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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lichte[edit]

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

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

Once again a DEPROD of the Editor Andrew Davidson (the 5th in the last 3 days) w/o explaining why nor informing the PRODer - WP:BEFORE does not give any source establishing notability per WP:BIO CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As a major VW designer and now head of design at Audi, the subject has designed about 100 cars, and so they pass WP:ARCHITECT. There's a correspondingly large amount of coverage in the motoring press. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We head to Audi’s HQ in Ingolstadt, Germany, to meet head of design Marc Lichte, AD sits down with Audi’s design director Marc Lichte to discuss all that went into creating the e-tron GT , We recently spoke to Marc Lichte about Audi’s future product plans and how they’ll reflect the next-generation of Audi vehicles., Audi design boss Marc Lichte talks about the E-Tron GT, e-Tron Gran Turismo is 'The Most Beautiful Car I Have Ever Drawn': Audi Design Head, Audi A8 will debut the Swedish mark's Lichte design language, named after chief designer Marc Lichte., concedes Marc Lichte , father of the fifth - generation Golf and chief of VW ' s Design Studio Two. I could go on for a long time with these. The guy is clearly notable, easily passing WP:ARCHITECT 1, 3, 4C and 4D. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scot. I...understand the frustration demonstrated by the OP, but have discussed with them elsewhere that complaining "PROD is a broken process" is often not backed up by actual demonstration of PROD being a broken process. Vaticidalprophet 19:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaticidalprophet, surprising that you found today especially only to my two initiated AfDs. do you know WP:HOUND ?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm currently, actively in the process of going through open AfDs and responding to interesting ones, which is something I do all the time. It is entirely irrelevant to you. Vaticidalprophet 20:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Häusser[edit]

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

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

Once again a DEPROD of the Editor Andrew Davidson (the 4th in the last 3 days) w/o explaining why nor informing the PRODer - anyway: WP:BEFORE does not establishing notability per WP:BIO, was once chief of the german Patent Office, not listed as recipient of the "Bundesverdienstkreuz" CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:JUDGE as he held a national position, being head of the German Patent Office for nearly 20 years. Note also that the German Wikipedia has an equivalent article. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As he passes WP:JUDGE #1 several times over for being on the Federal Patent Court, the Federal Court of Justice and then the President of the German Patent Office. Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - presumptively notable under WP:JUDGE, as above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:JUDGE. Vaticidalprophet 19:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kumar Bawa[edit]

Krishna Kumar Bawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP of a party functionary. Sources do not establish notability under WP:NPOL or under any other notability guideline. Mccapra (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scottish Labour. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Young Labour[edit]

Scottish Young Labour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable organisation. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Scottish Labour: Searches find occasional announcement-based coverage about changes of office bearers ([1]) but that is insufficient for WP:ORGDEPTH and I am not seeing evidence that this youth wing has attained notability. It is mentioned in both the Scottish Labour and Young Labour (UK) articles, either of which might be a redirect target; I am leaning towards the former. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Scottish Labour - youth organisations are not inherently notable. Following the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Young Democrats Teen Caucus, a redirect is most appropriate. --RaviC (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Scottish Labour as the article can't be a standalone article owing to its non notable character. Iflaq ^(talk) 10:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 19:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hamilton-Parker[edit]

Craig Hamilton-Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

See Talk. Not notable. RobP (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator per my comment on the talk page: The Australian and the Guardian are both quite confidently RS. I strongly doubt the HuffPo piece is a press release, considering it's tearing him apart. The Independent and Esquire are both falling for him, which, you know, is what it is, but are high-profile enough that if they're falling for him it's worth noting. He's also had a few different TV shows/specials on respectable/'respectable' channels, so someone is apparently paying attention to him. Vaticidalprophet 22:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Talk - a few of the current sources would be fine ... IF ... there were other sources that proved notability first. Sgerbic (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Such as...the ones right there? We've got 'high-profile newspapers that think he's actually got a leg to stand on', 'high-profile and mostly less tabloidy newspapers that are damn well sure he doesn't', 'confirmation guy had a show that was a big/controversial deal' (I suspect this may be lost in the cultural barrier between America and the UK, in that it's probably easy for an American not to realize that someone claiming/pretending to have talked to the ghost of Princess Diana is basically going to draw half the Commonwealth's attention), and 'confirmation guy had a different show with the BBC, albeit not exactly the most prominent bit of it'. Pretty clear GNG pass. I suspect the cultural barrier is proving an issue here with regards to the sourcing, as many of the RSes aren't household names in the US. Vaticidalprophet 22:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Rp2006 has just, in violation of WP:V, removed several sources from the article for being paywalled or not in English, so checking the article at this time would give the impression of fewer sources than it has. Vaticidalprophet 03:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your interpretation of WP:V, as stated on Talk. There is no reason for the author to not use accessible sources in thsi case if possible. RobP (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as stated on talk, your interpretation of WP:V goes against every consistent interpretation of it throughout more or less all of the project's history, not to mention would throw the article out of NPOV by removing a source that describes how he changes his soi-disant predictions on the fly. Vaticidalprophet 03:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as I stated on Talk... I just have to trust you on that being in the firewalled reference, I guess. RobP (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In addition to the references that the creator already mentioned, his Princess Diana seance made it to CNN, and a quick search through my university library found news articles from the Edmonton Journal and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, plus the guy was the subject of a 3-part BBC miniseries on psychics. It's harder to separate the wheat from the chaff, sure, but he does pass GNG. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 03:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Independent (article entirely about the subject), Esquire (short blurb, but all about him), Leicester Mercury (entirely about him), HuffPost (entirely about him), The Australian (non-trivial coverage), The Guardian (non-trivial coverage). His predictions appearing in the The Spectator and The Atlantic further contribute to his notability. Overall, there is more than enough coverage for GNG. — Goszei (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I may not like him, or psychics in general, but this guy clearly meets the threshold of notability: significant coverage in independent sources, as shown above. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. The nom seems to believe that what they are doing is helping Wikipedia. but I find it remarkable that an experienced WPedian would think that paywalled sources are not reliable sources, and even more remarkable that they should think removing such sources during an AfD is acceptable. We must write, carefully, about claimed psychics and the like in order for the public to have accurate NPOV information on them. I urge some other admit to join in a speedy close. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looking at the sources, and Kncny11's analysis above, there are plenty of different RS's which are used in the article and contain non-trivial coverage. The nominator may be acting in good faith, but when WP:V states that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source, this means some other person can verify the info. It does not have to be everyone, all the time, as is implied here. A source behind a paywall (which the nominator has erroneously called a "firewall") can still be verified easily by anyone with the ability to bypass the paywall, which depending on the website can easily be bypassed. As for sources in other languages, I don't see why they can't be allowed if that is the most authoritative reliable source for the information, and no English variant exists. Epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I want to note here that Rp2006 does not appear to understand the words "when available" when he quotes WP:NOENG. I find this bizarre for a member of the 15 Year Club. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An addendum. On reviewing the talk page, I suspect Rp2006 does not understand WP:V whatsoever. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, have trouted nominator. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has coverage on four continents, and I suspect if I did a deep search, there would be coverage in all of them. scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moltafet[edit]

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

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

Most of the sources in the article are about the individual artists who play in this music collective, not about the collective itself. The sourcing for the collective is very sparse and does not establish notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Henry Burn[edit]

Jacob Henry Burn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. The only inline reference is a legal notice for anyone having a claim on Burn's estate on his death. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. -Cupper52^Discuss! 21:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Rana (actor)[edit]

