< April 05	April 07 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pretty clear consensus that this is WP:SYNTH; no need to relist. Sandstein 14:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans and hot springs[edit]

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

This is an overgeneralized article that is basically about four hot springs. These “Native Americans are spiritual people” articles are generally not helpful and at times border on cultural appropriation. Where a specific tribe used a specific spring for spiritual purposes, and that use is public, that can be noted at the appropriate article. A gathering of romanticized Woo is original research and not useful. My suggestion is that the content on individual springs be moved to the individual article, and the sources used to support the overbroad conclusions that are WP:SYNTH can also be moved to individual articles. Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article takes references of dispirit events and tries to SYNTHESIZE them into proof of some common, over-generalized philosophy that can not be supported by reliable sourcing. If a suitable article or articles can be found for any reliably sourced content, merge there. GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's talk of appropriation is ironic because it proposes to re-use this content elsewhere and then delete the edit history, so denying the authors their proper attribution. It says that there are just four springs but the page does not yet include the Yellowstone area. This paper, for example, explains that when that land was appropriated by the US government, it was the subject of myth-making to cover-up the native history and so make the place seems newly discovered and safe. We should preserve a full history of this matter per our policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator: The issues surrounding a place like Yellowstone (which has dozens if not hundreds of hot springs and geysers, by the way) is a good example of precisely why Native presence needs to be discussed in individual articles, not some generic and inaccurate overview filled with New Age romanticism. This article, done “properly”, would really be nothing more than “List of hot springs with documentable Native American cultural significance” and would contain dozens of locations. I don’t see a need to destroy attribution. We can take the content for specific hot springs in this article and move it to the article for the individual teacher, and an edit some reason such as, “moving content from [attributed authors name] deleted page” and that should handle the attribution matter. Montanabw^(talk) 15:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: If merging parts of the article is the result of this discussion, the attribution is preserved throught the MERGE process if done correctly. This would not be an issue. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SYNTH, agree with merging parts of this article to individual articles. Comment - I am leaning towards WP:TNT/delete, but will wait a bit before !voting. The article is centered on 4 examples in the U.S. and does not mention indigenous peoples, nor hot springs in Canada, Mexico or Central America. It is written in the past tense, as though Native peoples are not living cultures. It is simultaneously too general and too specific. It over-generalizes NA’s, and does not convey the diversity and differences between peoples. It is too specific as only 4 springs are given as examples, yet there are over 1,600 in existence in the US alone? A lot of the New Age-y wording has now been removed, thankfully. Andrew Davidson provided an excellent source that critiques the fallacy that Native peoples “feared the geyser regions as inhabited by evil spirits”. I’ve added that source to the Further reading section. Netherzone (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC) !voting above. Netherzone (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How are editors supposed to merge the content, or see what's in the further reading, after the article is deleted? Uncle G (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uncle G, I've added some of the content, citations and further reading to relevant articles: (Yellowstone National Park, Tonopah, Arizona, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Saratoga Springs, New York and List of hot springs in the United States). Netherzone (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, lots of WP:SYNTH, no proof of general notability CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear synth, no sources are cited that specifically talk about Native Americans and hotsprings. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This is WP:SYNTH and also way too broad : like saying "Eurasians have a long history with hot springs" or an article titled "Asians and boating" - there are ignore important differences between different parts of the continent. @Authors of the article: you're very welcome to write individual articles like "Hot springs in Nez Perce culture", if there is enough WP:RS material to warrant an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trimton (talk • contribs)
Delete There may be a notable topic here, but we need to TNT this mess at least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think WP:SYNTH applies, because the article is essentially a recreation of the Lund article, which is from a peer reviewed publication, and not an original synthesis of multiple sources. I agree there are issues with presenting this topic as is. I have placed a note on some relevant wikiproject pages related to First Peoples. I request that we re-list this for another round, to allow for time for editors who work in this area to comment or perhaps rescue or suggest a merge target for this article.4meter4 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content with the following articles: the section on Tonopah hot springs can go to the Hot springs section of Tonopah, Arizona; the section on Sleeping Child hot springs can go to Nez Perce and maybe Missoula, Montana; the sentences on Saratoga Springs that have not already been included in the Saratoga Springs, New York article can be put in the Springs section there; and the section on Hot Springs, Arkansas can go to the Natural spring section of Hot Springs, Arkansas. I'd suggest any other text people think worth keeping can be merged into the Hot spring article, though I'm not sure there's much there. James Hyett (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newgen Software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. Most of the coverage here doesn't seem independent. On search, only stocks related coverage is coming out. Had a lot of sources that were their own company pages and have removed them already. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note : This has been nominated in past and has been kept basis that sources exist. I failed to find them really. If they do exist, please add them in the article rather than stating here so that no other editor in future feels like putting this on nomination yet another time. Thanks! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't soft delete due to prior AfD's so relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, most are bog standard PR or articles based entirely on announcements. Having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion, in light of prior AfDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay, one more relist for the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources per nom. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Subject lacks significant independent coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sanketio31 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what above commenters said... does not meet WP:GNG. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP Devoke water 08:01, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NRG (American band)[edit]

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

A band that appears to fail WP:BAND. I can find passing mentions of them in the context of the The Transformers: The Movie soundtrack that one of their songs is featured on (such as the cited IGN article) but no significant coverage dedicated specifically to the band. I can't find evidence that NRG shared the stage with any of the artists listed, either. The article doesn't make any claims of notability apart from the Transformers song, as neither the "Formation" nor the "Post NRG" sections contain any noteworthy information. It's probably also telling that the articles on the Transformers film and its soundtrack are the only Wikipedia articles that link to this one.

I do recognize that as they were active in the 80s, significant offline coverage (or simply hard-to-find online coverage) may exist, so if anyone can find any, I will of course be happy to reconsider. Lennart97 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I too can find nothing but chatter about their appearance on the Transformers soundtrack, and none of their other works seem to have gained notice. Note that they can be found occasionally in modern sources, as singer Les Brown is still active but promotes his solo releases via that same decades-past connection to Transformers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient news coverage hence fails WP:BAND. Sanketio31 (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep – no argument made for deletion. (non-admin closure) – Thjarkur (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aimée Kanyana[edit]

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

I think it needs to be examined. MadD ^(talk) 22:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MadD ^(talk) 22:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MadD ^(talk) 22:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a minister in a national government + (a couple of) sources. It would benefit from more sources, obvs, but what's to examine? Ingratis (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Wikipedia:NPOL Djflem (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable politician. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Musa Bashar[edit]

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

BLP of a businessperson who does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is largely inherited from the company (Rahamaniyya Global Resources). MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have curtailed the article in great extent to remove unreferenced information. The subject seems notable from these references [1], [2], [3], [4]. Chirota (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree with MrsSnoozyTurtle, subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 08:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of passing mentions but nothing substantial to own a page yet. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. TheChronium (talk) 10:37, 14 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 21:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nasharizam Rashid[edit]

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

Soccerway, Tribuna and FlashScore do not contain any Super League appearances, so there is no evidence of meeting WP:NFOOTBALL.

Google searches and a Malaysian search yielded only passing mentions in The Sportivo, Bharian and The Red Warriors so no sign of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, fails GNG and NFOOTY JW 1961^Talk 13:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient news coverage hence fails WP:GNG. Sanketio31 (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 08:17, 12 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 21:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dzulfadli Marajeh[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL as no appearances recorded on Playmaker Stats, Soccerway, Football Critic, Tribuna and GSA. It's possible that his 19 appearances, if they are even correct, happened while Sarawak were playing below professional level.

Google searches as well as searches centred on Malaysian sources yield zero coverage, WP:GNG appears to be badly failed. Searching for "Dzulfadli Awang Marajeh" yields more hits but none of it is significant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient news coverage hence fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sanketio31 (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFOOTBALL Devoke water 08:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly lacks notability. No Men Are Allowed (talk) 18:55, 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. ✗plicit 13:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter's Key (Tampa), Florida[edit]

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

GHits and a BEFORE are limited to listings for sale/rent. Can find no evidence of coverage to establish notability for this gated community. Similarly does not appear to warrant mention in the neighborhood it's part of. It's just a run of the mill gated community. (Anarchyte has a good point that this is "not really an organisation", but I can't think of any other way to sort this discussion. Feel free to change.) StarM 21:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NBUILDING. No building can be notable just for its mere existence unless its historically or otherwise significant. Chirota (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing from google excepts listings which is certainly not what Wikipedia is about if not we'd be Linkedin or Crunchbase. TheChronium (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Engineering College, Agra[edit]

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

No RS with a BEFORE except for paid advertisement, press releases and primary sources. Fails NSCHOOLS. Creator is an SPA. Vikram Vincent 20:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 20:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 20:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 20:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 20:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's analysis of article. Megtetg34 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable private educational institute. Riteboke (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Eads[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Working musician has no claim to regional significance (no source for one of Kentucky's most recognized drummers). Additionally, there is no obvious redirect target, as the subject is know for his work with Funnel, Wheelhorse, The Eric Cummins Band, Shane Smith, and No Fences, all non-notable/regional/local bands. KidAd • SPEAK 20:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a deeper dive on the sources just to be certain because there are several in the article. Source 1, 3, 9, 16, 17, 18, 20 are broken/non existent. Source 2 is a business with his bio on it. Source 4 is not an article, it's a quote. Source 5 and 21 is the same exact source and is a link to another business, but I didn't find anything on him. Wouldn't have counted as a source anyways. Source 6 is a podcast interview. Source 8 is not an article. Source 7, 10 and 19, are trivial mentions of him. Source 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 I couldn't locate. Megtetg34 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per findings by Megtetg34. Riteboke (talk) 07:58, 14 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delowar Hossain Dil[edit]

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

Other then some passing mentione in the refs (WP:REFBOMB as article contain 33 refs), i didn't find any significant coverage about this person. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete- A quick google search shows that he is writing and directing a number of big studio films in Bangladesh but no coverage on him.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep- I think it has enough sources and passes GNG. Diptadg17 (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diptadg17, Not sure how a single word/mention in in the ref passes GNG. If you don't mind, can you please explain how those refs passes as "Significant coverage" (addresses the topic directly and in detail). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete - has enough google search results to verify the person has indeed writing and directing films.Riteboke (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently it doesn't fully meet WP:N because there's no WP:SIGCOV on the subject apart from passing mentions. TheChronium (talk) 12:18, 15 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 21:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

María José Rocafull[edit]

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

Rocafull does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL so the question is whether the footballer meets WP:GNG. I performed Google searches as well as Spanish searches of Maríajo Rocafull and María José Rocafull. This brought up loads of database profile pages and squad listings, neither of which provide any depth. The only source that provides more than a passing mention seems to be this Vavel team of the week. This isn't enough on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL Devoke water 08:05, 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 merge from Qatar-3b. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar-3[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. The only published research appears to be the discovery paper for a non-notable hot-Jupiter exoplanet (Qatar-3b, fairly longstanding article but possible also not notable). No popular coverage. Lithopsian (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NASTRO, but also... can we all just take a moment to marvel at the fact that "non-notable exoplanet" is now a thing? That certainly wouldn't have been the case a few decades ago! PianoDan (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage. Perhaps some guidelines can be added to WP:NASTRO as to what constitutes a notable exoplanet discovery? Maybe as a minimum its confirmed in an independent publication and/or its orbit has been refined? Praemonitus (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per lack of information. Maybe we should merge this article to the planet one because of the lack of information about the host, and only one paper covers it. 400Weir (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the exoplanet's article. We keep having these discussions, and I have yet to see a convincing argument for why there should be separate articles for an exoplanet and the otherwise non-notable star it orbits. But I think the name of the merged article should be the star's name. We should have one article for each exo-solar system, named after the star. We can have redirects for the planet names.PopePompus (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per PopePompus. Tercer (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The merge could be the other way round (the article about the planet is merged with the parent star); as is also sometimes done with other exoplanetary systems. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are recommending here. Do you think the title of the merged page should be the name of the star, or the name of the planet?PopePompus (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The star. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.PopePompus (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought, without having followed every discussion in detail, that there was a general (not universal) consensus to merge to the star when the star was notable or there was a multi-planet system notable beyond just the notability of one planet, but merge to the planet when the star was not individually notable. This star does not appear to be notable in itself, whereas the planet *may* be notable. Lithopsian (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A decision about which way round the merger should be would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Is *anyone* arguing that the star and planet articles should be merged, and the merged article should be named after the planet? If so, what should be done in situations where there is a non-notable star that has several notable planets?PopePompus (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the title of the merged article is relevant for the AfD. In any case, this was discussed in WikiProject Astronomy, and the consensus was to merge under the star's name, as it can be done consistently for all exoplanets. Tercer (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely. So I think we should just start merging the articles in situations like this one without having any AfD or related discussion at all. This situation pops up again and again, prompting the same multi-week discussion amongst the same people. Let's just merge them as soon as we notice them, on our own without discussion (be bold!) and if people complain we can then have a discussion about that.PopePompus (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is a star with a notable planet not therefore itself notable? Given the countless number of stars, aside from being unusually big or serving as an historical reference point in the sky, what else would serve as a point of notability? BD2412 T 00:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well in my opinion, the issue is not whether the star is notable. It's how articles about stars with exoplanets should be organized. We have seen a number of articles about stars which would not be notable were it not for the fact that they have exoplanets. Those pages tend to repeat much of the information that is also available in the separate article about the exoplanet, because that information has to be repeated to establish the notability of the star. So why not put the information about the star and all of its planets in a single article? That will reduce the amount of duplicated text and references (which makes it easier to keep the articles current and mutually consistent in the future), and provide a single place to find all the info about an entire stellar system. Since very little is known about most individual exoplanets at this point, and additional information is apt to be gathered very slowly, a single article about the entire system is not apt to be excessively long. I see no point in maximizing the number of separate Wikipedia articles by making a set of articles each of which has the minimum amount of notability to survive a AfD debate. Let's choose quality over quantity.PopePompus (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, but it seems to me that the case for notability of the planet in this case is based on its proximity to the star rather than some specific quality of the planet. BD2412 T 05:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - What then are you recommending? Leaving both articles as they are? Merging them (if so, with what name for the merged article)? Deleting both articles (star and planet)? Something else?PopePompus (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @PopePompus: How about merging the planet and the star into an article titled Qatar-3 system? BD2412 T 14:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established by the existence of secondary and tertiary sources as described at WP:GNG. This policy is not easy to apply to astronomical objects and there is a specific policy giving guidelines about how to assess notability for them. I have argued that the policy is difficult to apply to exoplanets and it has certainly been widely ignore, but the basics are still there: being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. The policy specifically describes that notability is not inherited, that is something is not notable purely because of association with something else which is notable. Hence a star is not necessarily notable because it has a notable planet. Looking again at the policy, notability is not established by the properties of the planet or star and especially not just by its existence, but by the attention paid to it in reliable sources. Again, this works better for people, fiction, etc. than to massive balls of rock or plasma in space, but it is how Wikipedia works. If an exoplanet, for example, has particularly unusual properties of some sort then it will generally have some coverage in at least multiple peer-reviewed journals, and hopefully some more general media also. All this doesn't necessarily resolve this discussion, but it does answer the question you asked. Lithopsian (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per PopePompus. Riteboke (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Qatar-3b has been added to facilitate the close with XFDcloser. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn and draftified by agreement of the nominator and the article creator. BD2412 T 06:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Z. Cohen[edit]

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

There is something very peculiar about the way the referencing is framed in this article. They are all opaquely within an archive framework, making it harder to identify immediately the press release and PR nature of the references. In the first dozen or saw references I have found only one that is about Cohen and is in a reliable source and is significant coverage. This is WP:ADMASQ with a good smattering of WP:BOMBARD. All we see here is Cohen's resumé. If she has inherent notability we need to see what that might be.Otherwise she just appears be a WP:ROTM investor doing what investors do.

