article with reasonable coverage, not just mentioning, see my PS. list above. The article may be easily expanded with more detailed descriptions from them. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are supposed to link those "several references" here that are enough for establishing the notability of the subject. Vague handwaves do nothing. LearnIndology (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Delete as a separate article. As article very clearly fails WP:N. As article fails WP:N for have to be separate article further saying things are just punctilio.

Better idea would be to merge the article in another article as a sub-section of any lapdog article or any 'Media of India' related article(related,not specifically this Media of India article.

A term of slang (used by some persons or some media) doesn't deserve to be a separate article on wiki(sub-section of another article (of Indian Media) is better).

I'm not denying the fact that, These channels (listed in the article Godi media) partially took side of present government, sometimes.

As who favors the government are callled Godi media(also there are channels who always speak against government, even if government is doing well in any matter. Those are also called like(libra**s, Sikular many more things, than I think they also should have the articles. But being a good wikipedian(good thinker),even these things don't deserve a separate article,a sub-section in 'Media of India' may be quite good.)

+--+Still, some about the fact that... There are some reliable sources in article, but most of them are opinionated like examples of Churnalism. Most sources lack WP:NPOV and also there are WP:PARTISAN sources. Articles in some reliable sources here in the article are the opinionated columnsWP:RSOPINION of those indian writers(who have worked or were working with Ndtv and Ravish Kumar and also whose thinking goes to left leaning--^[1] Mostly things are given of Original Research. Also reliable sources merely mention this word(even those reports are opinionated .i.e.Churnalism). And these kind of opinionated mentions or opinionated news doesn't hold strong point for a separate article.

Just because a journalist came up with a slang word,(there are also words like that for that journalist also,but that's not an essential thing to create a article) it doesn't need to be a separate article (you can mention this word Godi media on his page,not as a article).

I will be the first to create a separate article on Godi media if all the news channel owners of listed in Godi media forms a separate news agency and named it Godi Media.

Godi media really a low-opinion slur or outrageous word doesn't need to be a separate article.

Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree with Bonadeas assessment that it is a term that is notable per multiple reliable sources.BabbaQ (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, it's a very notable topic and worth including in encyclopedia. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. No sources provide it significant coverage. Agletarang (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That a word has a pejorative meaning has nothing to do with whether it is a notable term. That a word belongs to the casual/slang register has nothing to do with whether it is a notable term. That a word is not popular with a particular group has nothing to do with whether it is a notable term. The only thing that can determine whether it is a notable term is whether there is significant coverage in independent sources. The article currently includes multiple sources that talk about the phrase: the five sources listed by Lembit Staan above, and also a couple of Newslaundry sources (in particular the one called "Media has lost our trust"). By the way, somebody was claiming higher up in this thread that Newslaundry is not considered to be a RS, but [t]here is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. There are also many sources that use the term without discussing it in any depth – this includes the National Herald and New Frame (which I just restored to the article). In fact, I get so many minor/trivial hits in GNews and GScholar that it is very clear indeed that the phrase "Godi media" is in common use, and not just used by a small group, or as a passing fad. --bonadea contributions talk 17:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. A non-notable topic, which is popular only on Twitter. Knox490 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Surely enough notable term and a well-sourced article.— TheWikiholic (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my request above. Subject fails WP:GNG. Shankargb (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pejorative, uncyclopaedic term only used by a small group. Fails WP:N. --RaviC (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Here is my analysis of the main sources used on this article:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20210209035845/https://frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/muzzling-the-media-how-the-narendra-modi-regime-continues-to-undermine-the-news-landscape/article33770431.ece	Yes, it is independent.	Source is reliable,	Only a passing mention of "Godi Media".	✘ No
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/21/journalism-is-under-attack-india-so-is-truth/	Yes, it is independent.	unreliable opinion piece.	Only makes a passing mention of "godi media".	✘ No
https://sk.sagepub.com/books/key-concepts-in-journalism-studies/n109.xml	Scholarly source.		Makes no mention of "Godi media".	✘ No
https://thewire.in/media/backstory-farmers-protest-journalistic-callousness-media	? The Wire is a big time critic of BJP.	? Wire generally requires attribution.	Only makes a passing mention of "godi media".	✘ No
https://thewire.in/media/backstory-farmers-protest-journalistic-callousness-media	? The Wire is a big time critic of BJP.	? Wire generally requires attribution.	Only makes a passing mention of "godi media".	✘ No
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/magsaysay-award-winner-ravish-kumars-journalism-is-fearless-doesnt-monetise-hate-by-peddling-a-communal-agenda-1.1564905034018			Only makes a passing mention of "godi media".	✘ No
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/magsaysay-award-winner-ravish-kumars-journalism-is-fearless-doesnt-monetise-hate-by-peddling-a-communal-agenda-1.1564905034018			Only makes a passing mention of "godi media".	✘ No
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 handwaves of sources (WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST) is misleading and weakens the case of notability of this subject. Tessaracter (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Your "significant coverage?" column only documents the coverage of "Godi media" (the term) and not the coverage of Godi media (the media). For example, The first source ("Muzzling the media: How the Modi regime continues to undermine the news landscape") is almost entirely about the very media that are being called Godi media. And your table says, it isn't significant coverage. This is hardly a reasonable analysis. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • When you say "main sources", is that a reference to how much each source is used in the article? I know that source assessment takes a bit of time, but I am a little puzzled about why you selected those specific sources. Several people (including myself) have pointed to significant coverage that exists in the article right now, such as the Newslaundry and Caravan sources. That is not "handwaving". It also looks like you accidentally included one of the Wire sources twice – the Wire article you did not include is specifically about the use of the phrase. --bonadea contributions talk 11:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This would imply that this assessment table is a biased assessment and should be taken as such. -- DaxServer (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is clearly a POV article with particular agenda of defaming media houses which do not support their certain ideology. ---256Drg (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