Praveen Rana (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable actor and/or filmmaker credited with only two recent films. The sources cited only include passing mentions, in the context of a film release (and are worded similarly, suggesting they may be based on the same press release). Fails WP:GNG / WP:FILMMAKER. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The film choran is and indirect story telling of a controversial crime happened in Kerala named Abhaya Case. So I searched about the movie and the actor name. But there is an another athlete named praveen rana and on social media it is confused, some reports the hero with the picture of athlete. So I tried and i think there are some more references about the actor. HE is not only the actor but also director, producer and a business man. Insted of deleting the article, could anyone please help me to improve the article. Ambili123 (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed deletion on notability grounds. If you can find multiple, reliable, independent sources with significant enough coverage of the person, not their works or other associated subjects, to establish notability, then please cite them; that isn't the only improvement the article needs, but it is by far the most urgent one. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak DeleteI found another one [2] but still not very strong. There is no reception of his work by any reputed media. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's like the other sources, though — it's about the movie, not the person; and the phraseology is again similar so probably based on the same press release. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: He is not only an actor. He produced directed and Acted in the film Anan. In the second movie, he acted and the produced under his production company. Some more references are here. But citing so many links there on aticle might look spam thats why i added less. https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2020/sep/04/silver-lining-in-the-world-of-cinema-2192076.html , https://www.mathrubhumi.com/movies-music/news/praveen-rana-anan-movie-helps-film-workers-during-lock-down-1.5019129 Ambili123 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Already there are some more links and also one more user supported article. Keep the article Ambili123 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom: The primary coverage of the sources are about the movie and not about the subject. They are just trivial mentions about the person. Fails GNG as well as FILMMAKER. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice to an eventual new nomination due to minimal participation. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Jock[edit]

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

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s requirement for products. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. It was deprodded without any meaningful comment, so let's discuss... can anyone find anything to rescue here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Aside from a paragraph in a source which I'm not sure if it is an RS (and anyways is not significant coverage), there is no coverage of the subject. JavaHurricane 08:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, there may be some coverage in offline sources too that I'm not aware of. Can someone try to find any offline coverage? JavaHurricane 08:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And verily so. Striking, and thanks to Andrew for finding sources! Hope he can improve the page. JavaHurricane 16:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • JavaHurricane, Sadly, the sources found are of terrible quality and not suitable for expansion (which I have yet to see Andrew do anyway). Please see my assessment below. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Piotrus, didn't receive the ping (I've turned them off due to LTA abuse) but I'm watching the page, will monitor. Thanks. JavaHurricane 06:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a toy from the 1970s, prior to the Internet. I'm not familiar with it myself but there's a reasonable account here. There's coverage in the trade press of the time such as Television/Radio Age and Toy & Hobby World. And now there is naturally retrospective coverage in sources such as Toys, Games, and Action Figure Collectibles of the 1970s; Cavalcade of Dolls and What's Real in Packaging? The worst case would be merger to Schaper Toys and so, per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, there is no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Davidson, Let's review the coverage:
    • Television/Radio Age - you did not provide a link and I failed to find anything that provides even a snippet view. WP:GOOGLEHITS "findings" are useless as they may be simple advertisements
    • Toy & Hobby World - No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in [3]. Snippet view gives us a half-sentence that reads " Company's prodbet manager , Mark Ellis , advises that Super Jock advertising...". Anyway, the identifiable subject is not the toy but its advertising campaign.
    • Toys, Games, and Action Figure Collectibles of the 1970s; 2 paragraphs that read like someone's personal review on an Internet forum and the book seems to be a self-published e-book (no ISBN, no WorldCat entry);
    • Cavalcade of Dolls and What's Real in Packaging? I can't even locate this source, since Andrew like usual didn't bother to provide links. Maybe it is a subtitle of the ebook mentioned above. Shrug. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Schaper Toys. Subject lacks SIGCOV, as Piotrus details above and no need to repeat. There is no properly sourced content for a merge from this article. If someone wishes to create properly sourced content and then add it to Schaper Toys they can, but there is none in the article or above.  // Timothy :: talk  03:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked all the issues of TV/Radio Age that World Radio History has and found no coverage. However, I do note that Superjock (no space), sometimes rendered Super Jock, would be a plausible redirect to Larry Lujack. There's also some coverage of a "Super Jock" mechanical horse racing jockey from 1987. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• World Radio History's run is incomplete. Television/Radio Age was bi-weekly but they only have one issue for 1976 which is when there was some coverage (Volume 23 page 82). Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long-range planning[edit]

Long-range planning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is this a notable topic? Tagged for no sources since 2009. Natg 19 (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unsourced essay offering a personal perspective on a topic. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reason stated by Mccapra. This could be a suitable topic for an article; I note that there is an academic journal called "Long Range Planning." However, given the complete absence of sources in the existing article, it seems to me that it would would be better for such an article to be started from scratch. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable topic --Devokewater 17:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Kremer[edit]

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

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

Delete – Cancer kids/mums/brides may be of interest to the tabloid media, but they're not notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia in their own right. Yes, there are some RSs which cover her but they do not indicate notability, just a tragic case of somebody who is sick and has received media attention in the process. Doesn't have a page on her native language Wiki and the first results which come up on Google are actually her socials – Instagram and LinkedIn. I think that just about summarises the lack of notability here. --Jkaharper (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a leukemia patient is not in itself notable. If she was an established writer of broad experience and depth, she might be considered notable in that respect, but her writing credentials are sadly slim and focus on her battle with the disease. Blanket coverage by the media, as ever, is not a sign of automatic notability. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shee meets WP:GNG, with coverage of her in the main national Dutch news sources, also before her death. Could be expanded easily (6440 hits at Google News). She is also a writer of a bestseller book. I don't know other examples where a person with cancer had such broad coverage in the media and who also had something notable as a bestseller book. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The vast majority of those Google News hits are about Melissa Kremer, a senior executive of Target Corporation, who is a totally different person altogether. --Jkaharper (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You keep mentioning the cancer/leukemia, as if it's some badge of notability. It just is not. It's an unfortunate and disastrous life event which happens to way too many people - and the vast majority of those people do not inhabit the pages of Wikipedia by way of article. If they do, they have something more tangible in their résumés or their life accomplishments. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rusted AutoParts 21:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I removed the strikethrough. User:Rusted AutoParts did NOT !vote twice. He shared some thoughts about my opinion. I will add indent to that comment, so this error is not made twice. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rest in peace though. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, though I eco GhostDestroyer100's sentiments. Subject still seems to fail WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although it may need to be improved. Being a leukemia patient does not make anyone notable, but writing a best selling book and a frequently visited blog about her illness does make her notable. And that notability is why her sad passing was covered in reliable media. 2001:1C00:180D:8D00:D8AA:F81F:8206:CDEE (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Thousands of people who do not have Wiki pages have had a "best" selling book of some degree. The question is, what does "best" selling mean? Top 200? Top 500? Best selling on Amazon in the Netherlands on one particular day? It hasn't been properly defined, and unless somebody can provide reasonable evidence to this claim, it remains the case that she's clearly not notable enough for her own page. --Jkaharper (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousands of people who do not have Wiki pages have had a "best" selling book of some degree." Isn't this an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? Argumentation here should be about the author, not about potential other people and their notability! Such distractions often attempt to hide a lack of a case. gidonb (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Author easily passes the WP:GNG. All delete opinions here fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT and should be totally discounted as such. How in the hell could this have happened? It seems that people were side-tracked by Melissa Kremer being a leukemia victim and forgot to examine the facts objectively. Only one delete supporter also claims that the late author fails the GNG. Not in a million years! gidonb (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very obnoxious attempt to discredit other people's input. Rusted AutoParts 02:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the holder of THEN a minority opinion, it was totally called for to explain why I reached different conclusions than others. Nothing obnoxious about it. The intro is rooted in emotion and stereotypes, not in policy or the article. By pointing this out, folks can rethink stances and arguments. It's my service for WP. gidonb (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Best selling author. Lots of press coverage. pburka (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am having a hard time finding any evidence that her book was a best seller. I will admit I don't speak Dutch, but all the articles I have machine translated seem just to cover her death, one mentions her book which was a collection of her social media postings. The best selling author portion of the article is only linked to an article that mentions her book never do I see it say best selling or "unparalleled". McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  See here for example. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi McMatter, thanks for asking. It was and is in the title and quote of the reference that I had added right after the phrase. I'll add translations to make it easier to find. gidonb (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My search also found several references in non-english works, definitely meets WP:GNG. Why people are using AFD as a weapon? VocalIndia (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Extensive coverage in secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mainly famous for being terminally ill. That would set a bad record, every terminally ill patient who appears on TV and writes books would have a page here. Thousands.--Folengo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2021
• Comment. Lots of WP:RS and WP:V coverage does contribute towards notability, while being a leukemia patient does not preclude one from being notable. That would be discriminating. Kremer was a creative individual who wrote, spoke, and video blogged. She gained national (not local or regional!) fame and put a disease on the national agenda. Unfortunately, the role of women in society is often discounted. They will get compared to brides and "mums", we are being horrified repetitively that there could be more of their sort (oh no!), while their profession, actions and WP:RS are NOT the focus of the discussion. gidonb (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salted.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mutahir Showkat[edit]