In summary it's a very capable advert. Fiddle Faddle 19:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In discussions with the major contributor I have determined with them that the opacity of the references has been due to a misunderstanding. Fiddle Faddle 23:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Further discussions with Paula F Warren who is the main contributor have shown me that the correct course of action is for me to withdraw my nomination and ask that this be closed as Draftify so that they may work on the many faults in referencing, and thus in the prose that the current references do not really support. Because they have a declared WP:COI they cannot work on this as an article. It can then be resubmitted for review and be accepted or not on its future merits. I do not believe I am entitled to close this discussion myself since I initiated it, so ask for a Speedy close in this manner. Fiddle Faddle 06:01, 7 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 21:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Booster Nutrition[edit]

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

Advertisement for food supplement DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to write an AfD nomination myself. The four sources present themselves as reliable but are full of promo language. One even gives you a sales catalogue. Googling reveals more promo but I am yet to see disinterested/professional coverage. WP:GNG and WP:NCORP are not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undisclosed paid-for spam with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. GSS ^💬 19:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just advertising. Athel cb (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable.--Kemalcan (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No Men Are Allowed (talk) 19:00, 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 no consensus to delete. The argument for (weakly) keeping this article is premised on the subject's advocacy, rather than their scientific achievements, so a somewhat higher bar of sources is required. Whether that is met is questionable in this case, but after extended time for discussion there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 02:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda Staniscuaski[edit]

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

not yet notable, no hightly cited research paper by our usual standards ; however, she works in a very narrow specific subfield, and perhaps they mightb eisgnificant. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Let us keep an eye on it, but it's not an obvious case for deletion. Athel cb (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTJUSTYET quite yet.--Darwinek (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. she fails WP:NPROF but she has gained exposure and coverage due to her activism around parenting in academia. On top of the English sources there are quite a few more in Portuguese/Spanish. --hroest 00:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it looks like there is WP:BASIC notability from multiple independent and reliable sources, and that her biographical information, including being a parent, e.g. as reported in Science, is relevant to her advocacy. It also appears that non-English sources WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

being a parent is enough for notability ? DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted above, she has gained exposure and coverage due to her activism around parenting in academia. Her biographical information is also reported by the independent and reliable source I linked above, and likely by other sources, so objectively, it appears to help create encyclopedic content for a BLP article. While it is related to her advocacy, it also distinguishes her from her organization and appears to provide further support for her article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Notable for her advocacy work. Furius (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Fails WP:NPROF, but just about passes WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above! VocalIndia (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep agree with above weak keep arguments. Webmaster862 (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GScholar citability is too low to indicate satisfying WP:PROF yet. The claims to passsing WP:GNG for social activism do not stand up to the actual sruitiny of sources. The Science article [5] mentioned by Beccaynr above contains a brief quote by the subject. Ref number 2 in the article[6] is a dead link but in any event it was to a forum that she founded, so the source would not have been independent anyway. Ref number 3[7] is a proceedings report co-authored by the subject herself, so again not an independent source. Ref number 4[8] is behind a paywall so I wasn't able to access it (perhaps someone else has better luck). Ref number 5[9] is co-authored by the subject herself so again not independent. Ref number 6[10] contains just a brief mention of her. Ref number 9[11] is again co-authored by the subject herself. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, where "significant" means that the coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail". I am not seeing anything here coming even close to satisfying this requirement, based on the sources provided so far. Some people want to see at least three examples of significant coverage for satisfying WP:GNG. Personally, I'd be satisfied with two. Here I'm not seeing even one for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BASIC states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and I have added sources, including news coverage of her work with Parent in Science, as well as commentary from the Fondation l'Oreal. The reference 4 mentioned above includes, (translated) "We created the hashtag #MaternidadenoLattes, structured a letter and sent it to CNPq last year. We had support from more than 30 scientific societies. Now, the board accepted the suggestion and promised to change the curriculum for the coming months - explains Fernanda Staniscuaski, coordinator of Parent in Science, professor at UFRGS and mother of Bruno, six, Samuel, three, and Gabriel, five months." Beccaynr (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the relevant excerpt from ref 4. Still, at the most we have four independent references here (Science, MSN, ref 4 and the Fondation l'Oreal), each providing a brief mention of the subject. Even if each of these references had provided in-depth coverage, most editors in most AfDs would argue for deletion. I have never seen an article kept in an AfD as passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO on the basis of several brief mentions only, without even a single in-depth source covering the subject. That's not how WP:BASIC is met. We need at least some in-depth independent sources and, if only one such source is available, a much much larger number of sources non-indepth biographical coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think these references are more than a brief mention, because they offer context and/or commentary about her work, so they appear to support WP:BASIC notability. She is the founder of the Parent in Science movement and leader of various outreach activities that receive coverage, as well as the lead author of a study that has received coverage, so the coverage of her often appears to be more in-depth than a trivial mention, and now there are two sources identified that include some biographical information. And the quote I pulled from reference 4 was representative but not the only focus on her, e.g. "Preliminary data from the survey conducted by Parent in Science show that 59% of the interviewed scientists perceived the impact of motherhood as negative for the researcher's career, and 22% see it as very negative. In addition, 51% affirm that they are the only ones responsible for the care of the child, without the help of companions or family members. Only at the end of 2017 did a specific law come into force to guarantee scientists with research support grants the right to maternity leave without loss of financial aid. Very recent advances, highlights Professor Fernanda: - It was important to bring data to discuss the issue of motherhood and science with the general public. [...] There is still a lot to discuss." Beccaynr (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for now. Riteboke (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone Housing Co-operative[edit]

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

a 15-person co-op house, local coverage only, plus the mirror, a source we try to avoid DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's rationale. Megtetg34 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This article shows the difficulty in recreating an article with out DRV or AfC so recently (4 months) after a clear delete consensus. While there was clearly a delete consensus before, there is no agreement in this discussion about whether there are now sufficient sources to qualify for GNG. I suggest waiting at least a few more months before any possible renomination as it is possible there will be further coverage making a keep consensus clearer. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RTGame[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Original article creator had this restored to draft by C.Fred in March, following it's deletion in December 2020 as failing GNG. They added two sources, covering the subject's videos for the video game Hitman 3, with only light focus on the individual themselves. This puts the article currently at 3 reliable sources, only one with a strong in-depth focus (Verge). The creator then immediately put it back to mainspace, and I later draftified it again. It was sent to AFC and declined. On the talk page, the creator asked the decliner, Berrely about the decline, and Berrely took a neutral stance suggesting Sdkb move it back if they were sure. I immediately opposed, at which point Sdkb moved it to mainspace anyways "Per talk" and replied it would have to go back to AFD. So here we are. Nothing has changed about this subject's notability since December, no content has been added. The only change is that some videos about Hitman 3 got coverage. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No indication of any notability—certainly no more than the last AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite being verified on Twitch. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article meets GNG/NBIO by any reasonable interpretation. There are three clear qualifying sources (in addition to several more borderline ones), two of which are new since the prior AfD.
1. Maher, Cian (15 July 2019). "The streamer who built a giant Starbucks island in Minecraft to connect with fans". The Verge. Retrieved 16 September 2020. The Verge is RSP-greenlit, so unquestionably reliable, and it's a full-length reported piece on RTGame, so clearly SIGCOV as well. It was widely accepted as a GNG-qualifier at the prior AfD.
2. Walker, Ian (27 January 2021). "Hitman Player Tries To Kill Every NPC In One Map With A Single Rubber Ducky". Kotaku. Retrieved 18 March 2021. Another reported article about the RTGame channel, and Kotaku is used as a source at the RSP page itself. New since the last AfD.
3. Marshall, Cass (27 January 2021). "A Hitman 3 streamer spent hours putting the entire town in a freezer". Polygon. Retrieved 18 March 2021. Another piece entirely about the channel, and another source explicitly greenlit at RSP. Also new since the last AfD.

Each of these are pegged to a specific stream, as would be expected, but the fact that RTGame continues to draw coverage in entirely separate news cycles means that WP:BLP1E concerns do not apply here. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Sdkb, this article passes WP:GNG. Here's another article from Polygon:
- Rochefort, Simone de (2020-03-18). "Minecraft defined this decade of video games". Polygon. Retrieved 2021-04-06. As mentioned before, Polygon is RSP–greenlit. This article passes WP:GNG, and ~~WP:BLP~~ WP:BLP1E does not apply. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is literally a single short sentence, not sigcov. And it's definitely a BLP... -- ferret (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not me forgetting WP:BLP1E. And it's a... whole interview? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I missed that it's a video, fair enough, but interviews are weak for WP:N. -- ferret (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough, it's more supporting material than passing through GNG on its own. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit conflict) I presume theleekycauldron is referring to the video, not the article; I'll watch it later to see if there's anything there, but I agree with ferret that the article isn't SIGCOV on its own. But it doesn't need to be: GNG requires two pieces of significant coverage about the topic of the article (the channel) in reliable sources, and per above we already have three. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - To meet WP:GNG it has to be coverage that is independent of the subject, that excludes interviews. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Re-Draftify (with the requirement of going through AfC should it be brought back to mainspace). Independent sources are borderline, and nothing indicates more could be made/found in the coming weeks. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 01:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How are full articles about RTGame in RSP-greenlit sources "borderline"? If you have a policy-based issue with them, say what it is. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Spleodrach (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, situation has changed since the last AfD, now 3 reliable sources have clearly provided SIGCOV of this individual, meaning that they now pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Kotaku article says nothing at all about the subject, just quotes him while explaining what's happening in the video. The Polygon is about the same video (I don't know why Sdkb suggests otherwise), but even shorter in content, with one interview quote. This isn't sigcov of the subject. -- ferret (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as far as I am concerned that is SIGCOV. I see absolutely no reason for coverage of the work of internet personalities to not be SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ferret, the subject is RTGame, so I don't see how you arrive at the idea that an article about RTGame "says nothing at all about the subject". Is your view that it doesn't count unless it discusses Condren's private life? He's a video game streamer, so naturally what draws coverage is his video game streaming, but it still counts toward GNG.
And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by emphasizing that Kotaku/Polygon were covering the same stream. That was in January 2021, whereas The Verge was in July 2019, so WP:BLP1E very clearly does not apply. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all that it has to cover his personal life, but something, anything, about him and the channel specifically rather than just the video. My position won't shift with just these 3 sources. Someone is not notable for two "news cycles", one set from industry-specific dailies. First, WP:GNG does not set any sort of "If there's 2 reliable sources, they are in!" bar. Very specifically, GNG outlines how a topic can be presumed notable, and in all cases a discussion may decide otherwise. I maintain this individual is not notable for encyclopedic purposes in the long term at this time. -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes like "The joy of games like Hitman for me is that they’re presented with an incredibly straight face, but allow you to do incredibly silly things" (from Polygon) to me clearly help illustrate RTGame's style of play, and are thus saying something about the channel. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Regarding GNG, yes, it has a provision for invoking WP:IAR, just like every policy/guideline on Wikipedia, but I do not consider this an extraordinary circumstance worthy of invoking IAR. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GNG doesn't have a provision to "invoke IAR". Invoking IAR would be to completely ignore GNG in the first place. GNG itself states that even if a topic meets the rough guidelines a discussion may decide otherwise, as notability is simply presumed under GNG and not guaranteed. That's not IAR, that's applying GNG itself. -- ferret (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to Draft. It should not have been moved to mainspace in the first place. I do think he would pass GNG, but that isn't being shown in the article unfortunately. SWinxy (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft. While he certainly passes GNG, There aren't many articles relating to him and essentially nothing on his personal life in the article. Landthins15 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SWinxy and Landthins15, the entire purpose of WP:GNG is to determine which topics are or are not suitable for a stand-alone article or list, so I'm quite befuddled that you could agree RTGame passes GNG but not !vote to keep. You can object to my undraftification (as Ferret did implicitly in the nomination), but that has no bearing on the subject's notability (and I maintain that it was appropriate: there is no rule against moving a page to mainspace after adding additional sources to address prior concerns). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, I wasn't clear on that. My main reason for why it should be draftified is because there's not much in the article (what I meant when I said that it's not being shown in the article), but I'm willing to change my mind to keeping it if the article is expanded. SWinxy (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Have to agree, even though I'm on the delete side of the fence. If you believe it meets GNG, your !vote should be Keep. There's nothing wrong with the article content, it's perfectly fine if a stub. -- ferret (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to Draft. The article needs serious improvement, but there appears to be significant enough coverage to establish notability Bravetheif (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft. Notable sources that are specifically about the streamer in question but poor article. Nathanielcwm (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft. The notability is there but the article will have to be rewritten in order to properly demonstrate that. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources cited in article suggest subject meets WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is in, to put it mildly, sub-par state. But WP:GNG seems met so, absent some other concern, we should keep it or, at most, move it to draft as others have suggested.DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Seems like the majority of sources are tweets and YouTube videos. Also, for the closing admin, a Tweet from the article's subject advertising that his page is up for deletion. KidAd • SPEAK 03:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, that'd explain the flood of IPs to the page; at least he's not actively telling them to go !vote, and luckily it doesn't look like any of them have found their way here. It's safe to ignore the flood of Tweet citations recently added to the article, but they don't detract from the genuine reliable sources (see above), and remember that deletion is not cleanup. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual indication of notability. The sources used are self-published from Youtube hence not even reliable. TheChronium (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art Nouveau Week[edit]

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

Refbombed promotional piece. Most sources appear to be press release churn; for example this publication, this publication and this publication, seemingly three separate pubs, contain the same copy. Here's the same promo copy appearing on multiple urls at italialiberty.it and other sites: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. GNG fail. (Not notability related, but the article was also created after the obligatory ten edits in a row to establish autoconfirmed).--- Possibly (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just puffery. "held annually since 2019"! Not much of a time span. Athel cb (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sixteen citations in a row for the opening sentence? That alone tells me this isn't notable, but badly trying to be. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excellent research done by the nom. Megtetg34 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very important international event and has many high-level sources. Worldwilde (talk) 7:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aziziye. While bulk nominations like this are frequently inappropriate, these nominations do seem appropriate given the history behind their creation and the content they contain. This is affirmed because, on the whole, most participants also discuss them as a group as opposed to making distinctions between individual members. As such a group close is appropriate.

Those suggesting these articles should be kept, beyond those suggesting a procedural keep addressed above, do so on the basis that the articles satisfy the geographic features notability guideline. Those suggesting that these articles be deleted suggest that the term that applies to these places does not meet the guideline and that there are not other available sources that would allow them to meet the GNG. Many of these editors also suggest that these topics may be adequately covered as part of another article rather than by having a standalone article.