"Purely disruptive material" (and subsequent comments, per suggestion) ——Serial 16:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are many guys on this platform who are vandalising articles according to their POV. Here is an example I have been involved into. Where everyone support Controversy section on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article but can not get 'consensus' to add the same section on Winston Churchill article : See here. ---256Drg (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] @256Drg These two are entirety unrelated articles and completely different discussions. I do not understand why you have linked it here. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] @DaxServer: 256Drg is trolling; see this discussion, as a result of which they will soon be indefinitely blocked. Cheers! ——Serial 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Serial Number 54129 Would it be possible to remove this comment [and replies to it] based on purely disruptive and unrelated [after a decision is made on the noticeboard]; or should it be kept and be considered for this (Godi media) AfD discussion? -- DaxServer (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Confirming that 256Drg has now been indef blocked. I also think his comment above should be removed. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bonadea's thorough analysis; recommend a little deeper WP:BEFORE. ——Serial 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Some WP:RS with significant coverage not yet in the article.^[1][2][3] --SUN EYE 1 17:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nitesh003 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bonadea above. Also, per SN54129, insufficient WP:BEFORE nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:09, 7 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 merge to Mechanical puzzle. Merge and disambiguate. Feel free to discuss accordingly on appropriate talk page. Missvain (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid puzzle[edit]

Pyramid puzzle (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) 05:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Mechanical puzzle. No reason why a pyramid shape in particular is notable. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very clearly fails our rules against dictionary defintions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly the contributors to this article had a specific puzzle in mind, rather than just the generic idea of a puzzle being pyramid-shaped. It's hard to tell which puzzle the article is talking about, but I think it is the two-piece and four-piece puzzles described in this University of Waterloo virtual museum of games. I think the link I gave doesn't make the puzzle generally notable, but I'm mentioning it here in the spirit of WP:BEFORE. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the two-piece one, comparing against the original, now deleted because it was not correctly licensed, illustration; but it is not the same four-piece one. Uncle G (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, merge to Mechanical puzzle and then disambiguate, as argued by MarkH21 below, is preferable to deletion and seems to address most concerns raised in the discussion. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- its not clear what this even refers to. The author of the article is no longer active, so we may never know. If we have to guess at the subject of the article, then it clearly doesn't belong.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too ambiguous. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, sources and image added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom and WP:NAD CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suspect that enough different things are called "pyramid puzzles" that calling this the primary meaning would be misleading. There's already a hatnote to the tower of Hanoi, and the GS search indicates that the cannonball problem is also known as the "square pyramid puzzle" [3]. (In addition, there's a lesser-known "Chinese Number Pyramid Puzzle" [4].) Then there are some appearances in video games, etc. It seems like anything worth saying about the two-piece pyramid assembly puzzle can be said at mechanical puzzle, but I'm not convinced of the merits of leaving a redirect behind. XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, with Mechanical puzzle. On reflection, after researching this, and per XOR'easter - there are lots of different types of pyramid puzzles. There is no real reason why the pyramid variant of a mechanical puzzle needs its own article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom and WP:NAD as per all above. Fails WP:GNG Purosinaloense T/K 14:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and then disambiguate: There isn't actually much to merge from here to mechanical puzzle, although I wouldn't be opposed to having a sentence or two merged over. However, I don't think that this page should remain as a redirect to mechanical puzzle as other editors have already argued. Ideally, this would be merged and then immediately converted into a disambiguation page (which also preserves the article history for attribution regarding the merge). This is should be a solution that aligns with all of the merge and delete arguments above.
  The need for a merge is that there is well-referenced content here (not much, but it's there) that is suitable for a sentence of two at mechanical puzzle, but the topic is not notable enough and the term is too ambiguous for a standalone article here about pyramid-shaped mechanical puzzles as pointed out by several editors.
  The need for a disambiguation is due to the fact pointed out by several editors that the term "pyramid puzzle" is ambiguous and refers approximately equally to mechanical puzzles currently at this article and the Tower of Hanoi, and slightly less so for the cannonball problem and some other pyramid-shaped puzzles. It seems like a reasonably common enough search term (page views) for these various puzzles (for example, it is a well-referenced alternative name in the lead of Tower of Hanoi) such that a disambiguation page is needed here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and then disambiguate per the !vote just above. XOR'easter (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• merge and disambiguate is a reasonable suggestion: google readily shows there are plenty of other things called "pyramid puzzle". Lembit Staan (talk)
• Merge and then disambiguate per the excellent arguments of MarkH21. --JBL (talk) 02:29, 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. Going with the deletes on this one. If you need to see the article to merge any content, please let me know. I'm also happy to support a redirect to whatever page ya'll suggest. Missvain (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K17HC[edit]