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

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS; subject of the article badly fails WP:GNG. This article is nothing more than an extension of his marketing campaign for his two books. Every reference linked is a thinly-veiled advert for his two books. The article has been deleted twice due to concerns around the sourcing and a quick look at Talk:Mutahir Showkat shows you how desperate Showkat is to have an article on here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - apologies in advance to the admin that closes this discussion. If the article talk page is anything to go by, we're in for a rough ride. I have created a source assessment table which I hope people will find helpful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://kashmirpatriot.com/2021/01/26/from-hobby-to-photography-as-profession-mutahir-from-anantnag-author-two-books-on-photography/		Article is promotional in tone and content	~ Contains some minor biographical details	✘ No
https://www.alternatekashmir.net/2020/12/09/meet-mutahir-showkat-from-kashmir-who-published-two-books-on-photography/		This is a blatant advert, I don't even need to explain		✘ No
https://therealkashmir.com/pride-of-kashmir21-year-old-well-known-photographer-mutahir-showkat-based-in-kashmir-has-authored-two-books-on-photography/		An advert for his 2 books, it even points you in the direction of where to buy them from	No SIGCOV	✘ No
https://www.eatnews.co.uk/article-1/20210125-1	? So non-neutral, it makes you cringe "Mutahir Showkat is an inspiration for all the youth in Jammu and Kashmir who either gets involve in conflicts or do not dare to dream."	This is a blog, not a reliable news source		✘ No
https://cnskashmir.in/2021/01/23/anantnag-boy-makes-his-name-among-famous-photographers-of-india/		Advert article has no author	No significant coverage of Showkat	✘ No
https://thevoiceofkashmir.in/at-21-qazigund-youth-pens-two-books-on-photography/	?		No SIGCOV	✘ No
https://www.eatnews.com/article-2/20210125-1			A Chinese translation of #4	✘ No
https://www.insidekashmir.net/focused-personality-mutahir-showkat/		No author for this promo interview		✘ No
http://www.abdnews24.com/pages/posts.php?category=jandk&&postid=3884			Paid-for press release identical to many of the others to the letter	✘ No
https://menafn.com/1101276357/Mutahir-Showkat-a-Photographer-from-Kashmir-valley-is-inspiring-youth-with-his-photography-skills		This is literally marked as a press release so should be ignored from the start		✘ No
http://beta.kashmirnewsobserver.com/trending/at-21-qazigund-youth-pens-two-books-on-photography-kno-53202	?		No SIGCOV	✘ No
https://foxinterviewer.com/politics/mutahir-showkat-a-well-known-photographer-trying-to-help-youth-to-learn-photography-through-his-books/	?	Fox Interviewer is unreliable and not a reputable news source		✘ No
https://www.quora.com/Who-is-Mutahir-Showkat			No, just, no	✘ No
https://theruralpress.in/chill-in-the-snow-not-switzerland-its-my-kashmir/	?	?	Not even close to SIGCOV	✘ No
https://asianewsobserver.com/2020/12/15/at-21-qazigund-youth-pens-two-books-on-photography/			Rehashing of #11	✘ No
https://www.streettimes.in/upcomming-photographer-of-kashmir/	?	No author again	Appears to be just an advert for his 2 books	✘ No
https://www.valleynews.in/archives/11721	?		More promo for his 2 books	✘ No
https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Photography_Tips_for_Beginners.html?id=bS8NzgEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y			This is actually just a link to buying the book	✘ No
https://www.dymocks.com.au/book/photography-tips-for-beginners-by-mutahir-showkat-9798566057286			Another link to buying the book. Is this even allowed on Wikipedia?	✘ No
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/20903567.Mutahir_Showkat			He has an account on Goodreads. So what?	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

• Strongly Keep This article should be stable on Wikipedia as this person is notable and has done some notable works so he deserve to be here on Wikipedia moreover here are some wiki users who are saying that this is kind of marketing there are lot of authors who publish their books and they are having Wikipedia even I don’t think there might be any author whose book isn’t available on book platforms so can we call those authors marketers too strongly opposed for the deletion this article should be here on Wikipedia to know more about this person check Google ,Books by Mutahir Showkat) Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizan Hameed Lone (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — Faizan Hameed Lone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Confirmed sockpuppet of Nurupa as per CheckUser. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hums4r for full details.Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So he has two books on Amazon... How does that make him notable? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I’m the major contributor to this article, I don’t know this person personally but I came to know through news about his work done and books then I thought I should create a wikipedia article regarding this person, but when I start creating the article I came to know there was an article created before regarding this person and that was deleted so before creating article I got through the Internet and I collected the all the information about this person then I start recreating the article, and finally I published the article when everything was done, now it’s under deletion discuss, as a Wikipedian I would like to say that this article needs to be here as the mentioned person is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurupa (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — Nurupa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please can you point me in the direction of some reliable sources showing significant coverage? Thanks Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are the enough sources available on internet if you will check clearly thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurupa (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & Salt. Thank you to Spiderone for the detailed source assessment. I largely agree with that assessment, and don't believe the subject currently meets any of the four points of WP:CREATIVE for creative professionals. It does seem as if the subject has a very vested interest in getting a page on WP, but I don't see the subject meeting notability requirements. Also, can the previous AfD discussions be added here for editors to easily access, or was the article speedied when Spiderone stated this article had been deleted twice before? --Kbabej (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kbabej - they were both speedy deleted. First one was deleted as WP:A7 and the second one was moved to draft then deleted as WP:G11 because it was spam. I did request A7 and G11 but it was removed by Faizan, an account created this afternoon with the sole purpose of fighting to keep this article on Wikipedia. I have requested CheckUser for both of the above accounts as I believe that they are sockpuppets of the indefinitely blocked editor that created the first two spam articles for this person. Once that comes back positive, I will strike their keep votes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone Thanks for the clarification! --Kbabej (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment some Wikipedia contributors want to get this article deleted only because books are available on the purchasing platforms I don’t know what kind of logic is this that books shouldn’t be available on shopping platforms if any author published a book that definitely goes on the shopping platform so it’s the silly reason to get this article deleted , Moreover the news articles attached to this article are the media source’s available in kashmir so we can’t even reject it on that base thank you.