A key element of this discussion is how to translate the Turkish word which labels them. Ultimately there is no consensus about what this translation should be and this proves a key dividing line between those suggesting they be kept as independent articles and those who suggest they be deleted (or redirected). Given this lack of consensus and the general lack of other sourcing or means to suggest notability, the weighted consensus of participants is to redirect these articles.

A final (non-binding) suggestion: some participants did suggest that some of these places have adequate sourcing to justify independent articles. To the extent that this is true, it might be easier to demonstrate this initially by expanding coverage at Aziziye before restoring an independent article. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ağcakent, Aziziye[edit]

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

Batch nomination of mass-created village stubs in Aziziye district. These fail WP:NGEO, which specifically excludes tables from establishing notability, and in any case an article that consists entirely of "X is a neighbourhood in the Aziziye District of Erzurum Province in Turkey" makes more sense as a list entry at Aziziye. –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Delete All or Redirect all to the district - These articles were mass-created by Lugnuts through WP:MEATBOT-style editing without any consensus having formed first in favour of making them. When later discussed at Lugnut's most recent ANI discussion the clear consensus was against their being made, nor was there any consensus in favour when this was discussed at WP:TURKEY, yet Lugnuts is still making them now. The original bad referencing (which at least contained a population) has been replaced with a table/map (a source that WP:GEOLAND excludes) and hence the article contains no actual information about the supposed neighbourhood. It is far from clear whether Turkish Mahalles are actually legally-recognised populated places - the term translates as "neighbourhood" or "quarter". This (admittedly old) academic text describes them as being sub-village units, and not necessarily being actual settlements (see the section on "scattered pattern mahalles") and also as potentially being very small urban divisions. If you look at page 51 of the same book you can see estimates as high as 70,000 for the total number of Mahalle and similar units in Turkey, many of which have tiny (possibly zero?) populations. Even the source used on the page does not explicitly describe them as Mahalle - instead it just gives a count for the number of Mahalle in the district and then a list of names with the same number, making it unclear whether this is actually what is described.

In summary - fails WP:GEOLAND as it is sourced only to a map/table, is unclear whether it even is populated (no population is described), is a neighbourhood, provides no evidence of legal recognition as required for presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND, has no evidence of WP:GNG being passed, its creation was a failure of WP:MASSCREATION/WP:MEATBOT, and consensus has been against the creation of these one-sentence single-source Geostubs when we've discussed them at ANI. FOARP (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - A search for articles using the stock phrase "X is a neighbourhood in the Y district of Z province in Turkey" returns 945 hits, all identical, all lacking a WP:GEOLAND-passing citation, all created since 24 February 2021, all created in ~1 hour sessions at a rate of typically 1 every 90 seconds, all by Lugnuts. FOARP (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:5P - "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (my emphasis), and they all meet WP:GEOLAND as being populated places in Turkey. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Combines features of" =/= "is". Wiki has features of a gazeteer, but unlike, say, GNIS or the National Land and Property Gazetteer, it is not a directory of place-names/addresses regardless of notability. No evidence is provided of them being populated, much less legally-recognised populated places as required by WP:GEOLAND. It is unclear that a mahalle is in every case a meaningful populated community equivalent to a village - the text cited above describes four types of mahelle of which only one is a "village-type". I am also concerned that many of the names above appear to be common Turkish surnames. After the Iranian "village" case we should be cautious. I also do not understand why you are still creating these articles after everything that was said at your ANI. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:5P, WP:GEOLAND and Yukarıyeniköy, Refahiye which is exactly the same type of article about a Turkish village and has, as you can see, been expanded. The articles in this AFD are all capable of being expanded in the same way, in due course, using similar sources. Lugnuts does not need any prior consensus before creating articles, per WP:BOLD. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that No Great Shaker (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Yukarıyeniköy, Refahiye is an interesting article because the person who expanded it got rid of the source Lugnuts used to create it saying it was unreliable. That source is the same type of source used for all of the above articles. That a few percent of these articles can be rescued does not justify their mass-creation. WP:MASSCREATION is pretty clear that consensus is needed before mass-creating articles, and WP:MEATBOT answers any point about bots not being used. WP:BOLD means not seeking a consensus first, not going against a consensus that has already formed. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get your facts right because the source removed by Nyxaros was the one I mistakenly added to the article, not the one used by Lugnuts which is still there and can be used again, as can the sources found by Nyxaros. The ANI discussion you mention was not concluded so there hasn't been a consensus. How have you calculated "a few percent" and can we see have the precise result of your calculation? WP:MASSCREATION and WP:MEATBOT are parts of the BOT policy, not WP:EDIT which is the site's policy for editing by humans. This site is an encyclopaedia per WP:5P1 and information about villages in Turkey constitutes useful and valid knowledge which should be included especially as the articles can be expanded, as at Yukarıyeniköy. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEATBOT is clear - if you edit like a bot (e.g., by copying and pasting exactly the same sentence with a word changed into multiple articles at a rate of one every 90 seconds) then the bot policy applies to what you are doing. As I said, it is a source that was removed of the same unreliable type as used by Lugnuts to create these articles - even Lugnuts acknowledged that their original source was unreliable, the problem is that they've replaced it with an equally bad source (a map/table which is excluded by WP:GEOLAND). "A few percent" is supported by the search above - you cannot just throw a telephone directory at other editors and say "here, some of these people are notable". Not to put too fine a point on this, but the ANI discussion was hatted due to Lugnuts posting a very concerning message on their talk page, it was very clear at that point what the outcome was going to be given all the !votes telling him to stop at that point, and calling for their autopatrolled status to be removed due to their actions. Lugnuts' situation invites sympathy, but is not a free pass to continue mass-creating articles. FOARP (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - also, these are not villages, not even according to the articles themselves. These are Mahalles, which means quarter/neighbourhood. FOARP (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:FOARP no they would be called villages in English, e.g. see the photos here. Neighbourhood or quarter may be a literal translation but it is not a good one. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ivar. To be fair, I think they would more accurately be termed hamlets. We have an abundance of those in England which are article subjects. One such place I know is Stodday, and I can't see that article ever being raised at AFD so why are its Turkish equivalents being raised here? No Great Shaker (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey has upwards of 70,000 such units according to this book, the grand total of all populated places of any kind in the UK (which has a similar population to Turkey) including those with no legal recognition is 49,000. Also Wikipedia:WAX.

And where is the evidence that these Mahelle have any meaningful legal recognition? We are risking a case like the Iranian "village" case. FOARP (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not going to go through every article (doubt the nom did), but looking at a sample of the Turkish-language equivalent articles these appear to be villages or townships of ~100 people. E.g. the second one on the list apparently has a distinct culture originating from the Black Sea. [12]. If these were small villages in a country that spoke English I'm sure there would be no doubt about an article existing. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: [13] Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ivar. The Turkish WP also has a template for places in Aziziye so there must be plenty of sourced information there which can be translated and used here. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do routinely delete similar stubs for places in the United States which were created by an editor who went through a government database assuming that every "populated place" listing was a legally-recognized unincorporated community. Many, such as Rice Fork Summer Homes, California and Ettawa Springs, California (currently at AfD), are nothing more than resorts or groups of summer homes that fail WP:GEOLAND. Many also end being listed within a county-level article instead of being kept as a stub. The California GNIS cleanup task force has been working on this for nearly a year. –dlthewave ☎ 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / redirect Y'all should stop relying too much on Google Translate. Mahalle's meanings differ from "street" to "district". It entirely depends on context. The articles need expansion, yes, but so far I haven't seen a valid reason for their deletion. ภץאคгöร 14:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete all per WP:TNT On the basis of the one link given as a source, they all fail verification: following the link goes to the same page for every one of them, which shows a map of a small town which obviously cannot contain all of these articles even as individual houses. I am not impressed by the parallel Turkish articles, which have the flavor of similar mass production. It's not good enough to say "they could be expanded," because at the moment any "expansion" is essentially to write the whole thing over from scratch, using some other source with actual information about the place. At present the only usable information in the articles, maybe, is the name. At the moment, given the outcomes of reviews of similar geostubs over the years, it is reasonable to assume that the information is completely untrustworthy and that there is no reason to believe that any of these places exist, and we shouldn't have articles which nobody can tell whether they are at all true. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:TNT is an essay only, and it is about "for pages that are beyond fixing, it may be better to start from scratch", which is not the actual case here. We can say "completely untrustworthy" and "there is no reason to believe that any of these places exist" about any geographic article that lacks sources and/or sufficient information. ภץאคгöร 17:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - TNT is a pretty persuasive essay for anyone who's ever had to deal with one of these mass Geostub creation cases. All it takes is one misunderstood source and (like in the Dr Blofeld and C46 cases) we're looking at many thousands of problematic articles. At some point it just isn't OK for an editor to say "here, here's 30,000+ geostubs each of which took me 90 seconds to make, some of them are notable - it's your job to spend a week on each of them finding out which". No pal, you should have done that first. FOARP (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Geographic articles which lack sources get deleted, though, if we can't verify them, which is currently the case for these villages based on the sourcing we have available. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is fallacious to claim that an essay is irrelevant simply because it is not tagged as a policy of guideline. Arguments have merit (or lack it) regardless of community approbation. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are places in the district, not in the town; their combined population is 9,186 (the town's populations is 8,673; the district's population is 63,366). Peter James (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment I would support redirecting all to the list at Aziziye, per this discussion at Wikiproject Turkey. Per WP:NOPAGE, notability does not guarantee an article, and many topics are best covered as a list entry. In my opinion it's a better practice to present these as a list and create standalone articles when they are ready to be expanded, rather than keeping dozens of stubs on the premise that they might be expanded in the future. –dlthewave ☎ 14:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What this highlights is we've already discussed this at WP:TURKEY AND at WP:ANI and continuing to create these one-sentence-zero-content articles is some serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour. FOARP (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Dlthewave and Mangoe. Creation of microstub articles really doesn't help the encyclopaedia. The link they're referenced to is blocked by my internet provider for security reasons, but assuming this goes to a map, maps are not reliable sources for determining whether WP:GEOLAND is indeed met, so we can't even WP:Verify if they're legally recognised populated places. My vote would be different if these hadn't been batch created and we had to determine the notability of a specific place, but there's enough doubt about the information, sourcing, and whether they actually meet the SNG that we can't really keep these as standalone articles . SportingFlyer T·C 15:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a combination map/table. The locations of about 16 of the 72 “neighbourhoods” in the Aziziye municipality are shown on the map and the names of all 72 “neighbourhoods” are shown in the table, but only their names. This is exactly the situation that the explicit exclusion of maps/tables from WP:Geoland was designed to address: “This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject.” FOARP (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge all We have features of a gazetteer, but that does not mean we are a gazetteer (whatever that means exactly), nor does it mean we are mandated to have separate pages for formulaic single-sentence pages. Not opposed to individual recreation and expansion if substantive sources exist, but I see no need for mass-creation like this. Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do want to have content about these places, and the question is really whether this content is better served in separate articles or in a single place. The current setup is definitely not optimal: as far as I can see, these articles are all batch-created and contain – apart from an underpopulated infobox, a reference and a navbox – a single sentence which reads X is a neighbourhood in the Aziziye District of Erzurum Province in Turkey. This is effectively only saying that the places exist and that they're neighbourhoods. Collectively, the information in all these articles is equivalent to a list of 54 items, which is scattered across 54 pages. In my opinion, it will be better if this content is presented in a list in the district article, with the individual pages then redirected to it.
An issue with the existing articles is that they describe those places as neighbourhoods – I don't see anything in the source saying what those places are – in fact, they appear to be more like hamlets – so the description is effectively WP:OR. This favours redirecting: it will be easier to clarify and explain the status of those places in the single article where they're listed, instead of having to edit all 54 individual articles.
On an unrelated note, it appears that the creator has sent invitations for this AfD to several editors, at least one of whom [14] has previously expressed support for his microstubs, but has neglected to notify any of those who have been more critical. – Uanfala (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:CANVASS behaviour really is too much. They only notified sympathetic editors (i.e., people who have expanded his articles). I've raised an ANI report on it. FOARP (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Aziziye; these are only sourced to a government website which merely attests to their existence. There are ~70 subdivisions of Aziziye, a district of 40000 people. Until there are other sources, it does no good to have separate articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per above. GEOLAND is such a dumb policy that allows practically any place where people may or may not have lived to have an article, but these don't even meet that, and that's saying something. Other viewers of this AfD should view WP:NOA for the probable reason on why these one-line stubs keep getting created in the first place, and I won't make any accusation but I think everyone can kind of see the reason why these exist, and it may not be because the author wants to constructively write about Azizkye. versacespace leave a message! 01:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VersaceSpace I suggest you retract that aspersion on Lugnuts' motives. He has created 89,391 articles in 1,328,025 total edits which means he spends the vast majority of his time editing articles that already exist. He is an outstanding contributor who strives to build the encyclopaedia. The standard of his written work is good, so he won't often be copyedited or reverted. I don't believe anyone chases edit or creation targets. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We literally just had an ANI regarding ~5,000+ articles, in one single area of the articles they've created, written based on a single source that Lugnuts themselves acknowledged as unreliable. I would suggest that this possibly indicates that their conduct sometimes falls below the standard you describe here. FOARP (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you certainly want your pound of flesh, son. Also, are you on commission when you WP:BLUDGEON any conversation and use the term "MEATBOT" ad nauseam? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: how is it bludgeoning to respond to !votes? he's not repeating the same thing, he's sharing why he disagrees, that's how we discuss, is it not? versacespace leave a message! 14:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because FOARP uses those two ludicrous terms in every single ANI or AFD discussion he joins, that's why? Or hadn't you noticed? Perhaps you also haven't noticed the request above that you personally should retract your latest stupid aspersion about Lugnuts before it is drawn to the attention of a sysop. You have already been blocked once, even though you are still a relatively new editor, and you might find that a second block will be a final one. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: Well considering you've taken me to both ANI and SPI and neither of those are going the way you intended them to, maybe you're not the best person to be taking advice from. versacespace leave a message! 17:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The complaint is that these stubs have been created in a mechanical, rote way. But the nomination has been made in a similar way so this is a case of WP:POT. For example, the list above repeats the first item, Ağcakent, Aziziye, so that it has been nominated twice. It seems apparent that these are all valid places in Turkey and so deletion would simply invite re-creation – intensifying the disruption contrary to WP:BATTLEGROUND. If the parties are actually interested in Turkey then they should please improve the pages per our policy WP:IMPERFECT which states that "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." See also WP:TRAINWRECK. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that duplicate entry, I've removed it. –dlthewave ☎ 15:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nearly every single deleted article is welcome to be recreated should their subjects ever become notable. as is the case with these articles nominated for deletion, there's a big difference between deleting and salting. these articles are all "X is a neighbourhood in Y". That is it. Why wouldn't you want to combine these all? versacespace leave a message! 11:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint is that these stubs create the illusion of content on a topic where there is none. All of the information provided could be better presented at Aziziye. Surely they are reasonable redirects, but articles? Why have them separate from one topic which could be more easily expanded? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - The stubs aren't in disarray, don't need a mass cleanup, and were just created. The tr.wiki stubs seem to have, on average, more text than the en.wiki versions, and different sources, which may be useful in expanding here. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at some of the Turkish articles. While I don't read the language, it doesn't take any great fluency to work out that they say very little more than the English articles, and seem to contain no significant extra information. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you though? Every 2nd or 3rd tr article I checked have a tidbit of historical information, like tr:Ahırcık, Aziziye, tr:Başçakmak, Aziziye, tr:Dağdagül, Aziziye, tr:Halilkaya, Aziziye, etc. I'm not vouching for the claims, by any means, but for someone interested in the subject, they can investigate further, try the additional links there, and potentially expand the English versions. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish language stubs are all sourced to the same website, clicking on the source leads to an archive page which doesn't discuss the town, the directory is no longer on that website, and doing a specific search to try to find the old pages brings up text which translates to "There is not enough data / information about Başçakmak Neighborhood in Erzurum city." SportingFlyer T·C 13:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (procedural), another case of a mass afd nomination with waaaaayyy too many articles, at over 50, say 5mins each for even the most rudimentary of searches, will take over 4 hours, suggest this is closed and nominator can make afds of say 8 to 10 over the next week or so. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't a wp:trainwreck, they all have the same format, are sourced by the same table, are nominated for the same reason, are all of the same topic which can easily be made into a list combining all the towns versacespace leave a message! 13:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that individual checks are necessary for this type of redirect, since this is a question of whether to cover the current content as individual articles or as a list. –dlthewave ☎ 15:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the "procedural keep" vote of @Coolabahapple:, and request the closer disregard it as in violation of policy. All of these articles were very recently created by Lugnuts, have one source, no other substantial edits, and would be redirected to the same target Aziziye. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to further the AFD backlog these creations have already made by encouraging up to SEVENTY FIVE separate discussions. Procedurally, this must be one discussion. If you have any sourcing about these places that is not about the area as a whole, present it now, or re-create the article after it is redirected. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to the procedural keep. These are all functionally the same article based on the source and creation. If there's one that's notable, there shouldn't be an issue with discussing it, or with recreating it if better sourcing's available. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment let's compare Ağcakent, Aziziye to Leopold Township, Perry County, Indiana, a geographic entity in the US of "similar" prominence. Leopold Township's article has minimal sourced content and substantial problems with being up-to-date: the 2010 US census data for location and population, a local history book for one sentence on the name of the township, an unsourced list of cemeteries, a few external links (one of which now contains information in Spanish on asthma) and various higher-level divisions (school districts, state house seat data has been incorrect for ten years) that contain the township. Ağcakent has none of that content. There is no population and no GPS coordinates; it is unclear whether this is a stand-alone village or a part of a built-up town. There is no sign of when the name started to be used. Google Maps can help to answer some of those questions ( [15]) but even with a GPS location there is minimal to no information. My vote is not in dispute; I think the US township articles should largely be merged to the county articles, and the same applies more strongly for this Turkish mahalle. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leopold Township is mentioned in Eyewitness News and Courier Press lists that a lake in Leopold is tested for bacteria. This would make it more fit for entry than Agcakent. versacespace leave a message! 17:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of a township in the United States is offtopic; if you really want to talk about this visit my talk page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The closer should also be aware that, as well as the talk-page canvassing noted above, this AFD was WP:CANVASSed at the cricket forum, because somehow Turkish "neighbourhoods" are related to cricket? FOARP (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
((ping|FOARP)) can you provide diffs? that would make this a lot easier. versacespace leave a message! 19:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. FOARP (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wait...why didnt it ping u? versacespace leave a message! 20:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. I'm as opposed to mass creation of substubs as anyone, and I've had disagreements with several editors as a result. (I think that unless an editor can take the time to do a bit of research and create at least a genuine stub, with a couple of sources, that provides a few details about a topic, he or she should not create an article about the topic.) Nevertheless, these are verifiable places that, as Ivar the Boneful says, would not be objected to were they about tiny villages in Britain or the United States. Deor (talk)