K17HC (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 translator station, as per WP:BCAST. No source has been provided to show this was anything but a translator station. Rusf10 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or at best redirect to Gray Television/KAUU. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Even as early as 2007, an application to modify the construction permit said that this was to be a translator of KYES in Anchorage. Perhaps merge anything useful to KAUU (the successor to KYES), but no objection to deletion either. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — The nominator fails to disclose here that this article was part of a slew of PRODs they initiated, all offering the exact same rationale (the first sentence in this rationale). This particular PROD was contested on the basis of BCAST, WP:NTEMP and WP:DEGRADE (explained below). Their response was to suddenly change the argument (the second sentence in this rationale). BCAST does not address the unique circumstances of this station. Rather, it is pretty clear-cut: either a station originates a signal to a broadcast area and is notable, or repeats a signal originating elsewhere and is not notable. At the time of this article's creation in 2009, it described a station which met the former criteria. Under the very black-and-white standards of BCAST, the fact that it was a low-power UHF station broadcasting programming commonly found these days on digital television subchannels is irrelevant. Wikipedia's coverage of television outlets in the United States has been hijacked by a small group of editors who work almost exclusively in this topic area, are dismissive and even passive-aggressive towards input from the editing community at large, and who have weighted coverage of the topic area heavily towards current/recent events and the small handful of broadcasting companies which pass properties back and forth as if they were a cheap whore. The nominator's editing activity shows them to be one such person. I've been editing articles on television outlets for close to a decade and there are plenty of minor stations where third-party sourcing is sorely lacking. The consensus has been that the information found in ((BIA)) and ((FCC-LMS-Facility)) are suitable substitutes for third-party citations in establishing notability. This is problematic in this case, as it allows for NTEMP and DEGRADE to be flagrantly disregarded and gives credence to the notion that notability hinges solely on current mention in the linked databases. The nominator seeks to capitalize on the lack of current mention in those databases, as well as diverting your attention away from the station's early history when it held a claim to notability and have you focus on it later becoming a translator and still later becoming defunct. Another argument raised here is that it should redirect to Gray Television, ignoring that its history as a translator (never mind the prior history described above) precedes Gray's purchase of KYES. This is another widespread POV found in coverage of this topic area, namely that by buying a broadcast property, one is entitled to buy exposure on the encyclopedia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioKAOS:Ignoring your continued personal attacks and allegation that I am part of some type of conspiracy, you still have not put forth a single source to back up your claims. When you first deporded this with a personal attack against me [5] in which you accused me of being an WP:SPA, I responded by pinging you and asking you for a source [6]. You ignored my request, so after waiting over a week, I took the article to AfD. And you still have not put forth a single source to back up your claim that the station was independently notable in 2009. user:Wcquidditch is the only person to provide a source and that source directly contradicts your claim because it shows that at least as early as 2007, this was a translator station. As I already explained to you, I am not claiming temporary notability, so that's another false claim. What I am asserting is that the station never has been notable at any point in time. So if I am wrong, I am asking you one more time, where are the sources to back up your claims?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this further. It is indisputable that K17HC and KYES have always been co-owned. Before Gray purchased the stations in 2015, they were owned by fireweed communications. Both always had the same affiliation too. Without any other evidence presented (which still is the case here), I have to believe K17HC repeated KYES's programming. If I'm wrong, provide a source.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madurai T. Srinivasan[edit]

Madurai T. Srinivasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Practically unsourced BLP (the only accessible source, apart from the Youtube video, doesn't mention him). Tagged for notability since 2010 and has very obvious OR and POV issues. I can't find any significant coverage, although it may exist in other languages. Lennart97 (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete without prejudice as unsourced neglected for 10 years. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A complete dearth of RS, and would need to be rewritten anyway for the OR and POV issues. --Kbabej (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater 18:48, 7 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 merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Missvain (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Duck[edit]

Melissa Duck (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 has a lot of WP:ORIGINAL, also Melissa Duck only really appeared for one short. Will support merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Topic fails WP:GNG. The only real world information is some irrelevant bit about the cartoon in which the character was featured. TTN (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Although I am sad to see the article go because then we'll likely no longer use that image and she is one smokin' hot duck. Also there's a suggested merge template that's been on there since May 2020. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uhhhhhh.... (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The vast majority of this article is not actually about the character, but about a bunch of other character that may or may not be the same duck. As none of this is sourced, this is pure WP:OR and should be removed. I was going to agree with the merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters, but upon searching, I can find almost nothing on the character in reliable sources. Maybe a Redirect to Baby Looney Tunes#Main, since that appears to be the only real series in which she had a significant presence, would work? Rorshacma (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• So much WP:OR! may represent the "origin" of the Melissa Duck character... bears a strong resemblance to Melissa Duck... Despite having paler feathers, the female duck from this cartoon physically appears very similar to Melissa... also the possible inspiration for the Shirley the Loon