No one is making the argument that because the subject's books are available on distribution platforms the article should be deleted. AfD nominations largely do so on the basis of notability and WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS (as the nominator stated above). --Kbabej (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He has got published on the every source available in his region so what else we need for a notability we can get every information regarding him on every Internet platform which is totally independent like Google Knowledge Graph, all apart there are lot of news sources regarding the mentioned person, it’s not necessary that only a person who has got published on big news platforms can have WP there are lot of Indian article which even don’t have such news sources how bout those articles those articles should be deleted then the reason for putting this article under deletion is that there are some wiki users who had used name of Mutahir Showkat and have created mess. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurupa (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can get in these newspapers if you pay enough money. It's called advertising. The articles cited are not at all written in a neutral tone and they are written for the sole purpose of promoting his two books. Many of them even contain links to where you can buy his books. Also, most of these press releases are identical so should not be considered as separate sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it’s the fault of the those media agencies who had published such articles and for more information on every pr article regarding to anything in the description there is mentioned that this is a pr article or tag of pr articles moreover the sources are not from the pr portals these are the real news sources of the valley, Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurupa (talk • contribs) 20:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per Spiderone's opening nom rationale and source assessment table. Celestina007 (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. The source assessment table crafted by Spiderone is helpful in determining the weakess of the sourcing. Wikipedia is not the right venue to advertise books. Netherzone (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Salt per Spiderone. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 21:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Keep Mutahir Showkat is enough notable to have a Wikipedia page so I recommend this article should be here on Wikipedia, as when i went through Internet I saw this person has done more than one notable work apart from the books, He is founder of an event organisation based in Jammu and Kashmir, All apart he is a good Podcaster too who has Got featured on Every big music platform, what else we need to prove the notability so I recommend this article should be here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muneeb Bashir Wani (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Muneeb Bashir Wani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Confirmed sockpuppet of Nurupa as per CheckUser. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nurupa for full details. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment' There are lot of reliable sources which point out the notability of the Mutahir Showkat it’s not the necessary that how many news sources are there for a person on wikipedia, as I can see there are some articles in Mutahir Showkat’s main article see also section those articles even don’t have more than 5 sources, it doesn’t mean we will delete them

for more check out the work done by Mutahir Showkat

Mutahir Showkat on Google Podcasts Mutahir Showkat on Apple Music Mutahir Showkat on Google Books by Mutahir Showkat Mutahir Showkat Books

• Keep I don't know about the process of deletion but I was invited by my friend to vote for the delete but when I checked about this person I felt he is legit person and he meet meet all the criteria as per :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) so I would recommend to keep the article here are some users who are trying to put down this article it might be due to some personal issues with this person as I too was recommended to vote for deletion.— 2405:204:8188:b687::263e:f8a5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete article of sockpuppet User:hums4r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.244.146 (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per source assessment table; fails GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant coverage, books are self-published, fails WP:GNG Ravensfire (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think the source table above shows enough that they aren't sufficiently notable for wikipedia. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, that user has just been confirmed to be a sockpuppet of the article creator, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hums4r. I have struck their vote as I believe that using a sock to vote counts as voting twice. I have not struck the master's vote. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lol i too was invited by my friend for the same i don't what is really going on this page is this jealousy or something personal so so called legit Wikipedians are trying to do.
• Keep i don't weather my vote will be counted or considered after checking the work done by Mutahir Showkat i would recommend to keep this article, more ever i suggest this article should be improved not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:240D:F757:FAB1:FB6F:5723:ECB3 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

• Delete As properly described by spider above, looks a clear case of promotions. Also articles look more of like regurgitated copies and clearly evident that they are press release work.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As I checked previous comments on this discussion page there are some comments that they were invited by their friends via social media to vote for deletion same is my case I was also invited for the same, but I think it’s the legit one to get on Wikipedia, as their are lot of sources available on the Internet related to this person as comparison to the order photographers and authors from Kashmir valley, so I’m raising my voice to keep this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:10f:ba0e:f603:6d64:448b:f034 (talk • contribs) — 2405:205:10f:ba0e:f603:6d64:448b:f034 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Perhaps you would like to share these sources so we can evaluate them and discuss on the evidence provided. Simply saying they exist somewhere on the internet when several other people have tried looking and failed to find anything of note. Otherwise your canvassed comment really doesn't help with the keep school. AFD is a discussion based on the inclusion policies of Wikipedia, if you can't prove they meet any of the criteria for inclusion with reliable sources then your argument will be ignored and can in fact lessen the weight of any further keep arguments as they get lost in the noise. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The user Muneeb Bashir Wani recently added the following comment to Template:Canvassed/doc. I am not sure where they meant to post the message, but I thought I'd include it here as it seems like it might have been meant for this page: following strike by Netherzone, 17:09, 25 March 2021‎

  "Keep while searching about this person i accendently came across through this page, as per my opinion he is enough notable to have a Wikipedia page, so this article should be kept."

The same user previously commented in this discussion, so this shouldn't be counted as an independent !vote. Srey Sros^talk 16:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Obvious self-promotion by blocked editor Hums4r, who I had attempted to mentor. Showkat is not notable, the sources are unreliable and clearly part of a promotional campaign. All Keep !voters should be blocked as obvious sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Fences&Windows 00:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: Isn't there any way we can prevent this guy Hums4r from ever using wikipedia again? He keeps showing up again and again and abuse this project Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Help I have some questions I need clarification about firstly i don’t know anything about user:Hums4r as it’s blocked already and but if we check the contributions done by user:Hums4r it were mainly done on Zeyan Shafiq, which is deleted article moreover there are some comments that this aricle Mutahir Showkat is of sp user:Hums4r I don’t know how it’s reliable that hum4r means Mutahir Showkat, Please check I don’t what had gone on WP before I don’t know why this all is going with Wp of Mutahir Showkat, it might be that they had used Mutahir Showkat’s name as a user to create their own page’s there are lot sp here who are trying to show me guilty when they are guilty, please do a quick check it might be there are some users who want to put this name Mutahir Showkat under salt, as if you can see the comments on the Discussion page For for the deletion on Mutahir Showkat are the same users who had contributed on Zeyan Shafiq article even there are some users who had took that draft of Zeyan Shafiq from draft space to main space, if user:Hums4r is guilty and I’m socket puppet of that user how these users can support me as a User:Hums4r and oppose me as user:Nurupa because you can see these users are major contributors of the articles created by user:Hums4r and now they trying to show me guilty I don’t know too much about this but please check all the user’s who had commented for deletion I feel they all are interconnected thank you.