We object to tiny villages in the United States all the time, since many United States stubs were created based on unreliable sources. The source these stubs were based on isn't clearly reliable, either, and whether they actually meet WP:GEOLAND is arguable (as mentioned, it appears at least one does, but that can be updated/saved/re-created.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just to back up SportingFlyer here, there's an entire team of people going through California stubs and deleting the failing ones. The sourcing of those articles is no better than that being used here. Also, WP:WAX. FOARP (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason they are being deleted is because they are not verifiable as populated places or they are subdivisions. All of the places mentioned in this AFD have a population between 32 and 739. Peter James (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know these aren't sub-divisions? Census tracts and neighbourhoods have greater than zero populations but are excluded by GEOLAND, having a population doesn't necessarily imply that the SNG is met. SportingFlyer T·C 10:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places". Subdivisions and neighbourhoods typically don't have legal recognition as places, but any that have are not excluded. It isn't relevant here, as all of them are places that could be described as villages (if village didn't have a more specific meaning in Turkey) or hamlets. Peter James (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, considering the level of sourcing we have here, on what basis are you making that claim? SportingFlyer T·C 11:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These places (and others in the list cited as a source) can all be found on maps (although there are some in other districts I can't find), and they are all in the census; the source in the articles verifies legal recognition. Peter James (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND specifically excludes maps and tables, which is what I'm led to believe that source shows based on the reply to my !vote (as I've noted above, I can't view it because my internet provider believes it to be a security risk.) I can't specifically rebut your "verifies legal recognition" claim, but I also don't necessarily agree with it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect all. The current format is unsustainable. To the extent these are notable locations, they can be merged to a List of populated places in Aziziye article, but tens of thousands of permanent one-sentence stubs is a horrible idea. This is the usual reminder that Wikipedia data is forever and gets mirrored around the Internet. Is there really a plan to monitor all of these articles? If somebody sticks false data in one of these articles, are you okay with it being echoed around for years and years until somebody else notices? For the rare article that expands past one sentence, sure, break it out to its own article again. Until then, merge these to a list article. SnowFire (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- " Is there really a plan to monitor all of these articles? If somebody sticks false data in one of these articles, are you okay with it being echoed around for years and years until somebody else notices?" - Everything I created is on my watchlist, with any vandalism reverted. It's a very weak argument to say don't create X because it could get vandalised. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A list could be made somewhere, in user namespace or in a WikiProject. Peter James (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - First off, for the vast majority of editors, sure, but you've created 80,000 articles, so it's a little different. It is not humanly possible for anybody to closely monitor that many articles themselves, and even if they could, Wikipedia is a group project. We need a sustainable structure that works for everyone.
  - But this is more a side note, it's not just about high-volume article creators, it's also about proper policy in general. For other topics, like say TV episodes, there's generally been a consensus that for lightly trafficed / less notable shows, even when each episode could be a split-off, it's often times better and more maintainable to start with a "List of episodes in season 2 of XYZ" type article, and only build the spin-off separate article once there's substantial content more than the release date and verification of its existence. Again, this is strictly a matter of content organization, I'm talking about "what is the best way to present the exact same information." But at least for separate TV episode articles, whatever, it's just a TV episode. These are real places you're adding populated by real people. The stakes are higher. On a not-small American city, there was somebody persistently adding in negative claims about other living people, that sometimes lasted more than a month. It's a real problem, not a phantom worry. We should be responsible and try to mitigate it when possible, especially when there's not even a request that any content be removed. SnowFire (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - TV episode articles can contain claims about living people. Articles about villages are likely to have fewer edits, so Special:RecentChangesLinked should be useful. Sometimes I have used it with templates such as Template:Infobox UK place and most edits are to the towns and cities. With popular culture and BLPs, a complete list isn't possible, there are too many edits, and many of the edits are by unregistered users. Peter James (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these meet WP:GEOLAND; "excludes tables from establishing notability" means they are not significant coverage, it doesn't mean they can't be used to verify whether places are legally recognised and populated. The only one I'm not sure about is Söğütlü, as the source mentions two places with the same name. The Vietnamese article confuses them, which is the reason for the difference in population. Peter James (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question - outside of policy, why are so many people objecting to putting these in one article together? The current information in the many articles is not much for their own articles, but it is enough to stick them in a table and it would look much better than having one line stubs. None of the "redirect" voters appear to object to the most notable of the bunch being recreated. versacespace leave a message! 12:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A list makes it more difficult to add content, makes incorrect links more likely, and prevents linking between articles in different languages. If there is a redirect, a new page is often created with a different title or in another namespace and the redirect has to be deleted or history merged for the page to be moved. Stubs are smaller pages than lists - it isn't useful when looking for information about one place to find a long article with a list of other places, and most articles are already too long. It's also better to have the structure of an article there even if there is not much content. Peter James (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the "pokemon" situation where not every pokemon got its own article and are incorporated into a list where a redirect goes directly to the pokemon being looked for, i'm pretty sure you can do that with these neighborhoods. If content should be added about a neighborhood, which I'm doubtful it will, an article could be created for it, because that would be a legitimately good sign of potential for an article and would be a valid stub with more than just a table sourcing its existence, contrary to the ones nominated for deletion right now. versacespace leave a message! 12:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: neighborhoods / districts do not meet WP:GEOLAND. There are also questions of WP:V, with the articles all being sourced to a single website. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, or, barring that, redirect. The current sourcing means they fail GEOLAND. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low" That includes these places. Peter James (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - In response to the concerns from @Peter James: and others above that "a list makes it more difficult to add content"... it certainly doesn't have to be that way. If there really is a consensus that we want friendly, expand-me invitations, we can just use sections of an overview article. See User:SnowFire/List of mahalle in Aziziye for a sample I just whipped up. Now, the fact that once "These are all in Aziziye in Erzum in Turkey" is dispensed with in the lede, there's currently absolutely nothing to say about any of these that's unique, but we can still use expand-sect if there's really a belief there's more to be said other than an entry on a table. (Let me stress again that this does not get to GEOLAND compliance immediately, but if you really believe it will eventually? Great, try this format for a year, see if any of these actually expand.) SnowFire (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the lighthouse project, at least for US lights, started from on list for all US lights, and articles were created full out rather than stubbed. Things have slowed down, but that has to do with changes at the USCG pages which removed one of the major sources. Mangoe (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect all 1 sentence permastubs without any proof of significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability is absolutely NOT a sustainable format. Recreate only if non-trivial coverage can actually be cited to exist. (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does that include your 1 sentence permastubs or only those created by other editors? Peter James (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles I create cite sources that have significant coverage of the topic. (t · c) buidhe 20:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect all - The nom says these all fail WP:NGEO because we can't use tables to establish notability, but my reading of WP:NGEO and WP:GEOLAND is that populated, legally recognized places are presumed to be notable, which I take to mean that we establish notability by virtue of their existence, something that WP:NGEO acknowledges tables can do. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per above. Lists are a better way to present such information to readers. Störm (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (last one, I promise) - The closer's attention is drawn to this ANI close (permalink) in which a strong consensus was found against the creation of these articles. This is of course not necessarily decisive of the outcome of this AFD. FOARP (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in the close, also reliable sources were found and are now being used. Peter James (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP does like to grave-dance and distort the truth somewhat. The closer's remarks make no reference to "a strong consensus was found against the creation of these articles", when it actually states "There is very clear consensus that Lugnuts is repeatedly failing to verify information". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

which is equally as bad. it seems you've agreed to stop creating these though, so i don't see the point in dragging this any further than this afd. versacespace leave a message! 11:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The burden needs to be on creators to provide enough sourcing to show notability, and in this case the creator failed to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Störm. Riteboke (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Landscape Structures[edit]

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

Blatant promotion. Likely not notable. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject seems notable. There are references like [16], [17], [18] and some more. Chirota (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what Chiro said, though the page needs quite a lot of work to remove promotion and bring it in line. AdoTang (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chirota and new sources, but the NBC link didnt work. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete are you guys checking the sources? Source 1 trivial mention at the bottom of the page. Source 2 trivial mention in second paragraph. Source 3 and 4, 6 and 9 are dead/non existent. Source 5 is an award given to the owner of the company by a school they went to. That source lacks WP:ORGDEPTH and would be considered a dependent source because it's associated to the owner. Source 7, the company isn't mentioned and again its from the owner's alma mater. Source 10 and 11 are both trivial mentions simply stating the organization's name on the page. No other sources found to count toward Wikipedia entry. Conclusion: real cool company that doesn't pass WP:NCORP. None of the sources that Chirota cited pass WP:ORGDEPTH. You guys got to check the sources. Megtetg34 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per findings above. Riteboke (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is very poor. After removing some of the deadlinks barely nothing left. TheChronium (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Megtetg's analysis of the sources. To go further, the mentions in Chiro's references above are all trivial and aren't about the company themselves (are a line saying the company is involved.) Leaving aside promotional issues, there's just nothing that rises to SIGCOV as presented. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also agree with Megtetg's analysis, there may be sources *but* not a single source meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E-One[edit]

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

The article is tagged as likely unnotable and is promotional also. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the subject is notable, there is a fr.wikipedia page as well. But the promotional tone needs to be cut down. Chirota (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does have a French Wikipedia page, but that page has one sentence and no references. As the nominator, am still not convinced that the subject is notable. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and each language Wikipedia has unique inclusion criteria. The sourcing here in no way meets notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only primary sources and doesn't explain why the subject is notable. Riteboke (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ivo Caprino. If subsequent native language work shows that notability can be established the article history will be present here for future work. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ingeborg Gude[edit]