After all that's been trimmed, there's the one Looney Tunes short and Baby Looney Tunes that the character definitely appeared in. Fictional characters need to have real world notability, but none is asserted, no one here has suggested any, and I couldn't find any myself so this isn't really a viable subject for its own article. None of the three potential targets are great - List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters is mostly links to full articles with only four characters of actual content, but I suppose we could merge the bits of this that aren't OR there. A redirect might also work, but I can't decide if The Scarlet Pumpernickel (first appearance, more prominent work) or Baby Looney Tunes (subsequent appearance, less prominent work, but much larger role) would be a better target for that. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to a list of LT characters, no evidence of stand-alone notability - just plot summary/mentions in passing here or there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• merge/redirect to the list. No evidence of notability.Lembit Staan (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Park[edit]

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

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

Tagged for notability since 2012, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage of this singer, apart from the cited NPR show, which is not sufficient by itself. Lennart97 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I don’t see WP:MUSICBIO being satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. Park is notable as an entertainer/singer. Two R&B/soul albums with many songs. Her songs are licensed to retail stores, in film, etc. She has performed internationally. I've improved this article and added sufficient refs. SWP13 (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO. The recordings have not charted on national music charts, or received any certifications or major accolades. The sources in the article (except the NPR source) are questionable, most of them are not reliable and independent - for instance this and this are blogs, and the rest either constitute routine coverage or are interviews with the subject and cannot be used to establish notability. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:33, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Fracassi[edit]

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

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

Nonnotable musician with no significant Tier1 coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SINGER Sonofstar (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I was about sending this to AFD myself. This is the archetypal case of TOOSOON Celestina007 (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources given are obviously paid promotion.--- Possibly (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet notability. Lesliechin1 (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG, maybe someday but for now TOOSOON JW 1961 ^Talk 20:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:TOOSOON, currently fails WP:MUSICBIO. I'm seeing lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their music technically metaverifies its own existence on Spotify — she has to actually pass a criterion in WP:NMUSIC, and she actually has to have reliable source coverage in media about those accomplishments, to clear the bar. But the four "press" links are blogs, not reliable or notability-making publications. I wish her good luck building her career, and obviously an article can be recreated about her if and when she's achieved something more noteworthy than just the existence of a song — but right now is WP:TOOSOON. We are not a free public relations platform for aspiring future stars to publicize themselves in advance of actually accomplishing anything noteworthy. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG & SINGER. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No RS helping this subject to meet GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Fails the latter miserably. --Kbabej (talk) 23:30, 6 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) 00:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back of a Car[edit]