You have already been proven guilty of sockpuppetry in this very AfD (using the Faizan account, of which the vote has now been struck) so you can stop playing the innocent victim card. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I supported Hums4r regarding Zeyan Shafiq and am now disappointed. Apart from that, I have no connection to Kichu or F&W. Also, re. "i don’t know anything about user:Hums4r ... support me as a User:Hums4r and oppose me as user:Nurupa" – if you claim not to be Hums4r, then it doesn't help your argument to refer to him as "me". Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:04 Tue 30, AEDT) 11:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & SALT per Spiderone's source assessment. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:GNG, subject is clearly not notable enough to deserve any space on Wikipedia. Eatcha 09:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete was directed here indirectly by user:Nurupa. Short of time, so I'll just acknowledge and reference the preceding deletes. It all looks like a poorly organized promotional campaign that takes no thought of actual article building concerns. The "keeps" are not based on any knowledge of our notability or sourcing requirements- merely the wish to keep this page up. There's obvious sock/meat puppetry afoot. Leave unsalted as a honeypot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nurupa not only tried to canvass me into voting here, but also messed up a legit RFP I made for a completely unrelated arcticle, placing this page inside of my request. And now this page is protected due to "Persistent disruptive editing". I know the user has been banned, but I had to mention what happened. Horcoff (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In fairness, I thing this page is protected due to all the socks. So it's still Narupa's fault. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this page as soon as possible we can't wait — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.241.193.96 (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC) — 43.241.193.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Message to Showcat. I'll give you the same advice I once addressed to Hums4r: go take some good photos of Kashmiri flora, fauna or cultural items, and donate them to Commons. Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:24 Tue 30, AEDT) 11:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 19:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAMBO[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG Citterz (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including The Ghanaian Times, ModernGhana, News Ghana, GhanaWeb and more. Grailcombs (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  None of those sources strike me as particularly reliable – much of it reads like it may be based on press releases or outright paid for, and much of it isn't really biographical coverage. Based on the four sources above, I'm skeptical regarding his notability. Blablubbs|talk 21:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's quite hard to get coverage in these sources especially in African countries. These are well known newspapers and magazines in Ghana especially The Ghanaian Times, ModernGhana, Daily Graphic, News Ghana, Yen, GhanaWeb. NitoMB (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A winner of Teens Choice Awards[4] with enough coverage on various websites and magazines. NitoMB (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:GNG based on the sources. Although I understand some of the issues with possible press releases passing for news articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has enough reliable sources coverage for WP:GNG in my view although some of the references have a promotional tone this could be a cultural attribute, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willi Mernyi[edit]

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

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

News coverage is not enough to pass GNG Citterz (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South West Challenge Cup[edit]

South West Challenge Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This pre-season tournament got some minor coverage in the North Devon press but I'm seeing very little coverage elsewhere. I found some results in the North Devon Gazette but nothing in a general British newspaper search.

I found two mentions on the BBC website but both are trivial [5] [6].

In my opinion, if pre-season tournaments are to pass WP:GNG, they should at least get some national level coverage or at least interest outside the local district. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Mata[edit]

J.D. Mata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable musician / actor. Could not find any reliable sources about him. Natg 19 (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:NACTOR. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable for any entertainment endevor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is a prolific director, actor, writer, singer. I have now added to the article a clearer reference about his nomination for Best Directing (Comedy), Indie Soap Awards, which is a subject-independent reference clearly establishing notability.Larry Grossman (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any references to back up your claims of him being a "prolific" director, actor, writer or singer? I do not believe the Indie Soap Awards are a notable award concurring notability to this person. Natg 19 (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The IMDb page on him listing works in almost every entertainment category, i.e., acting, directing, cinematography, writing, composing and producing from 2004 through 2017 show his work to be prolific in the 2000s and 2010s, and the listed works are independently verifiable, see https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1907292/ 2. His appearance in a nationally televised UPS Store commercial means he has been seen by millions of people on TV - that in and of itself makes him notable. See: https://www.ispot.tv/topic/actor-actress/kVO/jd-mata. Note: The foregoing link is independent of the subject matter of the article. 3. If you think that being nominated for an Indie Soap Award does not make the nominee notable the article on Indie Soap Awards for deletion! If you do not think the Indie Soap Awards article should be nominated for deletion, I cannot see how you could believe that individual nominees are not made notable by their nomination, since it is a national award with only six nominees in each category yearly. Yet, his notability does not rest merely on that one award nomination by any means. Larry Grossman (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that being nominated for a notable award once does not make the subject notable. See WP:ANYBIO. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough - however, that taken along with 1. his appearance in a nationally televised commercial, as referenced and linked in the article; 2. appearance in a well-known Lil Wayne video "How to Love," that is referenced and linked in the article, 3. appearance in the repeating role Luca in True Blood as referenced in the article, and 4. all of his other artistic works over the 14-year period referenced in the article firmly establish his notability. How many times does someone have to appear in artistic works viewed by millions of people before they are considered notable? The nomination for a notable award is just an indicator of his notabilty. When all of his artistic works - many viewed by millions - plus his nomination for a notable award are taken together, there can be only one conclusion, he is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. Larry Grossman (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• In which case the applicable criteria for notability that Mata must pass is either WP:NACTOR as an actor, or WP:NMUSICBIO as a musician. 1., 2. & 4. - If any of the works that he appears in were notable they would have their own articles, and if he had a significant role in those works he would be notable 3. - I can't see any reference to Mata or his character in the main cast of Tru Blood, or anywhere in the article. As it stands, I can't see how he meets the notability requirements. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with SailingInABathTub on these points. Additionally, simply appearing in videos or artistic works does not make someone notable. I would consider him notable if he had starring roles in these notable works, but WP:NOTINHERITED. As for his "artistic works over 14 years", I looked at his IMDB page, and I see a total of 6 acting credits. He additionally has 5 director credits, some of which overlap with his acting credits, which leads me to believe that he produced/directed/acted in some independent films. Nothing on his IMDB page leads me to believe that he is a notable or prolific actor. Natg 19 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you SailingInABathTub for pointing out that the True Blood article needs to be edited to include J.D. Mata's TWELVE appearances! I intend to edit it this weekend to include him. In the meantime, here is a link to the True Blood Fandom page dedicated to his role and listing his 12 appearances. ^[1]. Also, here is a link to another subject-independent website showing him love and celebrating him as a Texas actor from McAllen. ^[2]. Twelve appearances in a notable series with independent coverage by his fans makes him notable under WP:NACTOR. Larry Grossman (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: I just found in reviewing Wikipedia'a article on Season 4 of True Blood TWO references to "Tio Luca," which is the character J.D. Mata plays. Please see True Blood (season 4) and read the descriptions of both Episode 42 and Episode 43. To nail this in terms of WP:NACTOR, 1. True Blood is a notable series, 2. J.D. Mata has had multiple notable appearances, notable enough that the True Blood Season 4 article mentions his character twice [and I have not edited that article - those references were put in by someone else who finds those appearances so notable that they added it to the Wikipedia article on that season]. 3. Each episode is a separate work, therefore based JUST on his notable appearances in this notable show, he qualifies under WP:NACTOR as notable for having a notable role in multiple notable works. (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Second addendum: I just found a reference to Tio Luca in New York Magazine ^[3] Larry Grossman (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Even though Mata was in the cast of True Blood, he did not portray a major or notable character, so he still does not qualify for WP:NACTOR. Natg 19 (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely disagree with you, Natg 19. He appeared 12 times in the same role as Tio Luca. A character appearing in TWELVE separate episodes is a notable character that most fans of True Blood, a notable series, would recognize. Larry Grossman (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable and the article has almost no content except for a list of credits with no other information about this individual, his education or professional background. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I disagree with Liz's immediately above assertion made with no support that the subject is not notable despite all the points of notability I mentioned in the prior discussion; for example, his being nominated for best director for a notable award, the Indie Soap Awards; however, I would like to raise a new argument supporting his notability which is his triumph over institutionalized racism as a Chicano artist in reaching the level of notability that he has and ask you to re-consider your support of deletion by asking yourself if you might unwittingly be supporting institutionalized racism by applying standards of notability that if applied across the board might cause Wikipedia to be even less diverse and less representative. Give this guy a break! By deleting lesser known, though notable, artists from Wikipedia you are holding them down and making it harder for them to become even more notable, and if they are non-white and/or Hispanic artists you are causing Wikipedia to become an instrument of institutional racism! I invite you to view the works I have referenced and see his charm and artistic magic - maybe not for you, but are you sure that there aren't tens of thousands of viewers in, say, East L.A. or South Texas who are underrepresented in Wikipedia that might really love and remember his works? ...and as to the article itself, yes, the article can be much improved, but I can't do it by myself and if you delete it the Wikipedia community cannot improve it! Please reconsider. Larry Grossman (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Larry Grossman: please don't add another keep to every comment if you wish to comment on another editors vote just use a : to indent your message. I have struck your second keep vote. 02:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmatter (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - I had thought that the relisting meant it was a new discussion and I could vote again but it sounds like it is just a continuation of the previous discussion. I would thank you but do not know who to thank since you did not sign your post.Larry Grossman (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see nothing to put them over WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSIC or even WP:ANYBIO. The only keep argument hasn't offered any solid evidence that any of the criteria have been met. Being nominated for an award is not a criteria for inclusion. Race bias in coverage is not an argument for inclusion, even if it is proven that it is happening for this subject, Wikipedia is not the place to soapbox this. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I did find one newspaper article where he was the main subject through my university library: Crystal Olvera (July 29, 2011). "Watch McAllen actor J.d. Mata on HBO's 'True Blood' [8 p.m. Sunday, July 31]". The Monitor. The article is a substantial interview of the actor's role as the Medicine Man on 'True Blood' and his experience on set, as well as covering details of other work he has done in film, music videos, television, etc. However, this is the only substantial source I could find, therefore the actor fails WP:SIGCOV. A hometown boy makes it in Hollywood story isn't notable enough on its own.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 I did find a second secondary source reviewing his work on True Blood in glowing terms and note that both of these secondary sources are Texas-focused. It seems to me that he is certainly notable in Texas. If this article is deleted then you are taking away the ability of an reader of Wikipedia to look him up and get some more information about him. In fact that is why I started this article, because I looked him up and could not believe there was not a Wikipedia page about him. Here is the second secondary source focusing on him: http://lovingtruebloodindallas.blogspot.com/2011/07/watch-mcallen-actor-jd-mata-on-hbos.html. Larry Grossman (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you had hesitatingly recommended delete, does this new secondary source focusing on him give you further hesitancy or even convert your recommendation into a keep? Larry Grossman (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added FOUR secondary sources covering Mata's role as Tio Luca, a recurring character in the notable series True Blood. This has to be sufficient to prove notability. Please re-evaluate delete recommendations in view of this. Larry Grossman (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it didn't before, the article now meets WP:SIGCOV.Larry Grossman (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --Kemalcan (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kemalcan, does not fail WP:GNG which links to Wikipedia:Multiple sources which contains a banner at the top saying "This page in a nutshell: It would be hard to challenge a subject's notability when the subject is covered by THREE [emphasis mine] references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." THE ARTICLE NOW REFERENCES FIVE RELIABLE SOURCES COVERING HIM AND THAT ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. In the foregoing statement I have only counted secondary sources. Larry Grossman (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry you may need to review what makes a good reliable source here on Wikipedia, we do not accept user generated content as reliable sources this includes such things as blogs, wikis (including Wikipedia and fandom) and IMDB. We also don't accept self published sources like vimeo, youtube and press releases. This means the only source adding any value to the notability threshold or considered reliable is The Monitor reference, everything else is either passing mentions of the character, not the actor, user generated content or self published. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance, McMatter. I will re-evaluate the sources I've included. I just need some time to digest this and find sources meeting the established criteria. Hopefully this discussion can remain open for at least a week from the time of relisting to give me time to do so. Larry Grossman (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited the article to contain a link to a 2005 KABC-TV profile covering him and his directing and acting work in "Pan Dulce." This is a valid subject independent secondary source establishing notability; however, I do not presently have direct access to KABC-TV's archives, so I have for now linked to the clip via YouTube and yes, it was posted by the subject. Nonetheless the clip itself is a valid subject-independent secondary source.