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

Had been DEPRODed, Fails notability per WP:ARTIST, WP:BEFORE gave me 2 hits at Google Books mentioning her puppets but no in-depth coverage about herself, the given sources are not verifiable CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the images I've seen, I have a hunch she is notable. We need a Norwegian speaker to decode the sources. --- Possibly (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The German and Norwegian versions of this page are a bit more substantial and include more references, but I'm unable to evaluate them. pburka (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka Both foreign version have references which do not refer directly to the subject itself, you can translate them via Deepl or Google Translate. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Machine translation is unreliable. I'll wait to hear from somebody who understands the languages. pburka (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pburka, These days MT for European languages is pretty solid. What still is hard is searching for new, better sources in languages one doesn't speak :( And this article needs better sources. Did she win any awards, or got any medals? Was she a subject of any SIGCOV? This is mostly unclear / leaning no :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ivo Caprino. Pending better sources, she does sadly seem to fail NBIO, but Norwegian article (MT) states that "she is know for making puppets for many of her son films", her son being Ivo Caprino. This would allow us to rescue/reuse most of the content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously my AfD Noms get a lot of attentions from you recently, Piotr. "she is know for making puppets for many of her son films" makes you believe that this article should be "rescued" ? (we are not rescuing article by the way at AfD, we evaluate if there is sufficient notability provided for the subject of an article). CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ivo Caprino. Riteboke (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content to Ivo Caprino. With the caveat I'm not a native speaker either, I concur with Piotrus that there's no indication in the machine translation of foreign language sources that it meets SIGCOV threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gravy Train (band)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second Birth (Gravy Train album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:BEFORE gives only 2 review of unreliable sources, further no significant mentions, no chart places, made by single purpose account CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gravy Train (band)#Discography: per nom, lack of significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I can't seem to find a single information about this except stuff from the label. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:41, 8 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. While no sources have been raised for WP:GNG here, there is a strong consensus that sources exist. Considering the article was only created this month, WP:NEXIST is a reasonable argument. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Vijayvargiya[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep but needs better sourcing. Not only played first class, but was afterwards coach of the Madhya Pradesh team, secretary of the MP cricket association, and now chairman of the MP senior team selection committee[19]. Things like this clearly suggest attention for the person, but I haven't been able to find truly indepth coverage of him so far. Fram (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone playing that number of games will likely have coverage either offline or in Indian sources. His post career looks to have gained hime some notability as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy keep here. Nearly 50 first-class matches and his post-playing career seems notable. Coverage undoubtedly exists in offline news sources, if not online ones too, but Hindi isn't my strongpoint! StickyWicket (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in 38 F/C games in a career that spanned almost a decade. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 45 qualifying matches, over 2k FC runs, HS of 142. Coverage will likely be offline, as his career finished in 1994. DevaCat1 (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is famous.--MadD ^(talk) 11:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Dinkar Deshpande below. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer: Please consider WP:NSPORTS, which is meant to help evaluate whether or not a subject is likely to have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Playing a certain number of games does not establish notability, and no significant coverage has been found. –dlthewave ☎ 14:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Men Are Allowed (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because notable cricketer. Riteboke (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject is notable. While the nominator raised some objections, those were not shared by any other participant and there is a clear consensus emerging to keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brijesh Tomar[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well there's this on him captaining the side, and his 55 game career will likely have brought him coverage both offline and in other Indian sources. I imagine there's more out there in a search as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. The nominator needs to realise that nominating cricketers with this many appearances is unreasonable and will get people's backs up. We're not talking about one or two matches here, but a fairly significant number for which coverage of some sort will exist, be it online or offline in Hindi language resources. StickyWicket (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AssociateAffiliate and SportingFlyer You mean this CreativeNorth (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CreativeNorth. Yep, even more sources! This was clearly a WP:POINT nomination done in bad faith, compounded by the nominators desperate message at the end to the closer. StickyWicket (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Def. WP:POINT, and that ten articles were mass-nom'd by the same editor in four minutes, would also suggest ZERO before work by the nom too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - that's not really a fantastic article in terms of notability, just says he qualified to become a referee. SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the most complete source in the known universe, you'd still do a JPL and vote delete. StickyWicket (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It would be of great use to the project to demonstrate that he was covered in non-English language sources. The only significant coverage I can find of him is the Cricinfo article linked above, and that's arguably SIGCOV. I have found him mentioned in a couple press reports, but he is mentioned only in the scorecard. More possible sources than most cricket AfDs we've seen of late, not convinced we're at WP:GNG, if English is the extent of the coverage I'd be a clear delete. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in 45+ games in a career that spanned nearly a decade. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 55 qualifying matches, a FC ton. Plus all the various comments above. DevaCat1 (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Dinkar Deshpande below. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer: Please consider WP:NSPORTS, which is meant to help evaluate whether or not a subject is likely to have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Playing a certain number of games does not establish notability, and only one non-database source has been found. –dlthewave ☎ 14:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cricketer. Riteboke (talk) 08:09, 14 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. Apart from the nominator no-one has given any reason to delete. It is reasonable to expect that that with many appearances he has coverage in other languages. (non-admin closure) CreativeNorth (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) CreativeNorth (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subodh Saxena[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played 65 matches, and captained the side. There's a few things in a search but the timing of his career suggests most of the coverage would be offline and in Indian sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. The nominator needs to realise that nominating cricketers with this many appearances is unreasonable and will get people's backs up. We're not talking about one or two matches here, but a fairly significant number for which coverage of some sort will exist, be it online or offline in Hindi language resources. StickyWicket (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in 65 F/C games in a career that spanned two decades. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 65 FC games, nearly 3000 FC runs, 4 FC centuries. Will be tons (pun intended) of coverage if somebody looks for it. DevaCat1 (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Dinkar Deshpande below. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer: Please consider WP:NSPORTS, which is meant to help evaluate whether or not a subject is likely to have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Playing a certain number of games does not establish notability, and no coverage has been found aside from an ESPN CricInfo database entry. –dlthewave ☎ 15:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to this user: this doesn't need posting on every AFD you started. Admins will be aware of it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bad faith nomination, the onus is on the nominator to prove that they don't meet WP:GNG. Google search is not sufficient for a pre-internet cricketer from a country where English isn't the first language. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 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 keep. Consensus is clear her that the relevant notability guidelines are met. While I understand nom's objections, there is a clear consensus here to keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Sahu[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played 53 matches in his career. There's this and lots of other match related coverage of his career which makes me believe there will be more in Indian sources and offline also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. The nominator needs to realise that nominating cricketers with this many appearances is unreasonable and will get people's backs up. We're not talking about one or two matches here, but a fairly significant number for which coverage of some sort will exist, be it online or offline in Hindi language resources. StickyWicket (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in more than 50 games in a career that spanned almost a decade. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 53 qualifying games in a long career, including 2 FC tonnes. DevaCat1 (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Dinkar Deshpande below. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer: Please consider WP:NSPORTS, which is meant to help evaluate whether or not a subject is likely to have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Playing a certain number of games does not establish notability, and only minor coverage has been found. –dlthewave ☎ 15:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cricketer. Riteboke (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus here that the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Sahni[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played 54 matches, and also coached the side. There's this from his coaching and other articles out there, which makes me believe that there will be even more offline or in Indian sources.
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. The nominator needs to realise that nominating cricketers with this many appearances is unreasonable and will get people's backs up. We're not talking about one or two matches here, but a fairly significant number for which coverage of some sort will exist, be it online or offline in Hindi language resources. StickyWicket (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in 44 F/C games in a career that spanned more than a decade. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 2000 FC runs at an average well over 30, 54 qualifying appearances. A ridiculous AfD nomination. DevaCat1 (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Dinkar Deshpande below. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer: Please consider WP:NSPORTS, which is meant to help evaluate whether or not a subject is likely to have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Playing a certain number of games does not establish notability, and only one non-database source has been found. –dlthewave ☎ 15:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cricketer. Riteboke (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus here that the subject is notable under the relevant guidelines. Although nom's argument regarding GNG vs. SNG is noted, consensus here is clear that the subject is indeed likely to have enough coverage to pass GNG, and thus should be kept. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeeva Rao[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played 65 matches in his career which makes me believe there will be coverage both offline and in Indian sources. Also became an umpire following his playing career in all formats and as a reserve umpire for international cricket. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. The nominator needs to realise that nominating cricketers with this many appearances is unreasonable and will get people's backs up. We're not talking about one or two matches here, but a fairly significant number for which coverage of some sort will exist, be it online or offline in Hindi language resources. StickyWicket (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in 55 F/C games in a career that spanned more than 15 years. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons cited by various parties above. I'm not sure this isn't a (bad) joke. DevaCat1 (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Dinkar Deshpande below. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer: Please consider WP:NSPORTS, which is meant to help evaluate whether or not a subject is likely to have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Playing a certain number of games does not establish notability, and no coverage has been found aside from an ESPN CricInfo database entry. –dlthewave ☎ 15:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cricketer. Riteboke (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep here. Although nom's statement on GNG vs. SNG are noted and understood, consensus here is clear that the subject is indeed likely to pass GNG, and thus should be kept. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devashish Nilosey[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played 63 matches in his career, and then became coach of the side, also played for India U19 which makes me believe that there will be good coverage offline or in Indian sources. There is coverage in interviews of his later coaching career also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. The nominator needs to realise that nominating cricketers with this many appearances is unreasonable and will get people's backs up. We're not talking about one or two matches here, but a fairly significant number for which coverage of some sort will exist, be it online or offline in Hindi language resources. StickyWicket (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RugbyFan22. Highly likely that sources exist, but they are offline, and quite possibly not in English. Neither of which are reasons to delete this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in 60+ games in a career that spanned more than a decade. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Over 2000 FC runs, including 3 tons, 94 FC wickets, including 5fers and a 10fer; 67 qualifying matches. This has no place as an AfD. DevaCat1 (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Dinkar Deshpande below. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer: Please consider WP:NSPORTS, which is meant to help evaluate whether or not a subject is likely to have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Playing a certain number of games does not establish notability, and no coverage has been found aside from an ESPN CricInfo database entry. –dlthewave ☎ 15:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cricketer. Riteboke (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus here is that the subject meets both the SNG and GNG per the sources participants have provided. Nom's statements on GNG vs. SNG are noted, but consensus here is that the subject is indeed likely if not certain to pass GNG, and therefore should be kept (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Nayudu[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played 50 matches, and there looks to be a reasonable amount of coverage out there. Would expect there to be more coverage in Indian and offline sources as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of coverage that you've found? I'm only seeing stats and a few articles about his aunt Chandra Nayadu's death. –dlthewave ☎ 17:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there's a lot of coverage of that as it's a recent event, and there's other mentions to do with Madhya Pradesh and quotes to do with his grandfather. Obviously this isn't significant coverage but I believe there will be significant coverage offline or in Indian sources due to his career timings and because of who his relatives were. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. The nominator needs to realise that nominating cricketers with this many appearances is unreasonable and will get people's backs up. We're not talking about one or two matches here, but a fairly significant number for which coverage of some sort will exist, be it online or offline in Hindi language resources. StickyWicket (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some basic sources from a quick search, and he comes from a pre-Internet era. Therefore, highly likely that sources exist, but they are offline, and quite possibly not in English. Neither of which are reasons to delete this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you name one or two of those basic sources? –dlthewave ☎ 00:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RugbyFan has done so above. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm RugbyFan didn't name any sources, they said what they found "isn't significant coverage". Typically editors claiming that sources exist will be expected to name the specific sources they've found so that we discuss and evaluate, rather than simply saying there are lots of search results and there must be more stuff out there somewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in 47 F/C games in a career that spanned nearly two decades. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is ridiculous, and merely demonstrates that the nominator has no more understanding of cricket and what is important in it, and is likely to generate press coverage, than I do of pelota. He has 47 FC matches, scored nearly 2000 runs, and took 35 wickets. I would ask the nominator what his WP:BEFORE searches consisted of, because he's referenced on page 913 of Wisden 1969 for scoring 54 for Madhya Pradesh against Vidarbha; that took me about 5 minutes to find as the first reference. Pretty sure I could get far more detail if I were willing to devote more time even to English hardcopy sources, let alone if I could actually read Hindi. DevaCat1 (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Dinkar Deshpande below. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two pieces of information I was able to find about him online were [20] (is TOI a reliable source?) and this [21], which doesn't show notability but can probably be used in the article. Everything else online comes from the fact he's related to Chandra Nayadu (apart from an op-ed on an unrelated topic written by someone with his name.) The only grounds for keeping this at the moment are WP:NEXIST. SportingFlyer T·C 13:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cricketer. Riteboke (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus here that notability is met. Some users have provided sources, others have pointed to WP:NEXIST. Although the nom's notes on GNG vs. SNG are noted, consensus is that WP:NEXIST is met and the subject is indeed likely if not certain to pass GNG. As such, consensus is clear to keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Dholpure[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played 25 games in his career. There's this and there also looks to be some other things in a simple search also. I expect there will be more offline and in Indian sources as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. The nominator needs to realise that nominating cricketers with this many appearances is unreasonable and will get people's backs up. We're not talking about one or two matches here, but a fairly significant number for which coverage of some sort will exist, be it online or offline in Hindi language resources. StickyWicket (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in 23 F/C games in a career that spanned the best part of a decade. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played 23 FC matches, and has over 1000 FC runs, including three tonnes. This is by pretty much any definition a significant cricketer. The article needs to be improved, but that's a reason to improve it, not delete it. DevaCat1 (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Dinkar Deshpande below. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer: Please consider WP:NSPORTS, which is meant to help evaluate whether or not a subject is likely to have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Playing a certain number of games does not establish notability, and only one source covering a single game has been found. –dlthewave ☎ 15:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cricketer. Riteboke (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As with the other similar articles, the only claim keep advocates have is WP:NEXIST. Where might these sources exist? SportingFlyer T·C 15:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear that the subject passes GNG and the relevant SNG. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkar Deshpande[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played 34 games in his career, and captained one of his sides. There's a few bits in a simple search but due to the timing of his career I expect there to be much more offline and in Indian sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. The nominator needs to realise that nominating cricketers with this many appearances is unreasonable and will get people's backs up. We're not talking about one or two matches here, but a fairly significant number for which coverage of some sort will exist, be it online or offline in Hindi language resources. StickyWicket (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some basic sources from a quick search, and he comes from a pre-Internet era. Therefore, highly likely that sources exist, but they are offline, and quite possibly not in English. Neither of which are reasons to delete this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also he seems to be a record holder for most dismissals in an innings [22] (p40, can't see page before to find more details). We shouldn't be basing notability on a Google search, especially when both his first and last names appear to be relatively common. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in 34 F/C games in a career that spanned more than two decades. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played 34 first class matches and has a FC century to his name. This is farcical- are we going to face AfDs for every player from India before 2000 because their careers haven't yet been written up properly and there aren't good web sources? A reasonable WP:BEFORE necessarily involves offline checks for somebody who played in the 1950s and 1960s. DevaCat1 (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone who played 34 times at the highest level of a global sport must have attracted media coverage in his home country that is well beyond any GNG requirement here, let alone SNG. As others have rightly said, pre-internet Indian sources are not readily available outside the country. I searched on Google for something akin to the Wisden Almanack and it came up with Indian Cricket (annual). According to our article on that publication, it had the same level of detail as Wisden and so a player who made numerous first-class appearances across several seasons must have been well documented. The nomination is out of order and should be withdrawn. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cricketer. Riteboke (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 16:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blackcube[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. The band lasted for 1 year and didn't have any hits. Their only song is "Breve", I couldn't find it on youtube, although I did find a band with a similar name "Black cube" (with a space between black and cube). There are 2 refs in the article which don't say anything of note. Before returning nothing to indicate notability. Desertarun (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and no other sources found. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guenoa (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page concerns only two topics: Guenoa and Güenoa language. A disambiguation page is not required because the current primary topic has a hatnote to the other use. A requested move that would have the effect of saying that there is no primary topic (Talk:Guenoa#Requested move 3 January 2021 failed to gain consensus. My PROD was removed by @Uanfala: with edit summary "there's no primary topic here, so I'd rather see this mess sorted by this page getting moved back to the primary title". The two articles are relatively small: there's really no need for a third page about them. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I had forgotten about that RM. Yes, it closed as "not moved", an outcome that I will obviously respect, but which is unlikely to get repeated in a future nomination unless it happens to be attended by the same unusual sample of participants with extreme views. If the dab page is deleted in the meantime, that's not a big loss as it can easily get recreated. – Uanfala (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This qualifies as a WP:G14 deletion as a dab page with only one other use besides the primary topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:G14: Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. The page under consideration disambiguates between two and four pages (depending on how you count), which is greater than one. – Uanfala (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless and useless dab page. —В²C ☎ 16:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the hatnotes at Guenoa do all that's needed to get every reader to their destination. This AfD simply confirms the 3 Jan Move Request which received one support and three opposes. PamD 08:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Riteboke (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 23:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eligio Vecchi[edit]

