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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Los Angeles Transit Center[edit]

West Los Angeles Transit Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article concerns a bus terminal in Los Angeles. Despite being created in 2008, it currently cites no sources and BEFORE searches returned only two secondary sources ([3], [4]) that mentioned the terminal at all and did so only in a very cursory, passing fashion.

In short, I don't think this article meets WP:GNG or any other SNG. And given the lack of secondary sources, I don't see how this article could be supported with reliable citations. These issues have also been flagged on the page since 2016, so I don't see this changing any time soon. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It exists, but its creation was only two sentences in the Los Angeles Times on a local article on bus route creation in 1979. There's probably a place in the encyclopaedia to mention this, but it doesn't pass WP:GNG and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article, unless of course we're searching for the wrong thing, but that seems unlikely. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete or merge. Based on the substantial level of participation in the discussion, and the reasonably well-argued majority position for keeping at this time, it does not seem likely that relisting the discussion will yield any different result. There is no dispute that this is a geographic designation (even if unofficial) which is found in some reliable sources, and there is a reasonable argument that identified potential merge targets would generally only be appropriate for part of the subject, but not the entirety of it. This close is without prejudice to future proposals to merge to an appropriate target if one is identified, or to adjust the scope of the article to a more encompassing overall topic. BD2412 T 19:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Woollen District[edit]

Heavy Woollen District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nominating on behalf of User:RailwayJG, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Deletion of the Heavy Woollen District for JG's reasons. My own Google searching appears to only return unreliable sources and promotional ones or otherwise don't contain significant coverage. Books does return a bit of info that appears independent though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It appears to be a name with some history, appearing in Commercial Relations of the United States with Foreign Countries from 1868, specific parliamentary discussion including discussion of unionisation from 1905, and significantly referenced in government transportation studies from the 1970s. The article's sourcing could be improved, but this definitely passes WP:GNG as a "non-official" geography. Much of the sourcing I found was from the late 19th century, so the place name may be more historical than it has been (logical due to its industrial nature) but this is not a reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Geography Talk Page. This is an unofficial area, but it is of some historical significance and retains some significance to this day if only informal use by organisations (football leagues, clubs, CAMRA, historical societies etc). An alternative would be to merge content to all the sub-articles referenced in the Category, but some standardised text would be required and a stub article may be better in any case. Koncorde (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not merge the article into Kirklees Leeds and Wakefield borough pages. It doesn't warrant imo an article of its own with no official stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging would suggest that this page could be redirected to one or all 3. I initially considered that with Kirklees (as most descriptions suggest thr district is "north Kirklees" with Kirklees then having its own sub-section but it would achieve much the same as this article in any case, and it isn't historically associated with Kirklees as an entity. It has similar significance to the region as Staffordshire Potteries, Wigan Pier or the Royal Mile to their own as both a contextual piece of history and an ongoing colloquial descriptor used by the local populace and organisations. There is also a fair amount of historic coverage, multiple books making more than just passing comment about either the district itself, or the Trams or Transport company. Koncorde (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (And just to be clear: I am not suggesting it has the same popular usage or even historical or cultural significance as those: just that it shares the same underlying idea even if it has fallen out of use / significance / relevance in recent years other than by local organisations). Koncorde (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a long-established, still-used, informal name for an area which does not correspond to local authority boundaries past or present. If there are multiple definitions or descriptions, so much the better for: a Wikipedia article can discuss and source them, to help the reader who wants to know why the cricket league (etc) has this curious name. PamD 06:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've looked, and there appears to be ample historical documentation of this subject to support an article. There's stuff from analysis of wages through the reason for rising and falling employment rates between the world wars to smallpox vaccination rates out there to be used, none of which has been yet and all specific to this named district. Uncle G (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as stand-alone. As someone who's only just visited the Yorkshire Dales 80 miles away for the first time (only to buy a car from Otley in the short-daylight of November lockdown, otherwise I would have had a better look around) this has been instructional for me. Reminds of my late mother sending me as a toddler to the rag and bone cart with a bundle almost as big as me for a pittance (thrupence - "...is that all he's given you - and it was all wool...") and the post-war shake-up mattresses, pre spring interior. Now I can better-appreciate the industry/technology of the time. Per PamD, that's what the WP experience enables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknrollmancer (talk • contribs) 2021-03-29T12:52:41 (UTC)
• Can't say I agree with reasons it should be kept as there is no official ons or anything government wise to back up the district or area existence. The name is not what I am aware of as I live in Batley. I also think this name is more a coined name used and is better merged into the West Yorkshire Article as a separate tab. The reasons above are sensible but it seems more trivial then solid to be a stand alone article just because some corporations used it and it had a name in 1794 or so. Doesn't to me warrant a separate article. It just seems too bantering and joking to be taken seriously. And it has no defining coverage just a map with a bunch of towns. Its not really a district or an area. It is just a nickname. It should be merged with West Yorkshire as it has no official website or a ward/parish to back up its stance as a district or area. It need some contemporary sources not past names. I could write now an article called the Fenland District and put Louth Wisbech and Ely in them as they are the Fenlands. But no reliable sources back it and another example is the so called Manchester and Liverpool Megapolis. Just because they are near one and other doesn't warrant a Merseyside and Greater Manchester County Area. Heavy Woollen District is just a local nickname and is to me not of notable importance and significance. And that's coming from someone who lives in this supposed made-up district.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is ample reliable evidence of the use of the term, including use by institutions no longer connected to the wool trade. The district does not map closely to any local authority area, as the article says, but that is a good reason for an article separate from articles on local government districts and not merging into them.--Mhockey (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't think institutions and use of names were reliable sources I thought it was books articles and historical facts not because it appears in the name of an establishment?