• Delete The sources found by Larry Grossman are not reliable. trueblood.fandom.com and anything with .blogspot.com are going to be non-reliable self published sources. The Vulture article doesn't mention the subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, ScottishFinnishRaddish, the trueblood.fandom.com and blogspot.com references are user generated but importantly they are not self-published. Larry Grossman (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Self-published sources: That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs... are largely not acceptable as sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely understand and generally agree with your point about self-published sources; however, a distinction needs to be drawn between SELF-published and merely user-published, and in fact, there is only ONE SELF-published reference I am seeing referenced in the article and even that is merely a republication of an independent and reliable secondary source - and almost 3-minute 2005 KABC-TV spot focused on the subject of the article and here is link to it for ease of reference ^[1]. Larry Grossman (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now referenced a direct citation to the 2005 KABC-TV 3 minute segment featuring the subject and his movie Pan Dulce, so now you have TWO subject-independent, non-self or other user-published SECONDARY sources focused on him namely: 1. George Pennachio of KABC-TV news's 2005 3-minute feature of him and his first feature-length film "Pan Dulce," and 2. Crystal Olvera's 2011 article published in the The Monitor (Texas) featuring him and his acting work in HBO's True Blood. Note that the these two sources are separated by six years in time, demonstrating endurance of notability of the subject, focus on completely different artistic works, and were published in different states (California and Texas). Finally, his 2012 nomination for an Indie Soap Award for Directing (Comedy) further supports notability. While being nominated for a notable award in and of itself may not ESTABLISH notability, it certainly SUPPORTS it and when taken along with other completely subject independent reliable secondary sources separated by years of time and by place and completely focused on the subject, does establish notability. A fourth point for those on the fence is the 2012 New York Vulture article (another reliable subject independent secondary source) mentioning his recurring True Blood character Tio Luca. Even though it only mentions him by the name of his character, he is the only one who has ever played that character in True Blood, so it must be about him! Larry Grossman (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle Music Company[edit]

Carlisle Music Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn’t pass gng Pipsally (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searches turned up zero in-depth sourcing about this company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There's no doubt that the company existed, but unless anyone can dig up old paper articles that describe the company in any depth, there is not enough to work with per the "coverage" requirements at WP:CORPDEPTH. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails all relevant notability criteria such as GEN. It only exist on IMDb and the company's official website. Needs multiple RS with in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment per aboveRajuiu (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH --Devokewater 19:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lofi Girl (YouTube channel). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lo-Fi Girl[edit]

Lo-Fi Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:SOAP - promotional fork of Lofi Girl (YouTube channel), nobility issues, poor sourcing. Acousmana (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge anything useful to Lofi_Girl_(YouTube_channel), then redirect there. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Merge it with the Lofi Girl YT channel, maybe create a section about the character? Rushtheeditor (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2021
• Merge with Lofi Girl (YouTube channel), then have it redirect there. —ÐW^(T·C) 04:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge like the others said. The fact that the channel now has the same character name means this page creates unnecessary confusion, and both articles are already pretty short. Plus, the page Lofi Girl (YouTube channel) could just be renamed Lofi Girl (which currently redirects to Lo-Fi Girl) without ambiguity. ~Anon 28-Mar-2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:1402:1977:B53F:7D7D:2D4B:372A (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Lofi Girl (YouTube channel). HighKing⁺⁺ 19:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cox & Forkum[edit]

Cox & Forkum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prior AfD closed as keep, under very different standards than exist today. I can find no evidence of notability for this former cartoon/blog. This is probably the best source and and it's not independent. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy ping to RL0919 and Missvain, nom and closer, respectively. StarM 17:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's probably also best to ping Loadmaster, who participated in the previous discussion and has edited recently. The other two participants don't appear to be recently active. --RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I didn't think this was notable in 2013 and there aren't any new sources since then. One of the sources that editors cited for notability in the previous discussion is an interview, which would not be accepted as an independent source under current standards. Another claimed source for notability had been rejected at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard back in 2010; I regret that I didn't pick up on that in the previous discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abantika Deka[edit]