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

Does not cite any sources, and on top of that, WP:BEFORE search found very little reliable sources, meaning that this person is not WP:WELLKNOWN. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 15:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable per WP:NFOOTBALL, and sources out there easy enough to find - 1, 2. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Very easily passes WP:NFOOTY, just needs to be sourced and expanded. There is also this website, in addition to the sources GS reported above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:30, 6 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Barnes (artist)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTINHERIT. This person only appears to have a page based upon work with his more famous brother. Before isn't returning anything to indicate notability and the refs in the article are either dead or relate to the brother. Not to be confused with the British artist of the same name (born 1944 and painting Welsh mountains). Tagged advert since 2011. Desertarun (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this all seems to hinge on his brother's band. Interestingly, there is another David Barnes (artist) who ,actually meets WP:NARTIST by being in several museum collections.--- Possibly (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Possibly. Riteboke (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patria case[edit]

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

The article largely reflects the personal view of the Wikipedia editor "Claudi8". A "Patria case" is neither discussed, nor described in any reliable sources; therefore, it is safe to assume that a "Patria case" as described by the article does not exist, and that the main purpose of the article is to spread original research and personal points of view. The article fails to comply with all Wikipedia core content policies (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER) as well as WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTNEWS. Therefore, I believe that the article should be deleted. -- Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People certainly seem to think that it exists and has this name, although it is saddening to see an article talk about 2008 in the present tense, and people's announced intentions to do things in the future in 2008. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not an alternative to cleanup. Though, admittedly, the article needs lots of work. --Tone 08:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree.Trimton (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable since there's lots of coverage in good press, e.g. Austrian Kurier has an article here, Reuters here, Finland's national broadcaster Yle here Trimton (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These articles mention corruption within Patria, but they do not describe what the article considers to be a "Patria case". The Kurier article is about SSF; the Reuters article is about Janez Jansa being convicted in a bribery case; the Yle article describes that two former Patria executives accuse Yle of libel. Stitching pieces of information together so that a "Patria case" is formed, is not what Wikipedia is for. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurier article is not only about SSF. It mentions Patria throughout, with seven mentions of the name. You're right that none of the articles I linked calls the corruption investigation of Patria the "Patria case" but the absence of a unified name does not mean that the affair isn't notable. Otherwise, we would have to delete Bárcenas affair just because the majority of the press don't use that name (e.g. BBC calls it Bárcenas scandal]. Kurier calls the Patria case "die Affäre um den Steyr-Konkurrenten Patria aus Finnland" ('the affair around Patria, a Finnish competitor of Steyr'). So a) there is an affair, b) perhaps we should rename the article to "Patria affair". Perhaps, it would be even better to specify that the affair was about corruption (not, say, about adultery or bullying). So we could rename it "Patria corruption affair", in line with the practice of specifying the affair content, e.g. in Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations.Trimton (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurier article does mention the Patria case, but it doesn't describe it in great detail; in fact, it doesn't describe it at all, it assumes that the reader knows the Patria case. I. e. that the article is on a completely different topic. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a valid topic that meets WP:GNG and was certainly not construed by WP:OR. English-language sources call it e.g. "Patria scandal". Finnish-language sources tended to use names that reflected different stages of the process e.g. "Patria-tutkinta" [Patria investigation], "Patria-syytteet" [Patria charges], and Patria-oikeudenkäynti" [Patria trial]. A better name/classification is used by many sources: "Patrian Slovenian-kaupat" [Patria Slovenia deal]. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but should be rewritten, like, a lot. AdoTang (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Finnusertop. Riteboke (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 17:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jigar Saraswat[edit]

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

Article appears to be a self-promotional BLP of a social media/SEO writer. However, two seemingly reliable source references are provided. But... those profiles are written in an oddly promotional tone too, making outlandish claims like "India’s Best Freelance Content Writer" - which makes it look like paid advertising. I note the article was originally rejected at AfC ([talkpage notice here]). Furthermore, I note that the talkpage of the user who published the article consists entirely of speedy delete notices (and a warning for potential sockpuppetry). Witty lama 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, two references are not sufficient. Also, the references though seems reliable, but they don't seem independent. Chirota (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Riteboke (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person!. TheChronium (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Log entry:

2021-04-06T15:04:29 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Mobin Ojaghloo (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page, see WP:YFA WP:RS WP:COI WP:Notability (people))

(non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mobin Ojaghloo[edit]

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

The topic of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:Musicbio or notability criteria for musicians or singers. The singer has no notable works or awards. And he is also too young for having those. The article do not show significant coverage and the topic of the article is not significant. And this biographic article has no references or sources for verification. As this article fails notability criteria and don't have reliable sources, it should be deleted. A.A Prinon (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:A7. Article makes no assertion of notability. I did a search of his Persian name and it's only coming back with his own self-published stuff. Nothing independent or reliable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11 CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, no chance of WP:Musicbio. Chirota (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - peer A7 because doesn't meet notability and don't have sources. Cambria Math 14:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The concerns about copyright violations are the biggest concern, so I have no concern about re-creating (possibly in draft space) if the next revision is free of copyvio. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Hot Rod Association[edit]

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

Close paraphrase from https://ahraonline.com/about/, doesn't seem notable at all and is basically a magazine article. Noah ^💬 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep Better wp:before expected to decide notability. copyrighted materials should be removed on site. But the organization seems notable, some silent films in 1960 and these references [23], [24], [25], [26] are enough to establish notability of a 70 years old organization. Chirota (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page only has one source included and it is a primary source. agree this is non notable. Redoryxx (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References appear to be primary or from closely-related sources (including a Facebook page, absolutely amazing). AdoTang (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable for inclusion. Riteboke (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe this should be deleted as a copyvio, or per TNT, but there's no way this isn't notable, and the lack of WP:BEFORE in many of the above arguments is appalling. The amount of material available to build an article is staggering, just from Google Books and newspapers.com. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SD International Public School[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Chirota (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This school is clearly not notable due to the non-existent references (both in the article or anywhere else from what I can tell). Plus, the article is highly promotional and seems to been created/mainly edited by SPAs. So, there's zero policy based reason to keep it. Unless someone can come up with WP:THREE in-depth, reliable, secondary sources. Which, at this point, I highly doubt will happen. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 08:18, 14 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 13:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Joseph Doellefeld[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator based on a claim that the NPSL is fully pro. This is not supported by WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that Doellefeld is a notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Chirota (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The majority's arguments that there is no coverage of this group in the required depth are persuasive. Sandstein 14:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McMahon–Helmsley Faction[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, has been tagged as lacking sources for 13 YEARS with none added, because there simply aren't any sources to add. ItsKesha (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ItsKesha (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ItsKesha (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly no attempt at WP:BEFORE. Reliable sources found within seconds on Google Books for McMahon-Helmsley Faction, as well as the two variants bolded in the lead: McMahon-Helmsley Regime, and McMahon-Helmsley Era. Making such a bold and easily disproven claim of no sources being available makes it hard to assume good faith. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I looked for all three names. Nothing. So which book is the reliable source that covers this topic in depth? ItsKesha (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete if appropriate. This is more of a plotline than a faction, they didn't wrestle as a group (well, not much), so pretty much all of this can be placed into the corresponding articles (I'd assume it already is). You could probably thoroughly source this, and it still not be notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lee Vilenski: Maybe a Merge with The Authority (professional wrestling). Both are stables led by HHH and Stephanie, controlling WWF/E. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i am inclined to support keep but fact that the article has existed without any WP:RS for a decade is baffling. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- They are quite hard to find. I didn't search as deeply as I usually do, but I couldn't turn up anything that actually documented this in a quick search when it first came around. The individual people were documented, but an "Era" or a "Faction" is quite hard to find. ItsKesha has asked a valid question, and I'd like to know the answer, too. Uncle G (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hadn't responded to the question above because I don't respond to ItsKesha's questions. With that said, a very quick search shows that the faction is discussed on page 132 in [27], 161 in [28], 141 of [29], 172 of [30], 124 in [31], 270 in [32], and within [33], [34], [35]. That's just Google Books. A web search would turn up even more. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Literally all of those are single sentence mentions. The group is not discussed in any depth, there is no significant coverage in any of those books. ItsKesha (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment ItsKesha Yeah i agree with you on this, gonna vote delete. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - From the Baltimore Sun: "The McMahon-Helmsley Era was a glorious one indeed. The couple's reign in the WWF, which spanned the latter part of 1999 through 2000, was the main story line during a time when the WWF was at its peak both creatively and in popularity." Pretty hard to make a claim that what a major independent reliable sources claims was the top story at the height of the biggest promotion's peak of popularity doesn't meet Wikipedia notability requirements. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment One paragraph in an article entitled "Valentine's Day special: Top 10 wrestling couples". Again, where's the significant coverage - "more than a trivial mention". Can you please take the time to double-check the GNG? ItsKesha (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POTENTIAL. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per my above discussion with ItsKesha . Dilbaggg (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trofeo Cappelli e Ferrania[edit]

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, I dunno. First of all there's a possible procedural objection here, in that the proposer put forth about a dozen articles that look very similar. This should be done thru the multiple-article deletion method, right?

On the merits... yeah it's not really necessary to delete it. It's a decent article, it's not hurting anyone. It was probably made by a soccer-completionist, which is fine with me. We're not running out of paper. The Italian Wikipedia has an article on this entity, and just because we're the English Wikipedia we don't have to be all anglo-centric. The Italian article is pretty long, and has meat we could probably translate over to this article. So we slap a ((Expand Italian|Trofeo Cappelli e Ferrania|date=April 2021)) tag on it. That's preferable to throwing the article away. (Granted, the Italian article doesn't provide any more refs tho.)

And I don't know as it can't be improved, more refs added. Yeah I get that the one ref 404's, but the "External link" is really a ref and can be moved there. Here is a page with some images; there's a whole page there of an Italian newspaper which I think has stuff about the entity (I can't read Italian) and other stuff.

Somebody went to the trouble of making the article, it looks nice, it has potential for improvement, and what's the upside to deleting it? It's not like Category:1934–35 in Italian football etc. is overflowing, why pare it down more? Herostratus (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm convinced by the arguments made by Herostratus and the possibility of expansion from Italian Wikipedia article, slim on sources but then it was a 1930's event JW 1961^Talk 18:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any good sources from the Italian page, but it doesn't seem insignificant as an early historical international club tournament. Interestingly, an image search of Italian newspapers came up with contemporary sources showing the tournament likely passes WP:GNG. Probably needs improving, not deleting. SportingFlyer T·C 00:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not sure there is any weight behind the keep votes here. Herostratus' comments just seem to be more along the lines of "it's useful and doing no harm" rather than it being notable. JW's comments add little beyond the acknowledgement that sources might be hard to come by. SportingFlyer suggests there are ,pre sources out there but doesn't add any. I'm seeing nothing here other than speculation, but not a clear consensus to delete. Am extending for a week for these sources editors claim to be out there to be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one's speculating. An image search for "Trofeo Cappelli" brings up a number of 1930s newspaper clippings. SportingFlyer T·C 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So where are they and what do they say that indicates GNG. You can't just say you have done a search and there are sources, you actually need to present them ad indicate how they satisfy GNG. At the moment no one can tell what you are talking about, whether they are articles providing an overview of the competition, or simply routine match reporting / results listing. Yes, you've done a search, great, but it means as much as the next person coming in and saying there aren't sources that satisfy GNG. Until you can present your sources properly and an argument you are simply speculating that GNG is met. Fenix down (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there's no evidence the delete voters did any sort of before search on this article, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the fact there are sources. You don't WP:OWN this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If editors have done a search and feel there is nothing what evidence can they provide? We don't need some boiler plate statement whereby they attest they have done a full and detailed search. You need to assume good faith in that instance. How about you stop trying to have a discussion with me, I'm not sure where your nonsensical comments about ownership have come from for example, and start addressing concerns noted below about the sources currently raised, that would be a much better way of trying to gain consensus as to whether this subject is notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a number of screenshots of newspapers about the tournament here. I'm not great with Italian but the coverage appears to be fairly strong. Someone more familiar with Italian sources might be able to help here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - piling on a bit now but the sources linked in the discussion below and in the link that I posted above clearly show that the matches of this tournament received a good amount of coverage and interest Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the arguments and references of Herostratus and Spiderone. Chirota (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment - As I have already commented after the relist I feel I can properly vote on this with reasons, as it would not be proper to close this myself now. You don't need to be an expert in Italian to see the worth of most of the sources in the link SportingFlyer has produced. Working across from left to right in the two rows:

A photo - no significant coverage
A very brief, entirely routine match report, no significant coverage beyond routine news reporting - no indication of the provenance of the source and its reliability even if it was significant in length
Another photo - no text whatsoever
Another routine match report - covering exactly the same match as reported in number 2 above
A significant piece of news coverage. Again seems to cover the same final being discussed in 2 and 4, but at least of length that it is conceivable without knowledge of Italian that this discusses the tournament itself in some detail
A continuation of 4 - clear from the repetition of the headline. Comments above apply but still the same source

So basically this site has one significant match report that might go into detail about the tournament itself. Even if it does there is not enough here for GNG. This also isn't a review of newspapers as you said you did above, it is a link to a Roma fan site. Not that that necessarily affects the notability of the articles present, but can you provide further sources SportingFlyer from your Newspaper search? Fenix down (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This is from the Roma fan site you mentioned, I am not familiar with Il Littoriale but it's front page coverage. I'm not sure what this article is from but it's clearly significant coverage previewing the matches. This is a match report but shows the tournament received comprehensive coverage, and this is short but directly on the tournament. This book thinks the tournament important enough to include in a year in review, since international club tournaments were more notable back then. An historical Italian newspaper search - which I cannot do - would put this beyond doubt. SportingFlyer T·C 11:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned with your confidence in leaning towards keep despite your self-admitted inability to tell us what the sources actually say about the tournament. Im also slightly concerned that there is potentially a synthesis of routine match reporting that is being construed as discussion of the tournament, but at least this is substantially better than your previous attempts. I would strongly advise you to continue with this level of discussion rather than more nebulous comments about where sources may or may not exist. However, I'm happy to move from delete to a comment, but not entirely convinced of keep. Fenix down (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do a great job with articles at AfD where sources aren't in English, and we don't do a good job with articles where sources are pre-internet - they require more than a cursory BEFORE search, and searching for sources for these sorts of articles can take time (as I've noted, it'd be a lot easier if I spoke Italian and had access to Italian archival databases.) I still don't see why providing guideposts as to where sources might be found in these situations could possibly be considered problematic - they're not WP:NEXIST arguments, but rather trying to help the discussion by pointing out good places to look in circumstances when searching's difficult, especially when previous discussion has been lacking. SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SportingFlyer. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Herostratus.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Herostratus. Riteboke (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Revival (Selena Gomez album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revival (Selena Gomez song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. The only coverage the song has is under the formats of Gomez's interviews, and album reviews. Moreover, it never charted, never won any award, it wasn't covered by any significant artists. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, fails WP:NSINGLE.Chirota (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Revival (Selena Gomez album). Seems better than deletion. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all above Mcguy15 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Revival (Selena Gomez album) per nom. Not enough independent sources to meet WP:NSONG. SBKSPP (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sources appear to be for the album, not the song. As per WP:NSONG, coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 06:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dallas Stars. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Stars Ice Girls[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason was "Failing of notability per WP:GNG" nominated by CommanderWaterford (ping as a courtesy) I concur with their PROD, and am nominating it here for the same reason Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, WP:FANPOV clearly failing WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the Dallas Stars page where it can have a line or two. I tried to do the gentle thing first by removing the promotional content from the page and tagging it for notability, but this wasn't successful. Fram (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if its put onto the respective parent pages and this is used as a redirect to that page, then I'll be fine. I just think that i sourced it enough that it could remain its own page because of the reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentheswimmer11 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Fram. A neutral sentence or two on the Dallas Stars article is fine. This article, which is written in a style clearly not suited for an encyclopedia, is not. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, as there's zero significant coverage. All the sources used in the article are either non-independent sources or trivial coverage (a listicle, audition information and a Q&A). Ytoyoda (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, a similar article by the same user with the same problems (sketchy sourcing, WP:GNG, promotional tone) was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolina Hurricanes Storm Squad. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Fram. Riteboke (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea at the 2020 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