Back of a Car (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:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in secondary sources. No awards or charted songs. The article is sourced by personal interviews with non-notable bloggers, and brief mentions in non-notable online magazines. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: appears to fail WP:BAND to me, but even if this is kept, I still doubt that this band gets as many search hits as the Big Star song of the same name, so at the very least a hatnote would need to be added to point to Radio City (album). Richard3120 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by blocked sockpuppets; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matdaviesuk. Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep - I would argue that this article meets all of the required criteria for inclusion. I disagree that it fails WP:BAND in that it meets points 1 and 4 with at least two of the article's sources. This band is definitely obscure, however, but I don't think that it merits deletion. I agree with Richard3120 and their comments regarding adding a hatnote to the Big Star song.Thisistheworst (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep - I do not think this article should be deleted just because the band is not considered popular. The sources given in the article are independent but not trivial.Matdaviesuk (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I also wanted to add that I looked over a few other articles of bands from New Mexico, namely Polo Urias and The Eyeliners, and noticed that both of those articles have very few secondary sources. In fact, the Polo Urias article has no secondary sources and none of the information on the article is cited. I also note that the Polo Urias article lacks an encyclopedic tone and reads like an advertisement for the artist. While the Eyeliners article has one Allmusic reference, the other two are from non-notable sources. My explanation is not to advocate for the aforementioned articles' deletion, but just to state that given the mass volume of information available on wikipedia that sometimes articles are a work in progress and I believe the Back of a Car article should be no different. The article should be allowed inclusion and worked on at the very least, just as the other two articles I noted should be allowed inclusion.Thisistheworst (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - After a WP:BEFORE search I was unable to find anything to substantiate the notability of this band. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON, and they will be ready for an article in a few years after some substantial reviews are published. The sourcing is weak, and not significant coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO. How this article stands up to others is not relevant to this discussion because OTHERSTUFF. Netherzone (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments involving blocked sockpuppets; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matdaviesuk. Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - Responding to the comment regarding OTHERSTUFF above. The other articles mentioned above are especially important regarding the current article because logical consistency is necessary for any body of work; otherwise the information just devolves into circular reasoning. I think that the keep/delete arguments being made in this discussion are an example of the ongoing debate between Inclusionism vs Deletionism. I think it's important to remember Jimmy Wale's words here - "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing". I admit that the band is obscure but they certainly meet the (arbitrary) criteria of WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO.Thisistheworst (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thisistheworst, please understand that AfD is a process of consensus, it is not a war between "inclusionists" and "deletionists". We are all volunteers who are invested in improving the encyclopedia; in other words we are all on the same team. There is no reason to polarize the process and assume that an editor who disagrees with you is out to disrupt free access to human knowledge. I am guessing that you have stereotyped me as a "deletionist" because I !voted delete, however if you look at my AfD stats over the years, I'm about 50-50; and a content creator that actively improved many articles on notable subjects that have been nominated for deletion. The nominator, Magnolia677 is a very experienced editor who has created over 300 articles; they would not nominate an article on a cavalier whim. AfD discussions are supposed to focus on policy and guidelines, not on other editors. What might help your position is to clearly state which of the criteria of WP:BAND/MUSICBIO this band meets, backed up with independent, verifiable reliable sources, because I'm failing to find that: citation 1 is a blog and interview therefore not RS nor independent; 2 is an interview in a blog and a primary source that is not independent of the artist; 3 does not mention the band at all; 4 is a digital streaming song purchasing site; 5 is another download site with a long quotation by the artist (another primary source); 6 is a short profile in a blog, but is an independent source and a little better than 1 & 2, however the content isn't in-depth significant coverage; 7 is a music purchasing site. None of these meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Criteria #1 for WP:BAND/MUSICBIO states "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." and criteria #4 states "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." There are no reviews in reliable sources, no awards, no charting songs, no notable albums, no gold records, no international/national tours, no major record labels, no notable musicians, etc. With all due respect for your efforts, I cannot understand how notability can be conferred. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Netherzone, please understand that it was not my intention to insinuate that you are of a particular editing "ideology", if you will. Apologies if I offended you. I brought that aspect up simply to illustrate the manner in which this article was nominated for deletion. Your comments were particularly helpful and engaging. In my opinion, the sources cited on this article speak for themselves and I feel that this article is a good contribution to wikipedia. With that being said, and though I feel this article meets all of the required criteria for inclusion, Wikipedia's notability criteria for WP:BAND is epistemologically incoherent. Given the current state of the music industry, most artists can't/won't meet that criteria for the entirety of their careers. Due to economic factors, much of music journalism is also simply a tool for PR. Can we honestly say that bands are not worth learning about simply because they do not pander to PR reps and journalists and do not reach a widespread audience? At this rate wikipedia is going to be an extremely poor resource for music history in the coming years.Thisistheworst (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thisistheworst, No offense taken. It's frustrating and disappointing when an article one has created or worked on is deleted, however that is the nature of this project. It's an encyclopedia, it's not a place to promote or advertise the things one "likes" or oneself, or something one is directly connected to, that is what social media is for. WP strives to be neutral and non-personal - that is how the integrity and quality of the encyclopedia is maintained. I appreciate your efforts, as I do the efforts of creative artists in general, however at this time this band does not, in any regard, meet our criteria for notability, not GNG, nor BAND, nor any other general or specific notability requirements. It's too soon for this band to have an article in the encyclopedia. That does not mean that there is not a place for indy bands or obscure topics, there is, but their importance needs to be established in verifiable, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (See WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS.) The guidelines and policies, while they may seem random, were in fact established through the dynamic process of discussions and consensus between editors around the world over many years. The guidelines/policies exist for a reason. My honest suggestion, which I hope you don't take the wrong way, is that the band should make (or hire/trade with someone to make) a great website for themselves, and self-promote that way. I don't know what the final outcome of this AfD will be; that is for the closing administrator to decide, but I feel strongly that the encyclopedia should not be used as a substitute PR rep just because it's free and "anyone can edit." Artists always figure out a way to survive and thrive because we are inventive and contribute to the culture in ways that no one has ever thought about before. And we just keep making stuff for the duration of our lives because we can. If the article is deleted, try again in a few years, but in the meantime, edit what you love but are not directly connected to (if that makes sense). That's the best advice I can give for now. Netherzone (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I forgot to mention that if you want to start a discussion about the perceived fairness of inclusion criteria, there are discussion boards here for that sort of thing. A place to start might be to ask at the TeaHouse or Help Desk where the best place to discuss notability for bands might be. Netherzone (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Both of those articles Thisistheworst linked have never been considered for deletion as far as I can see. One band doesn't seem to have any charted songs either. Thisistheworst makes a compelling case for inclusion. If wikipedia is meant to encompass such a vast array of knowledge, then the article in discussion warrants inclusion. Researching also shows this band has had several national tours with many bands with more notoriety. In the punk world bands go years and years without mainstream exposure. Netherzone also makes a good point with WP:TOOSOON. But inclusion is the way here. Harmlessactor (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have opened this SPI regarding User:Matdaviesuk and User:Harmlessactor. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:26, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 23:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HVDC Leyte–Luzon[edit]

HVDC Leyte–Luzon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Possibly unnotable article of a transmission line. Has been tagged with unsourced since April 2009. The listed sites down below seem to be unreliable sites that cannot support this article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per the coverage available in independent reliable sources. ^[1][2][3][4]

SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Several reliable references added to the article. Beagel (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  With sufficient sources now added,  I withdraw my nomination for AfD now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:33, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Ridge, Maryland[edit]