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

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

Player has no International notability, they have zero final appearences in any bwf tournament or continental championships. They have no national title and are not successful in any junior tournament as well by bwf. I doubt if they are notable enough to have article in Wikipedia.  Zoglophie 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Zoglophie 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Zoglophie 17:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Zoglophie 17:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create

• Delete: From the profile of the subject, the subject does not meet NBADMINTON. Queries with "Abantika Deka" -wikipedia does not result in enough reliable sources such that the combined coverage can meet BASIC. GNG is failed due to not having significant coverage. Unfortunately, no plausible redirect target here. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fourways#Schools. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fourways High School[edit]

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

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

Non-notable secondary school. Article supported only by close primary sources, not sufficient to establish notability; fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. Previously deleted (twice?) so a possible salting candidate also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is enough collectively, in the numerous non I sources , to justify working on this article. The parent article would be Gauteng, and indeed it is in Gauteng. or for that matter in Johannisberg I would look for the offline paper sources. Previously deleted (twice?) suggest to me targetting. Broadbrush statements about GNG without proof are not helpful.ClemRutter (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't who you're accusing of targeting, but I'll just blow past that. As for "GNG without proof" — the proof (or rather lack of it) is in the article; if you disagree, you can vote to keep, as indeed you have done. And since you're claiming that there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then the onus is surely on you to cite them, not on me to disprove your claim. PS: You told me earlier in a different context that a school needs to be 'globally' notable to warrant an article, so I trust whatever sources you'll be bringing forth meet the same standard for this school? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect To Gauteng. As things are the sourcing is pretty mediocre. Therefore, this doesn't pass WP:NORG as a subject and should be deleted. Maybe offline sources about it exist, but with zero evidence (not even the titles of the articles that it's supposed discussed in) anyone could say the same thing to keep an article on just about anything. Plus, knowing they exist without even articles titles, let alone knowing what's in the articles, doesn't help the article or Wikipedia any. Not to mention it's already been deleted twice and I'm sure that both times were for more then "targeting" (whatever that means). So, in light of all that, the article should either be merged or redirected. I'm fine with either. Or really just deleting and salting it so it doesn't needlessly come back into main space when it shouldn't and people don't get needlessly straw manned for nominating it again. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirecting to Gauteng doesn't make much sense. If it's going to be deleted, then delete it. Park3r (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figured redirecting is a good middle ground since like Park3r says it's pretty well known in Johannesburg. So it's a likely search term and redirects are cheap Etc. Etc. That said, I'm just as happy with it being deleted outright. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (do not redirect). Redirect to Fourways#Schools It's a fairly well known high school in Johannesburg (but not particularly notable), and there doesn't seem to be a lot in WP:RS about it.Park3r (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not having enough reliable sourcesSonofstar (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fourways#Schools after adding a source the mention of it there in a currently unsourced section. PamD 18:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as Fourways seems to be part of Johannesburg in the province of Gauteng I don't know why people are suggesting redirecting to Gauteng. PamD 18:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment people are probably just unfamiliar with the geography. I doubt anyone would consider redirecting a non-notable school in say Encino, to the California article. your suggestion for redirecting to Fourways#Schools is a reasonable one. Park3r (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with redirecting it to Fourways#Schools. Park3r is correct that I'm just not familiar with the geography. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree that redir to Fourways#Schools seems best, per PamD. (I'm not withdrawing my nom, though, only agreeing with this suggestion as the best way to handle this.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fourways#Schools, where it is already mentioned. No objection to nuking the content first. Protect if necessary. This iteration of the article is substantially identical to a previously deleted version. Significant independent RS coverage still not found. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Performance Technologies[edit]

American Performance Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence this is a notable holding company. Coverage is limited to press releases, and no significant, in depth coverage available to meet WP:ORG. StarM 17:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 23 March 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⁺⁺ 18:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Premier Arena Soccer League summer season[edit]

2011 Premier Arena Soccer League summer season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

2012 Premier Arena Soccer League summer season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2013 Premier Arena Soccer League summer season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2015 Premier Arena Soccer League summer season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2010 Premier Arena Soccer League summer season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2009 Premier Arena Soccer League summer season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2014–15 Premier Arena Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2015–16 Premier Arena Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2016–17 Premier Arena Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017–18 Premier Arena Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2018–19 Premier Arena Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2019–20 Premier Arena Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2020–21 Premier Arena Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2014–15 Western Indoor Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2015–16 Western Indoor Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2016–17 Western Indoor Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017–18 Western Indoor Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2018–19 Western Indoor Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2019–20 Western Indoor Soccer League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Multi-article nomination, all fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Typically, the only seasons articles that pass WP:GNG are for fully professional leagues, which these leagues are not. Note one similar article was previously deleted here, and there was a discussion started here about it Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added many related season articles to the nomination, will tag them all appropriately. And will inform WT:FOOTY of this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per AFD consensus. GiantSnowman 16:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, I find it odd how this is any different from 1985–86 South Midlands League, that wasn't professional at all, GNG wasn't met. I think people have lost priorities. Govvy (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all WISL - I need to look into the PASL ones a bit more but I've done some searches for coverage of individual matches in the WISL and not managed to find anything other than their own Wordpress site and their own Facebook page, which badly fails our standards for sourcing and notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all There are not enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all No evidence the articles are notable. Eldumpo (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all No trainwreck here, there's not a shred of notability here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom Devokewater 19:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Green Bay, Wisconsin#Arts and culture. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Tarlton Theatre[edit]

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

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

Article about a local theatre, created by its own owner in a clear conflict of interest and not properly demonstrating any strong claim to encyclopedic significance. As written, this essentially just demonstrates that the theatre exists, and fails to show a credible reason why its existence would be noteworthy -- for instance, it uses the word "historic" in the introduction, but fails to actually document any actual historic significance beyond the building's age. And for sources, there are two local news articles about the page creator's acquisition of the building, one local news article which happens to mention this theatre in passing as the venue where the current mayor happened to hold his victory party but is not about this theatre, and a mere listing in a property directory. So only two of the footnotes are actually helping to establish its notability at all, which is not enough coverage to claim that it would pass WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to show any significance. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for every owner of a local business to promote his own endeavours -- to be notable enough for inclusion, this theatre would have to show a lot more coverage and some evidence of actual significance, not just minimal verification that it exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing in the article indicates that this is a notable theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Green Bay, Wisconsin#Arts and culture: From the history section, the building does not seem to have any historic, social, economic, or architectural significance beyond "has existed for a long time". Querying with "The Tarlton Theatre" -wikipedia does not yield sources that meets NBUILDING as most sources do not cover the subject directly. GNG is not met as well due to not having enough significant coverage.
  Redirect per ATD-R. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waukegan Lightning[edit]

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

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

Non-notable defunct soccer team from non-notable league. Fails GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as they appear to be a non-notable team. At most consider a redirect to American Indoor Soccer League. GiantSnowman 16:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Barely any coverage; the best that I could find was this passing mention in a local news source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Chancery in Washington, D.C.[edit]

Caribbean Chancery in Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

After delving into the deletion discussion for the Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda in Washington DC, I decided to take a look at what was mentioned as their previous location. After looking to find reliable sources to update the article, I noticed that none of the countries listed as using that space have their embassies there. I looked to see if perhaps the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States used the location for their offices, but found none such information. My suggestion is to delete, as the article cannot currently pass GNG and is instead providing incorrect information. Note: this is listed as a second nomination as its first nomination was packaged within a larger deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, Cairo Bkissin (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete First of all, looking for "Caribbean Chancery" in DC brings up nothing but clickbait and WP mirrors, so the name itself seems to be made up. Searching by the address alone did not help. It's unclear exactly which embassies have space here, if any, but at any rate there seems to be nothing about the building or the office that seems notable in any way. Mangoe (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GEOFEAT / WP:NBUILDING. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mangoe, for reference, here is what I was able to find. The Embassy of Saint Lucia is located on K Street, as is the Embassy for St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Embassy of St. Kitts and Nevis. According to the State Department, Dominica's embassy is out in Arlington.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carruthers Corner, Virginia[edit]

Carruthers Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

These corners are going to be PROD ineligible because of the procedural close last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia. Topographic maps at WP:BEFORE strongly suggest these are named road junctions that fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG, not notable communities.