Announced by North Korean media that it will not participate in the 2020 Summer Olympics against over COVID-19 concerns. As there are no qualified athletes in the upcoming Olympics that it will suggest either redirect to parent Olympics article or delete. Announcement source ApprenticeFan work 08:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 08:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 08:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 08:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ the only important information is that they won't compete- and that's already noted in the North Korea at the Olympics section, and can be expanded there. No need for a separate article just so say that North Korea withdrew from this event. If multiple countries withdraw, it may warrant an article on withdrawals, but this article is definitely now surplus to requirements. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per below. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to North Korea at the Olympics - seems to be a plausible search term but not enough potential for this to be a worthwhile stand-alone article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Korea at the Olympics per Spiderone. Since the very subject of the article won't be taking place, there is no need for the article. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is not accurate that "there are no qualified athletes in the upcoming Olympics." They had qualified competitors in at least archery and wrestling. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics as a plausible search term where the covid concerns and withdrawal are mentioned, which we've done in similar cases of withdrawal in the past - Brunei at the 2008 Summer Olympics redirects to 2008 Summer Olympics, not Brunei at the Olympics. So I think that's a better target than North Korea at the Olympics, though redirecting there would be preferable to outright deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article. Makes sense that a genuine search takes a user to the main 2020 Olympics article where an explanation of the withdrawal is found, than the page just being the Wiki equivalent of a 404 doktorb _words^deeds 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now as they either changed their minds in the future or have Chongryon (which is a Japan-based North Korean organization) as a substitute for their domestic athletes since they had their own sports teams. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the N/K article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a nominator, that all of the voters have unanimously redirected to the North Korea at the Olympics article that is a plausible target. ApprenticeFan work 08:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not technically correct, there was an editor who stated the precedent and their preference for linking to 2020 Summer Olympics. So far it's unanimous for redirecting, just not "where". Primefac (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two users actually, assuming I'm interpreting Doktorbuk's !vote correctly, plus two who said redirect but didn't explicitly specify where. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To where I don't really know but preferably I think it should be redirected to the 2020 Summer Olympics instead of the North Korea at the Olympics. We just need to make a references to why North Korea did withdrew. HawkAussie (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As of now DPR Korea has not officially notified the IOC of a withdrawal from Tokyo. It's probable that will do so - but right now it's too soon to make any decisions about this article. Topcardi (talk) 21:26, 10 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 13:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Upper Changi Road[edit]

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

Non-notable road in Singapore. A quick search only turns up news articles regarding incidents that occur along the road, and property listings along the road, while a search on NewspaperSG only turned up two articles from the 1970s about the road's opening. R22-3877 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, no notability, no reason to have this article. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero notability. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 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 keep. ATD is policy. TNT isn't. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase-to-pay[edit]

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

Old article, without any reliable source, and written mostly by two companies. I did a recent trim of the article, so you might want to check the previous version for the removed text and the two non-reliable sources that were present. I think WP:TNT really applies here. MarioGom (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the nominator has already improved the article, per WP:ATD-E, deletion should be avoided as p2p is a well known mode of operation. Chiro725 (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LittleBig[edit]

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

Company page boasting numbers with not even minimal standard sourcing. Fails WP:ORG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:BEFORE search revealed the following sources: [36], [37], [38], [39], the last 3 are about their opening times and feel like promo pieces. Leaning on Delete as of now. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 13:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is a short article^[1] in Romanian from Ziarul Financiar announcing the opening of a new LittleBig store and giving some details about the history and production of the company good enough to include in the article? PraiseVivec (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cotu, Laurentiu (12 October 2011). "Primul magazin de jeans Little Big din Transilvania s-a deschis în Iulius Mall Cluj". Ziarul Financiar. Retrieved 6 April 2021.

Weak Delete There should have been a lot of references for a notable brand established in 1994. We only have a few and most of these are passing mentions or not strong enough as reliable sources except WWD. Chirota (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:21, 14 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. Nomination withdrawn. Would have been a keep anyway (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 16:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Arul Mohan[edit]

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

~~No indication of Notability. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NACTRESS~~ DMySon 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR ("significant roles in multiple notable films")—Lead roles in Nani's Gang Leader (2019), Sreekaram (2021) and the upcoming film Doctor (2021). -- Ab207 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there was an issue with notability in the past, but with the recently released Sreekaram, it does appear that they now pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per onel5969, i withdrawal my nomination. DMySon 14:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of anything resembling a consensus. BD2412 T 00:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonita Lontoh[edit]

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

Not notable under WP:NBIO.

Some limited coverage of this person but no in-depth media coverage. Of the meaningful coverge of Sonita Lontoh, it's almost all from questionable sources like alumni blogs, conference speaker bios, and "news sites" that don't appear to have true editorial oversight.

The sources from CNN, Bloomberg, Forbes, and BBC are hardly meaningful and notible coverage. For example: the Bloomberg artcle is titled "Five Executives on How They Unplug", the CNN article is titled "avoid money talks", and the BBC article is titled "the lifestyles of the young and ultra-rich". The Forbes article is titled "Here's How To Avoid An Impersonal Hiring Process" and is the not reliable "Forbes contributor" type of article. None of these articles establish this person as a notible contributor in their field and just include a quick snippet/quote from this person off topic from their professional contributions.

It's hard to find any reliable sources to support the claims in this article. Google search mostly returns results for their speaking events at conferences. Ew3234 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable tech executive with significant participation in White House activities, and had notable positions in Fortune 500 companies. There is a lot of mainstream news coverage by major media outlets. Clearly not a NBIO fail. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DmitriRomanovJr, do you have an example of coverage by major media outlets? I looked through the sources and Google searched but wasn't able to find any reliable mainstream sources that cover this person in any sort of depth. The BBC, Bloomberg, etc articles do not cover this person in any detail (most don't even confirm their title). Ew3234 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable under NBIO due to long history of significant recognitions from respectable institutions such as the White House, the US State Department, the World Economic Forum, MIT, and others. Notable coverage from mainstream media such as the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the BBC, NBC and others.Yozora1 (talk) 02:37, 02 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor is a WP:SPA, who only to vote in this Afd. scope_creep^Talk 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There is certainly coverage but most is not-in-depth nor independent. We can go through the references to examine them. scope_creep^Talk 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HP Inc., since in depth coverages are required which solely discuss the subject. Chirota (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to HP Inc.. I checked some of the high-quality sources (BBC, NBC, WSJ) and they only mention the subject off-hand. No substantive in-depth coverage as far as I can see. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search resulted in several detailed, meaningful coverage of her and her work from reliable, reputable secondary sources such as Tatler magazine's articles on her work in artificial intelligence [[40]] and IoT [[41]], CNN Indonesia's article on her work connecting Silicon Valley and Indonesia [[42]], CBS San Francisco's interview commentary on technology & business [[43]], Tech_in_Asia's article on her work in technology ecosystem [[44]], The Jakarta_Globe's article on her work on technology entrepreneurship [[45]] and Tempo_(Indonesian_magazine) English article on her work [[46]]. Believe subject satisfies WP:SIGCOV which states "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, subject is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Thank you.

user:Roulisegee 02:50, 10 April 2021 SIG Added. ‎Sig added by scope_creep^Talk 10:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above user's account is 5 days old. Their edit history suggest a SPA in disguise. Lots of small edits but only four major ones. Of their four significant edits (above 500+ characters), three are on the Sonita Lontoh (one on this Afd, two on the article). Ew3234 (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, but these are really decent references. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are they though? Tatler Indonesia covers "Luxury Lifestyle in Indonesia" (their words, not mine) and not a source for quality technology coverage. Just look at their top stories: https://indonesiatatler.com/. They might be a reliable source but not for this subject matter. The CBS is a local piece titled "Career Path Based On Three Things, Says San Francisco Marketing Executive" which speaks volumes to the shallow depth covered in the article. The article is pretty weak as a source that establishes notability.

The CNN Indonesia article and Tech in Asia are good sources but that doesn't equal inclusion to wikipedia on its own. Both articles cover the Silicon Valley Asia Technology Alliance, which presumes notablity of Lontoh as is one of the org's co-founders. Being a tech/marketing exec who co-founded a non-profit does not equal notability, even if they do get a few articles written. Many non-profit organizations can get some coverage but it's doesn't mean one of the cofounders meets WP:BIO. It's also worth noting that the non-profit itself isn't very notable. The top google results for the org are their press releases hosted on pr web, one of the articles mentioned here, her wikipedia page, and then her linkedin. That doesn't make strong case for notability. Also notability is not temporary and I don't see much recent coverage of this org. It doesn't even seem to still be around. The website is broken: http://www.svatechnology.com/

I cannot get the tempo article to load for me. I had that problem earlier as well so I cannot speak to it at the moment. The Jakarta Globe article is a solid source but is this enough to establish this person as a notable with significant and reliable coverage of their professional contributions over the millions of other executives that have similar merits and coverage but do not meet WP:BIO? Ew3234 (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails to show WP:SIGCOV. Riteboke (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ - this WEF page looks like one suitable independent source to me - not very long but has some career content. There's a 1300 word interview with Lontoh (titled "Green Hero: Sonita Lontoh") in the January 11, 2014 issue of Asian Fortune. For the article that she wrote for the San Francisco Examiner in June 2012 her mini-bio states "She is a clean technology expert recognized on Wikipedia and is a frequent speaker/contributor to publications such as FORBES, FORTUNE, CNN, etc.". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of articles found on PressReader (Butuh Ekosistem Kuat, Jawa Pos, 2 September 2017; and Champion of Change, Prestige Indonesia, 1 Feb 2014) tip the balance just in favour of keep for me. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing the WEF link. It looks like thats an author's bio (as the links below are articles written by Lontoh). It looks like the WEF aggregates (and does not vet) content from Medium: See this disclosure on the one of Lontah's WEF article: "This post first appeared on Medium. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum". So this bio is likely not WP:IS. I agree that the "recognized on Wikipedia" is an odd WP:CIRC. I found the Jawa Pos article but it doesn't seem to establish notability (the title translates to "These are Indonesian Executives in Silicon Valley"). Do you have links to the Prestige Indonesia articles? Ew3234 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ew3234 The link I have for the Prestige Indonesia article is this. There are around 400 words covering Lontoh's education, family background, and career - all very positively expressed. The Jawa Pos article has a couple of paragraphs of biography - I thought this would help towards establishing notability. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:08, 15 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rico (Ajax)[edit]

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

The subject of the page is not notable, has been deleted previously. 4E616D65 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet software notability or GNG. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are numerous open source Java scripts and its non notable tool. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This JavaScript library was featured in quite a few books, some of them published by O'Reilly Media. It does look notable. See [47], [48] [49] [50]. --MarioGom (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those links.

Frankly, not every topic described in O'Reilly book is notable: O'Reilly frequenty publishes book on technologies that haven't released yet to capture readership. E.g., there are multiple books on PHP6, yet I doubt anyone would consider it notable.

Also, I fail to see how a stub article about library from 11 years ago could be helpful to anyone. I'll add the books you found to the references in case they could be helpful to someone. 4E616D65 (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PHP is extremely notable, so that was not a great example. Any particular version, incluing the never released PHP6 is subsumed in PHP (see PHP#PHP 6 and Unicode). Being old has nothing to do with notability either. MarioGom (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where is the first nomination for this page? MarioGom (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted via PROD in 2008 (so there is no nomination page), according to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rico_%28Ajax%29&type=revision&diff=1013189184&oldid=1012637494

This nomination probably should have been called "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rico (Ajax)" then?

4E616D65 (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Next time you can use WP:Twinkle which automates the process and avoids these issues. MarioGom (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable yet for a standalone article. Riteboke (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved: The page has been moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rico (Ajax) (2nd nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rico (Ajax). Incoming links have been updated. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pandur II#Portuguese variants. The merge has already been done with Special:Diff/1015044401/1015066390 and Special:Diff/1017179990/1017738985. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Pandur[edit]

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

The article does not describe its subject, instead, it seems to justify Portugal's purchase of the Pandur II. The Portuguese version of the Pandur II does not justify such an article, it is not different enough from the base model. In addition to that, the base article already describes the subject – in its current state, this article is nothing but opinion promotion and fails to comply with Wikipedia's point-of-view forks policy. Therefore, I propose "Portuguese Pandur" for deletion; improving this article is not possible. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with Pandur II - Portuguese variants. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted content that violates Wikipedia's No Original Research policy ([51]), and put the most important aspects of the Portuguese Pandur's problems into the Pandur II article ([52]). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pandur II#Portuguese variants: there is significant WP:OVERLAP as this is essentially a slight variant of the base. Only the essential details need to be merged (e.g. not the lengthy and only partially-referenced timeline). — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pandur II#Portuguese variants per MarkH21. Riteboke (talk) 08:25, 14 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) 04:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Chiongbian[edit]

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

A non-notable business person and political candidate. 2 of the 3 links in the article are dead. The only other source is a blog post claiming that he ran against Manny Pacquiao (the boxer) in 2010 for Congress, and lost. I did not see his name mentioned on Manny Pacquiao's Wikipedia article and have not found any verifiable information that that claim is even true. Regardless, there doesn't seem to be any sources to constitute inclusion to Wikipedia. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete honorary consulates are not notable and nothing else here shows notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Chirota (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:GNG. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fresnillo plc. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Octavio Alvídrez[edit]

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

Topic is president and CEO of... a metropolitan city in Mexico, per line 1 of the article. It's obviously a typo as he looks to be the CEO of Fresnillo PLC, but who can say for certain since there's hardly any independent verifiable sources covering the subject making him notable enough for encyclopedic inclusion. Megtetg34 (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the company page. Riteboke (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, and no other substantive comments about the article were made, so this falls under WP:CSK#4. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angels Arc Senior Secondary School, Kayamkulam[edit]

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

~~Non-notable school, nothing notable found with a WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - nominator is a sockpuppet, now blocked indefinitely. This AfD was created in violation of the master's block and therefore the article should be kept on procedural grounds. If a good faith editor wants to nominate this for deletion, then they should be able to do so but I'd rather Phoenix Man didn't get his way here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 12 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) 04:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole M. Christie[edit]

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

Not a single source found anywhere to establish notability, including the sole source in the article. This is a resume piece and nothing more. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to post resumes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no way to save this article, lacks WP:BASIC. Chirota (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nicole is THE spokesperson for H&M and is in almost every article about H&M recently, but there aren't articles about her specifically. My inclination is a delete based on this, but I wanted to check with more experienced voters. Are there any guidelines specifically for household names that might not have a ton of independent coverage? Redoryxx (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO is the standard for living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megtetg34 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devoke water 08:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the subject is notable, even though the article requires significant clean-up. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The State of the Union (European University Institute)[edit]

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

Pure PR. The article has only extensive promotional sections of buzz-words on the importance off the problems it deal with, and very extensive name dropping. There are almost no third party sources. If there should be sources for notability , it would need to be done over from scratch. It was just as bad when it was accepted from AfC. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be one of the areas where "notability" and "importance" diverge. This event is likely highly important, at least to high level policy people in Europe (I am a policy analyst in the USA, but I have no connection to this event or anyone associated with it, else I wouldn't be commenting at all). The problem is that these sorts of events tend to produce a lot of useful and important discussions, but they are rarely covered in the popular press. These discussions are usually in policyspeak, a creole of the local language, high academia, and legalese. Possible reliable sources might be found in various think tanks, academic journals, and possibly intellectual political periodicals. As it currently stands, the article appears to be sourced entirely from documents produced at or for the event.