Stone Ridge, Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has been unsourced and a stub since 2007. The coordinates show a few homes with no evidence of a community. A WP: BEFORE found only Wikipedia clones. Stone Ridge doesn't show up on topos and no GNIS entry for it exists as well. However, the article says that Stone Ridge has a population of about 1,000 so I decided to bring this to afd. ColinBear (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is bizarre. If it's truly reporting a population in the census, then it should be in GNIS. But I checked, and couldn't find it either. And newspapers.com brings up "Iron Stone Ridge", a Methodist Church, and a convent. Not listed as a municipality in Frederick County. Hog Farm _Talk 17:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject purports to be a township, but Maryland doesn't seem to have townships. I followed 340 on 2011 USGS topographic maps from Frederick to Brunswick City, and found no place called Stone Ridge, which is bizarre since something with 2400 residents in 2007 should appear. Coordinates don't show evidence of sizable population there. Hog Farm _Talk 17:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And here's the damning part - does not appear in document of 2000 census areas in Maryland. If it really reported a population in the 2000 census, it should be in there. And searching brings up a small street in the Clover Hill area of Frederick. And something with a significant population in the USA in the internet area should be findable in the internet. Page creator only edited this page and its talk page. This may be a hoax. Hog Farm _Talk 17:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Maryland does not have townships, though it does have incorporated towns; this isn't one listed for Frederick County. Looking at maps and aerials, there is just no way this was ever a CDP: it sits in a wooded area right next to an actual town. Except for various categorization tweaks and the addition of coordinates (I've queried the author of the latter), it's the contribution of a single editor who did nothing else. Nothing on Google except false hits in other states and a determination to include the Stone Ridge School of the Sacred Heart, which is some 30-40 miles away in Bethesda. My reading is hoax, at this point. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax - Neither me nor Mangoe and presumeably the nom have been unable to find proof that this exists in the claimed form. Hog Farm _Talk 18:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. There's a Stone Ridge in Bel Air, and a Stoney Ridge in Carroll county, both neighbourhoods. There is no Stone Ridge that I can find here. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GEOFEAT. Probably used proximity to Bethseda for the name. ——Serial 14:35, 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 deleted as A7, G11. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ehtisham Munir[edit]

Syed Ehtisham Munir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Blatant non notable covert UPE article on a non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus fail to satisfy WP:GNG nor do they satisfy WP:ANYBIO Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly non notable. No RS I could find to establish notability. Pahunkat (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - autobiographical spam on a non-notable entrepreneur with zero coverage in reliable sources independent of him Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Only source is very dubious, it makes him sound like he is very famous but a quick google search doesn't return anything beyond the article itself. 15 (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per the rationale by Celestina. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:SELFPROMOTE. Article creator's username says it all. Excommunicato (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And not just the username — the creator happily admits this on their user page. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Looks to me A7/G11 speediable, even (or have I missed something?). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:BIO + WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - creator now indeffed for spamming and self-promotion. I've requested A7 and G11 deletion for this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 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. ✗plicit 02:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Bidmead[edit]

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

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

Despite having 2 singles released by a major label, there seems to be a lack of any sort of significant coverage on him. I can't find any evidence they meet any other criteria on WP:NMUSIC. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There's simply nothing out there to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There really is nothing out there, as Alexandermcnabb stated. A BEFORE yielded nothing. This has gotta go! Doesn't meet GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. --Kbabej (talk) 23:47, 6 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. I'm leaning to a keep here but I'm going with no consensus. Please discuss article renaming and improvements on the talk page of the appropriate place. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map-based controller[edit]

Map-based controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep all of Coin945's AfDs from today as a procedural matter. Coin945 has nominated 72 articles in a short space of time with a questionable rationale ("long-term lack of sourcing" -- see WP:NEXIST) and no indication of WP:BEFORE, with @Uncle G finding that a number of them can have their notability confirmed on literally the first page of Google results. This is not something the relatively small group of people who work AfD can realistically handle. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Eriksson, Lars; Nielsen, Lars (2014). "10.1.2 Basic control using maps". Modeling and Control of Engines and Drivelines. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 274–275. ISBN 9781118479995.

  Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing here, even with the provided source, rises above dictionary defintion level. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. We need to consider the use and history or a thing, not merely what it is, and this article does not do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We now have a source. However GNG wants us to have multiple sources. Clearly this should not be speedy kept. It should be allowed to stand and given time so people can try and find more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is this related to a MAP sensor? Says it is used in internal combustion engines.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rusf10: Thanks for spotting this. No it's not related – this one is about map (mathematics) – but someone has apparently conflated the two. I removed the statement from the article. No such user (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lookup table#Data acquisition and control systems. I'm vaguely familiar with the control-systems field, and I don't think that a "map-based controller" is a "thing" in itself. Rather, it's a rather vague description of a "controller that has a lookup table", and many control system designs have one. Googling scholarly articles for "map-based control(ler)", it seems that most of those take the term as a descriptive phrase rather than a term of art, i.e. more or less a WP:DICDEF. It does not seem that the sources out there will permit writing a coherent article – the term is too vague to be useful. No such user (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to map-based control. This properly belongs as a topic in control theory, not in the theory of lookup tables. Google Scholar has nearly 500 hits for "map-based control", 26 of them in the title. Google Books also has some relevant-looking hits, and there are many others for closely-related phrases such as "map-based ECMS" (one particular application of this technique with over 100 GS hits). There should be plenty of adequate sourcing among them, although the sourcing in the current stub looks adequate for a stub. Although there are also hits for "map-based controller", they are significantly less numerous. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  David Eppstein: but I honestly looked for in-depth coverage, and came up empty. As I said, most papers are devoted to particular applications and take the term for granted. I opened a couple of control theory textbooks at GBooks, expecting a section or a chapter on the topic (looking for "map" or "lookup"), but did not find anything. I'm not an expert in the field, granted, but if after 15 years of existence all that we can say is that there should be plenty of adequate sourcing among them without anyone finding it, we'd be better off without this article, without prejudice of a recreation. Yes, WP:ITEXISTS, but the current single sentence amounting to a dicdef is not useful for anyone. No such user (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename, to Lookup table-based control system. The term map-based controller is used almost exclusively to describe an Engine control unit, which is an application of a lookup table-based control system. This article uses the name of the former but describes it in the general terms of the latter. I can find WP:RS for both. There is obviously no point in adding lots of ECU references and ultimately duplicating that article. Here are a bunch of references, to show notability across a range of applications.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]}