Also included in this nomination are:

Graves Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Johnsons Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Purkins Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Whites Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hog Farm _Talk 15:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete all Previous close was a mistake. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 15:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 15:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per King George County, Virginia 1720-1990 which seems comprehensive, mentioning places such as Dogue, Virginia, but no places with "corner" in their name.----Pontificalibus 08:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary DeWolf[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as head of a local school board. As always, school board is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia per se -- the basis for including a school board member or president in Wikipedia is not "he exists", but "he has a substantive reason to be deemed much, much more special than most other school board members". But this is not particularly demonstrating that -- while it has a lot of footnotes, it's actually very strongly reference bombed to blogs and primary sources (his own LinkedIn, raw tables of election results) that are not support for notability at all, and the portion of the citation pool which is actually media coverage is simply run of the mill local coverage no different than every other school board member everywhere else can always also show, which is not enough to make him more special than the norm for a not inherently notable level of office.
And "first member of [insert underrepresented minority group here] to do this not otherwise notable thing in one specific city" is not a notability freebie either -- if this had made him the first LGBTQ person ever to hold political office in the entire country, then he'd likely have grounds for inclusion on that basis, but not if he's merely the first LGBTQ person to serve on one specific local political body, in a city that had already elected other LGBTQ people to other more notable offices before him anyway.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable at all, and there's no strong reason being shown here to treat him as more special than most other holders of a not inherently notable office. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I'm not in favour of arguments which link notability to *national* status, it's a grossly misrepresentative measure: purely quantitatively, a Los Angeles Unified School District board member, for example, is representative of more people than the national parliaments of more than 50 countries. There are around 20 countries and territories with smaller populations than the number of students in the Seattle public school system. That said, this article reeks of PROMO and the sourcing is questionable. Would consider changing my !vote if a different sourcing analysis could be reasonably presented, but for the moment, I can't see it. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as school board members are generally not notable, even for large cities. The article uses quite a few poor sources, as mentioned above, and does not make a strong case for special notability. He has 100 hits from the city's main newspaper (The Seattle Times), but most are passing mentions in coverage of school affairs. SounderBruce 07:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. He seems to meet the notability requirement and seems to stand out from my perspective as a noteworthy individual. Although I am concerned about the connection with the subject that's noted in the warning box at the top of the article.--Greysonsarch (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aseem Sharma[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Author removed PROD and reverted a move to draftspace by Praxidicae. SK2242 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete there is no indication of notability in the article, much less in available sources and an in depth search. There are a lot of Aseem Sharmas and none of them appear to be notable, including this one. VAXIDICAE💉 15:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are not enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable actress. Doesn't meet WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DasSoumik (talk • contribs) 11:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was going to nominate this myself when I saw the revert of the draftspace move. Fails WP:NACTOR, does not have multiple notable roles, or any significant awards or following.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite being the author, I am willing to partake in the straw poll for Aseem Sharma's deletion having known its rationale. (Eddie Ogyner (talk)) — Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DeletePer WP:GNG, subject is clearly not notable enough to deserve any space on Wikipedia. Eatcha 09:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR; subject does not even meet one of the points. Non notable. --Kbabej (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Soccer League[edit]

Ultimate Soccer League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find any evidence of actual notability for this short-lived local semi-pro indoor soccer league. The refs are both dead links but can be accessed here and here, none of which show significant coverage.

No relevant hits on Google. ProQuest search only comes up with hits about a women's college league of the same name which is clearly unrelated... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dickinsons Corner, Virginia[edit]

Dickinsons Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As much as I would like to bundle all of these corners for King George County together, I'm worried that if I don't do this one separate, I'll run a WP:TRAINWRECK risk, as this one has multiple references and an entire paragraph of content. Essentially, the references are GNIS, a couple maps, and a few things that are related to V. A. Dickerson, the resident here. WP:BEFORE brings up a passing mention describing this as an "area" where the Dickinson family lived. I just don't see any evidence this meets WP:GEOLAND, with BEFORE bringing up nothing significant and the references either being 1.) GNIS, 2.) maps, which are excluded from bringing notability by GEOLAND, or 3.) about other subjects. The other corners in the county I will be nominating will come as a single bundled nomination. Hog Farm _Talk 14:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 14:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 14:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources lack evidence this is a community beyond the Dickinson family, less a notable one at that. Reywas92^Talk 17:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jtrrs0 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Stone Museum[edit]

Rare Stone Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The museum does not seem to be notable enough. I cannot read Thai so the only source cited is not accessible to me but I do not believe it meets the GNG or the specific WP:NONPROFIT that might apply to it because, as far as I can appreciate, it is only local and has not received substantial coverage in multiple sources. I would also note that its potential lack of notability was the source of an issue template back in August 2017 that has yet to be resolved. See below Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator.[reply]

• Keep Book sources exist and online. Can be expanded.† Encyclopædius 17:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per sources added by Encyclopaedius. I also added one (it's in Thai), there's quite a few hits on Google if one searches under the time name for the museum. Meets WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to have sufficient sourcing, which is being improved as we speak. The article is short but respectable and provides a reasonable amount of education on the subject that points in the direction of the subject having enough written on it to be notable. Vaticidalprophet 17:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a viable stub with enough sourcing to meet WP:ORG. StarM 18:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, There are enough sources to meet [[WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Grailcombs (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having seen all the sources and massive improvement I agree with it's notability and the viability of the article. Thanks for your help and many apologies for not having been able to find the sources myself! Jtrrs0 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources amount to a handful of mentions in little-known travel guides. The one Thai cite is a dead link. If there are valid book citations, where are they? A interesting oddity and perfect for Wikivoyage. It may be a labour of love, but it's also a money-making scheme at 150 baht admission. Seligne (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject meets GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Scott (quarterback)[edit]

Bryan Scott (quarterback) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, as only making two practice squads. Article is close to WP:G11, with significant sock contributions. Sources are mostly not WP:SIGCOV. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - despite the persistent sockpuppetry, this subject appears to pass GNG. See "For one day, Occidental quarterback Bryan Scott gets to perform like a Division I player at USC's pro day" and "Former Occidental Quarterback Bryan Scott making most of opportunity with Rams" from The Los Angeles Times and "Whicker: Occidental College has a dominant QB in Bryan Scott" from The Los Angeles Daily News. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the subject appears to pass GNG. In addition to the links shared above, please see "Occcidental QB Scott leads Team USA to gold" and "NFL Spring League success kickstarts Bryan Scott's NFL dreams". Please note that I have been asked by Mr Scott to comment and propose certain edits on his behalf. Also, please note that User:Bored&Broke is an account related to Mr Scott editing on his behalf - he wasn't aware of the disclosure policies and has been asked to refrain from making any further edits to Wikipedia. Hillster (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am inclined to agree with Eagles247. I also disagree that it is "close to G11" (but the page may have been improved since then). Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Punish the sock. But not the article, as it meets GNG. 2603:7000:2143:8500:9C8C:CDC1:69E8:916D (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mole[edit]

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

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