That being said, I did a quick Google Scholar search and found at least a few external sources reporting on the event. I found a keynote address at the event published in the International Journal of Constitutional Law ^[1], for example. There is also this article from the College of William and Mary Law School ^[2]. I also found local coverage in the Florence Daily News ^[3]. Honestly, there's plenty of search engine hits in both Google and Google Scholar, the real difficulty is distinguishing between the many many many documents that are just the texts of speeches and pressntations to find second-party sources like newspapers and such. It's a tricky situation, because this event has almost certainly...well, depending on your viewpoint either greatly affected stakeholder decisions in the EU that have affected hundreds of millions of people, or created excellent employment opportunities for policy analysts in the EU. The news article from William and Mary definitely lays out the importance, it's just the difficulty of finding more sources like it. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 22:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 18:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hyperion35, while the article is very promotional, that's not the criteria for deletion, because it can be fixed. Shushugah (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it may need a rewrite or something for that promotional junk. AdoTang (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep, definitely delete is not an option here to fix the issues raised. The article needs heavy cleanup but can be kept. Chirota (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability as per WP:EVENT, criterion WP:GEOSCOPE:"However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." The event has long-term impact on the EU member states since it is a major political forum. Long-term impact includes the following events: (1) in 2017 Jean-Claude Juncker, then European Commission president (the top job of the whole EU), sparked outrage from the UK when speaking French, not English, and stating that the English language is becoming less important, at the State of the Union conference. (2) Weeks before the 2019 European elections, the four top candidates to follow Juncker as Commission president had an election debate at the State of the Union event and proposed a European army from there.

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Edward Massey[edit]

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

I Merged all the information on this page into the namesake section of USS Massey per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability and blanked and Redirected this page on 23 February. The Redirect was undone on 24 February with the comment "midway squadron commander played an important role in a major battle and covered in all histories of it". I have searched for information about Massey and other than passing mentions largely around the WP:1E of his role in the Battle of Midway I'm not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Many of the details on the page are actually unverified due to a lack of inline sources. Accordingly the Redirect should be restored. Mztourist (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is the 2nd nomination for this article. The first was on 23 January 2021 - " Closed as procedural Keep". ~~(Technically the third 3rd if you count the blanking by the nominator which Kges1901 then restored).~~ FYI - wolf 15:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

off topic
:So? It was never discussed in any detail as part of the mass nom and procedural keep. My Redirect was clearly not an AFD nomination. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] It was just a note, no need to start badgering. - wolf 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] I was responding to your comments, the "technically the third 3rd" was clearly incorrect, so don't accuse me of badgering. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] 1, 2, 3 attempts to get rid of this article, all in a matter of weeks. The second attempt was noted as a blanking. !Voters should be aware all previous attempts to delete or otherwise remove this content. That was the point. - wolf 19:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] So? I'm sure that everyone participating in this AFD is perfectly capable of forming their own view of the relative merits of the page irrespective of earlier history which I acknowledged above. 03:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Not entirely. You didn't mark this as the 2nd nom, hence the reason I added the note. Again, that's all it was- a note, not an invite to a debate. Let it go already. - wolf 15:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] The note* which also incorrectly stated that my Redirect was an AFD. If you want to stop debating stop trying to justify your misleading comment. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Obviously I was referring to your blanking as another attempt to delete. I don't really see the need to be hypertechnical, as it was just a note. But, you stated your objection with correction and I've struck the comment, so I think we're done here. (I know I am). - wolf 16:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

off topic

:*So? It was never discussed in any detail as part of the mass nom and procedural keep. My Redirect was clearly not an AFD nomination. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a note, no need to start badgering. - wolf 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your comments, the "technically the third 3rd" was clearly incorrect, so don't accuse me of badgering. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3 attempts to get rid of this article, all in a matter of weeks. The second attempt was noted as a blanking. !Voters should be aware all previous attempts to delete or otherwise remove this content. That was the point. - wolf 19:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So? I'm sure that everyone participating in this AFD is perfectly capable of forming their own view of the relative merits of the page irrespective of earlier history which I acknowledged above. 03:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely. You didn't mark this as the 2nd nom, hence the reason I added the note. Again, that's all it was- a note, not an invite to a debate. Let it go already. - wolf 15:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The note which also incorrectly stated that my Redirect was an AFD. If you want to stop debating stop trying to justify your misleading comment. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I was referring to your blanking as another attempt to delete. I don't really see the need to be hypertechnical, as it was just a note. But, you stated your objection with correction and I've struck the comment, so I think we're done here. (I know I am). - wolf 16:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

KeepCommanding officer of one of the torpedo wings at Midway, depicted by Steve Kanaly in Midway. Added refs that describe Midway record. Needs a rewrite with refs inclined not a delete, as notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Thach coverage re Midway is thin, the article is about Thach and his squadron rather than VT-3. Hard to verify the extent of the other coverage without page numbers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - especially in light of the work that's been going into it since the nom. - wolf 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 12:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His actions in Midway is notable. USN awarded his action in Midway by a posthumous Navy Cross. thus his actions must be important and notable. He also have DFC, which is also a highly prestigious award. SunDawn (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back with his namesake ship. The new sources can't be verified without page numbers, and just because someone's written into a movie doesn't mean they're automatically notable. I just don't see enough RS concerning Massey in particular for this to pass for me as a standalone article. Intothat darkness 21:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness - "sources can't be verified without page numbers"
Per WP:V: "Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)". Page numbers, while "ideal" are not mandatory for content to be properly sourced, as the source can still be verified. - wolf 23:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's sloppy. You can't determine if it was just a namecheck or if there was actual content. Still a merge for me. Intothat darkness 02:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very sloppy. If Users are determined to rescue pages then they should make the effort to add properly referenced cites rather than just saying stuff exists or providing incomplete cites. Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And much of the life and career content of the article at the moment doesn't even have a general cite to a source let alone one with a page number. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just addressing the comment by Intothatdarkness, that while they seem to find it frustrating (and therefore very frustrating for Mztourist) that a page number wasn't added, it is still sourced. - wolf 19:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thewolfchild Take a look at Paul Teitgen for an example of what should be done when you !vote Keep at AFD and say other sources are available. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist; Take a look at how often you reply to !voters you don't like to argue about their !votes or comments. If you don't want to be accused of badgering, them don't badger. (And the always-must-have-the-last-word bit doesn't help either.) - wolf 07:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild you decided to comment specifically about me so I commented back at you. If you keep commenting on other Users then you don't get to decide that the conversation is over. Mztourist (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QED - wolf 19:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ward book is 174 pages, the Smith one is 350 pages so without page numbers verification is going to be slow. Fortunately google books gave me a sneak of the latter's index and Massey is mentioned on pages 77, and 98-99 but going by the preview it's passing mentions. The snippet view on the Ward book shows me three mentions but seems thin as in "Yorktown had launched her VT-3 squadron, twelve torpedo planes under command of Lietuentant Commander Lance E Massey, first because of their slow speed". GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like namechecks on the whole, then. And in response to one of the comments above (@Thewolfchild), please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say frustrating, I said sloppy. And citing without page numbers is, at the end of the day, sloppy. Verification of sources is an important part of building credibility, and not including page numbers makes that difficult. More so than it needs to be. Intothat darkness 16:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one must be notable unless its clearly shown there is a policy that support that. The keep votes are arguing by assertion and not putting forward a strong policy case. Relisted to allow participants to cover the actual policy
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, y ^Humbug! 16:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have yet to see anything convincing enough to change my opinion from Merge to the named ship. Passing mention and namechecks don't create notability. Having this information with his namesake ship preserves it without giving undue weight to the subject. Intothat darkness 20:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article now has twice as many refs as it did when this nom was posted, along with other improvements. (fyi) - wolf 07:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the expansion between nomination (2nd March) and last edit to date (5 March) - 3 refs added to the same paragraph about the award of the DFC. DANFS, Ward Smith and Smith (which as I said above look thin) but no additional text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please discuss sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources that can be verified are mostly namechecks (the Thach article along with the information provided by GraemeLeggett). Not enough to justify, in my view, a standalone article. As noted previously, the information won't disappear, but rather be folded back into the namesake ship article. I haven't seen any standalone articles about him, or substantial mentions in RS concerning the Midway Campaign.Intothat darkness 20:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm not seeing much on this guy outside of namedrops, the DANFS bio (which ties him to the ship), and WP:1E instances. The article for the USS Massey has plenty of room for the bio of this guy. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added four additional sources today, along with some copyediting. (fyi) - wolf 01:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Coronado Times source looks to be a reprint of the original Wiki article (and is courtesy of the USS Massey Association). The National Interest is a one paragraph namecheck recycling the Navy Cross information. And the last is an extensive history of the ship, with a short paragraph about its namesake. Just pointing out that two of the three point directly to the ship and don't add anything to what's already in the article. Which, to me, makes a stronger argument for merging him back with the namesake ship. Intothatdarkness 02:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The National Interest also has a quote from a pilot that witnessed Massey's death, and there's a fourth source, a bio from Navy's Heritage Command that was added to 'external links'. (fyi) - wolf 03:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does US Navy Heritage Command count as 'independent of subject' per SigCov requirements? The National Interest is quoting text from Moore's Pacific Payback - it isn't a quote from another pilot. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only stated that additional sources were added. The US Navy is a source, a reliable one that is used regularly and often, especially in these types of articles. And the quote begins with; "[Another U.S. pilot] ... saw", which certainly seems to indicate the quote came from another pilot. (Besides, who else would've been in a position to see that?). - wolf 02:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SigCov asks for sources that are not "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - wolf 14:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the National Interest article isn't about Massey (I'm not sure having read it what the article is about... musings on how China shouldn't start trouble at sea because America won the Pacific War I possibly). GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there is content about Massey in the article, including the quote about his final moments, which is why is was added. - wolf 02:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 16:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Bulthaup[edit]

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

Non-notable "American engineer and inventor". His claim to fame is that he received inventor of the week at MIT in 2007. Sources 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are unavailable. Source 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, makes no mention of him whatsoever. Source 7 is his bio for a company he works at. Source 11 is a press release where he makes 1 comment. Source 12 and 16 is a trivial mention. Article reads like a resume and puff piece. No sources found to suggest otherwise. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very clearly does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG and coverage fails WP:SIGCOV. Page also is an obvious case of WP:TOOMANYREFS. Redoryxx (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonanza Springs, California[edit]

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

According to Durham it was "was founded as a resort; it became a camping place after the hotel burned down" (article text). I find no reference to it other than as a set of three springs, so I'm going to say this fails validation as a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waring 1915, p. 190 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWaring1915 (help) has it.
- Waring, Gerald Ashley (1915). Springs of California. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper. Vol. 338. U.S. Government Printing Office. doi:10.3133/wsp338.
Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Waring 1915 has a lot of the other ones such as Bartlett Springs, California (p.200), Howard Springs, California (p.95), and Hough Springs, California (p.197) too, so a quick first correction for all of these would be to just change "unincorporated community" to "set of springs". Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources here: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] and [63] from 1882. However, only a couple of those discuss it as a community, and even then only in the sense of water rates. SportingFlyer T·C 11:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG and "named natural features" of WP:GEOLAND, sustained coverage in independent reliable sources over a period of years. This well-known Mojave Desert oasis is an important source of water source for the Southern California arid lands. It is a Mojave Trails National Monument (California Landmark). While it may not be an important settlement, it definitely is an important spring (geographic/hydrological feature). There are many full articles on Newspapers.com on more historical info here: [64] – I haven’t yet searched on JSTOR. Below is what I’ve found on Google. I’ll add a few of the best sources to the article today or tomorrow.

News articles: Washington Post [65]; Los Angeles Times[66]; ~~Press Democrat[67]; Press Democrat (diff article[68]; Ukiah News[69]~~; Route 66 News[70]; California Water News Daily[71]; USA Today[72]; Highland News[73]; KCET[74]; Lake County News[75]; Three Valleys Water District[76]; Victor Valley Daily Press[77]; Bonanza Spring Study[78]

Academic Journal articles: (Journal of) Environmental Forensics[79]; (Journal of) Biodiversity and Conservation[80]

Government reports: USGS/US Dept. of Interior Report on watering places in the Mojave Desert[81]; BLM Report on Mojave Springs and Waterholes[82]; BLM[83]; National Park Service[84]; National Parks Conservation Association[85] - Netherzone (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of those are about a different Bonanza Springs, this is about the place in Lake County. SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SportingFlyer, this is my mistake - I had it the other way around! I will strike my !vote, as I was searching for the Bonanza Springs in the Mojave Desert. I had struck the sources above for the Lake County Bonanza Springs, which is NOT notable. I'll also remove the sources I added to the article. Thank you for pointing out this error on my part. Netherzone (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean, it is possible you've stumbled upon a yet to be created article! Also a couple of your sources posted here were about Lake County. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: I stumbled across the Lake County place when checking this one out but forgot to mention it here. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Trivial coverage as a resort. This non-WP:RS blog mentions Bonanza, Howard and other resorts (apparently Bonanza had a liquor license, which made up for Bonanza's lack of facilities compared to other nearby resorts). I checked out some of SportingFlyer's newspaper.com links and while there are many trivial mentions of Bonanza, I'm not seeing non-notable coverage. To me, non-trivial coverage would be a non-promotional article that is solely about Bonanza in a WP:RS source. Passing articles about water rates don't meet my definition of non-notable. As there is no legal recognition and the coverage is trivial, neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. Cxbrx (talk) 16:26, 11 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.