There is also a small amount of information on lookup table-based control systems already here: Lookup table#Data acquisition and control systems. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Arthur, Helsinki[edit]

Hotel Arthur, Helsinki (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 and wholly unremarkable ROTM city-centre hotel. The article mainly cites the hotel's own website as a source, and for a good reason: a search returns no RS secondary sources. (I must admit I was quite surprised myself, given that the hotel has been there for more than a century, but there we are.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom/no RS references. RJFJR (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is listed in just about every guide book to Finland but that’s all ROTM. The article does not claim any real architectural or historical distinction for the building and I can’t find anything else. Mccapra (talk) 02:54, 7 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 21:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apiphily[edit]

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

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

Prod by @SimonP: had been removed by Vaticidalprophet with some very strange reasoning, per WP:NAD and WP:GNG, not notable, WP:BEFORE gives some Dictionary Definitions but no books mentions or anything similar sufficient CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I spent some time trying to find some references for this. It seems like a plausible topic, but from my searching this word doesn't seem to exist. Google Scholar has one hit in a translated article from 1946. Everything else on the web are Wikipedia clones. It does not exist as a word in the OED. - SimonP (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a second (and very obscure) source here: [7]. The snippet shows a parallelism with cantharophily (the pollination syndrome of beetles), which helped me make my comment in this discussion below. — Goszei (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think this is a hoax, a quick google search shows that the real name is Entomophily. Plus, there are no sources to back up this article. Heart ^(talk) 06:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, its parent page should list this page as one of its subspecies. Heart ^(talk) 06:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "apiphilous" is a nonce word, used here and there, and I suspect that the article creator inferred the noun from the adjective. The correct name, per loads of sources, is melittophily. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• with some very strange reasoning As I've mentioned before, many places, I'm perfectly happy to explain any tag removal I make. I had found some very old pre-internet hits and was looking into them further to try see what the case is, as prodding articles with potential pre-internet sources is a risky proposition. I was in the process of deciding those hits were dead ends and sending it to AfD (there are many, many articles where deletion is indicated but CSD/PROD is not, as I've noted quite recently). "There might be a there there, this needs a bit more time to be looked at before I send it off to AfD" is not, IMO, a "very strange" reasoning (we can certainly both think of stranger ones), and I'm getting a bit weary of your tendency to assume the worst in anything I do when I've repeatedly expressed a willingness to explain both my actions and what other people may be trying to get at. Vaticidalprophet 13:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We seem to have a subsection on a page on this topic: Pollination syndrome#Bee pollination (melittophily) (I am not an expert here, however). Uses a different name -- "melittophily" is well-attested in sources from what I can see. Considering the super-weak attestation of "apiphily", I not sure if it should be redirected to this section or deleted, but I lean heavily towards the latter because it because Books+Scholar combined return 2 obscure sources. — Goszei (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am suspicious of appearances of this term after 2011 because of the Wikipedia article. Use before 2011 is limited in google books to [8] from 1946. It is not a dictionary word in the dictionaries I checked. I don't think this is a hoax, but I also don't think this is sufficient for a redirect. A redirect is plausible with a couple more sources using this in this fashion.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:16, 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 21:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VAV Life Sciences[edit]

VAV Life Sciences (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 sources in this advertisement are all press releases, primary (e.g. a patent), or otherwise not intellectually independent of the subject. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NCORP. Kolma8 (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article text and references describe a company going about its business. Searches find some coverage, such as this in 2014 and some announcement-based coverage about a new plant in 2017, but I don't think there is sufficient coverage overall to demonstrate attained notability here.AllyD (talk) 06:29, 7 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 List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBN News Advisory[edit]

ABS-CBN News Advisory (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 of a defunct newsbrief program tagged as unsourced since March 2009, and immediate Google searches return no decent results (other than Wikipedia mirrors and fandom sites). The article is very short too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Newsbrief/breaking news branding, not notable in any way. Nate • (chatter) 17:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN: Barely found anything about the newscast. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Astig. Mccapra (talk) 02:59, 7 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 Jason Isbell. The consensus is that the band is not independently notable. A merge can be made using the page history. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 400 Unit[edit]

The 400 Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Potentially does not add or expand upon anything mentioned in Jason Isbell, potential for redirect to there?   Kadzi   (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I made a comment about this on the article's talk page... essentially it's a duplication of the albums they made as Isbell's backing band, so a merge or redirect seems appropriate. Richard3120 (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jason Isbell, because the band is only ever described in relation to Isbell, and this article merely repeats information that can already be found over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Lynch Jr.[edit]

William J. Lynch Jr. (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. An executive with experience at two big companies but not much notable on their own. Most coverage of this person is exec departure/arrival press. Ew3234 (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 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 no consensus. Cabayi (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications Hall of Fame[edit]

Telecommunications Hall of Fame (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 was flagged for multiple deficiencies in 2012, including notability, which are uncorrected, and I haven't found anything of significance about this foundation. Moreover, according to Canadian government records, the foundation was dissolved five years ago: https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=4315162 -- Thomas H. White (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Telecom Hall of Fame is still active: https://opengovca.com/corporation/4337786 The corporate dissolution record cited above is for a different (albeit related) entity, a charitable foundation. BlueStraggler (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete this never seemed to gain traction, I could only find one article in a reputable source that has a passing mention: [9]. The fact that its dissolved is not a problem per-se but it looks like it never was notable. --hroest

• Keep although it needs updates. It was certainly notable for a period in the late 2000s, although it seems to have faded away in the last decade. It has been referenced in official Government communications, including by the Minister of Industry [10]. It has been reported in Broadcaster Magazine, which was the Canadian broadcast industry journal for 70 years until it went out of print in 2015. It does crop up in big media like the Globe (cited above) and CTV but the subject matter is usually too technical to be of interest to popular news outlets. There are many other references, but most are in industry specific journals and outlets whose reputation may be hard for laypeople to gauge. BlueStraggler (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that the Telecom Hall of Fame's main impact was in live events (induction and award ceremonies, essentially) which do not leave much of an online footprint and is why they seem to have quickly faded away after the events stopped.BlueStraggler (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueStraggler if that is the case, it should be clear from the article. The way the article is currently written, notability is not evident. --hroest 21:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing Joan[edit]

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

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

Unsourced and likely fails WP:BAND. I can't find any significant coverage of this group. Lennart97 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to fail WP:BAND, all references for the band receiving M&C Fine Arts Awards are circular in nature originating from this Wikipedia article itself. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listar[edit]

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

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

Looks to fail WP:NCORP. Article created by a user with the same name as the company CEO, which I only noticed because they were adding content farm spam links to various articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There are various similarly-named products but I am not finding evidence that this product platform is notable. AllyD (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article spends all its time to being promotional rather than establishing why Listar is notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:41, 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 delete. ✗plicit 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Mohammad Idris[edit]

Haji Mohammad Idris (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 Indian singer that fails WP:NMUSICBIO. Also appears to be a promo piece with the author uses words like "acclaimed", well-known, top-graded etc Claim to have been added to Limca Book of Records with no sources to support.

Generally everything is sketchy about this subject from WP:RS to WP:N . TheChronium (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Puff piece that's been rejected at AfC five times already. I think six tries is enough, don't you? - Sumanuil (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Pretty new to Wikipedia editing, and this article came up in editing suggestions for articles whose copywriting could be improved, but I agree that it should probably be deleted (as the singer is not notable.) What's the process for this; is everything discussed as edits *to this page*? How are comments signed?

Thanks, Quicklibrary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicklibrary (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

testing signing a comment; Quicklibrary (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: before search result returned negative. This topic is far below general notability guideline. Kaspadoo (talk) 13:04, 6 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 Payame Noor University#Locations. Missvain (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karaj Payam Noor University[edit]

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

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

This currently has zero sources and under the "sources" header it points to a now deleted Iranian Wikipedia article for the same school.

Payame Noor University is a series of universities in Iran and worldwide, and Karaj Payam Noor University (or Karaj Payame Noor University) is just one location in the city of Karaj, Iran. It seems like anything relevant from this could be merged to the existing Payame Noor University article? Jooojay (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, to Payame_Noor_University#Locations. I could not find sufficient English language sources to show that this campus is independently notable. The redirect (or merge) could have been boldly done without bringing it to AfD, per WP:BEFORE. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are more than 500 campuses for Payame Noor University - do they all need redirect? Also there are different naming conventions being used. Jooojay (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the sub-topic of a wider article it's appropriate per WP:RPURPOSE, unless any of the other campuses are independently notable. I doubt that any editor would create them though, and even if they did it wouldn't make the top 3 articles with the most redirects. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have the editing rights for this type of redirect unfortunately. Jooojay (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 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) 00:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galgotias Business School[edit]

Galgotias Business 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)

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. VV 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. VV 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. VV 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing even close to WP:ORGDEPTH found; I found a brief profile page on Learners' Gateway, another at College Dekho and a passing mention at Seasonal Magazine. This doesn't even pass WP:GNG let alone WP:NORG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Kumari[edit]

Swati Kumari (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:Author and W:GNG. Just one reliable source [11] that happens to have a byline but the article is full of what she is saying and hence not independent. Also, another SPA>Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:Author and W:GNG per nom. No significant coverages available for Swati Kumari. Chirota (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. The sources appear to be promotional and would not constitute WP:SIGCOV. VV 15:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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