  And unofficial means it is not actually there. It is just a name coined so how can a non official name be given its own article? I could just call all of Hyndburn borough Accrington Stanley and it be the name of a football team but it be reverted as it is not an official name. So how does an article with no official recognition other then in a coined term get a strong standing article of its own? Seems misinforming and very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:GEOLAND states: Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. This doesn't have legal recognition, but it's clearly been discussed by a number of reliable sources and passes WP:GNG, meaning we can have an article on it. I do agree the sourcing could be improved a bit. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As SportingFlyer, there are dozens of historical books dating back to the 1800's, and certainly as recently as the 1970's it was being used for Transport studies etc and is still referenced in timetables.[5][6][7][8][9]. It may not be of mega popular use these days, but that doesn't negate notability. Koncorde (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I see lots of passing mentions but no in-depth coverage. Perhaps you could give a WP:THREE for a GNG pass?----Pontificalibus 08:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus: There's so many potential sources in parliamentary proceedings, books, and historical newspapers. [10]. Most of the mentions in newspapers die out by 1930, but there are thousands of hits which clearly define the region. I'm not going to be able to find a feature article on the name for you, though. SportingFlyer T·C 10:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Again probably just me and some others but I think a tab of it in the West Yorkshire article would be more beneficial as West Yorkshire is more well known and given all of it falls under the county. I make more sense to have it in the West Yorkshire Article and it linked to the places mentioned in the Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield Articles. As well as each town or village it covers. I still fail to see the reason a stand alone article is needed for it. At least my urban area or built-up area articles are officially recognised by ONS and statistics. But this should not be reffered to as a district as it is not one. Maybe the lead should say "The Heavy Woollen Area is the name of a former wollen cloth made in parts of Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield in West Yorkshire, England". Then mention the rest but I challege the use of the term District as a district is usually associated with suburbs, cities and councils. Not a non-existing or unrecognized area.RailwayJG (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would be happy to have this discussion closed if the following changes were to be agreed on. Change District to Area and keep the lead as followed by me:

  "The Heavy Woollen Area is the name of a former woolen cloth area which was made in parts of the modern day boroughs of Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield in West Yorkshire, England. Located around the towns of Dewsbury, Batley, Heckmondwike and Ossett."

  And then If agreed. Including the change of name from district to area. I will happily ask for closure on the nomination. But if both are refused, I will continue to challenge it.RailwayJG (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have moved the page to Heavy Woollen Area article and made the lead changes. As it is agreed to keep. I think it the discussion can be closed. Happy with consensus and my neutral moving of the page. RailwayJG (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reliable sources call it district. It should be referred to as such. We just need to make clear in the lede that it is not an official district like a Rural or Urban. Please stop taking unilateral actions after you raised the PROD until discussions are completed and a reviewer officially closes. Koncorde (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you are doing is factually wrong, however. All of the documentation that people are pointing to calls it the Heavy Woollen District.

    You are going about this completely the wrong way. There's a documented thing that is addressed by numerous people over a period that is well over a century that is named a Heavy Woollen District. If there's enough reliable documentation for Wikipedia editors to write an article explaining to people, including you, who live in the area and have never heard of it, the actual history of your area and what the Heavy Woollen District was, then that's the right course of action.

    It's not about what you have heard about. It's not about your personal opinion of what something should be called in your view, long after the fact. This is a documented historical thing, and that's what it was called. We want people like you, who don't know what this is, to be able to look it up in an encyclopaedia, should they encounter mention of it somewhere. If you want to write about this subject, then please do your research, and go and find things to read about it before attempting to write and arguing about what its name is.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine keep it, I don't agree with it having an article but that my own opinion which Wikipedia isn't based on. But I think if thats the case. Fine I am not gonna argue it. I try to be constructive and don't see how an unofficial geograph as on a case-by-case basis doesn't warrant a place coined by a name and not by unofficial recognition by Kirklees, Leeds or Wakefield Councils... can have its own article with nothing government related but a local nickname. Could make a page for Manchester and Liverpool Being a megapolis but nothing supports it. It is done by assumptions and urban areas. RailwayJG (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a Liverpool–Manchester Megalopolis article, it used to be Liverpool–Manchester rivalry but someone moved it in 2019 and changed what the whole article was about. Although some of that was my fault, cos I added a brief section about it to the article 10 years ago, when I was a newbie editor. Eopsid (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think some of the arguments above are rather missing the point. The area cannot have a website because it isn't an administrative entity, and never has been, but it is a long-established and widely recognised term for the area. It may be necessary to look for publications that pre-date the web for sources, as I think the term has perhaps fallen out of use a little since the 1980s. Koncorde's suggestion of the Staffordshire Potteries as a comparison is good, as it is another area historically united by a common industry. The South Wales Valleys and the Black Country would be further examples. --188.28.141.170 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to West Yorkshire as a non-notable informal area without legal recognition per WP:GEOLAND. None of the keep votes above have provided sources to support a standalone article - the current sources are certainly insufficient, containing no in-depth coverage.----Pontificalibus 08:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The region is referred to in a number of books, Hansard etc both as discussion of organisations of the area, for the area, and about the area. This is far from exhaustive but demonstrates that it had ubiquitous usage for the area up to the 1970's at the least.[11] Further sources provided here, at Geography, and on the subject talk page all refer specifically not just to the usage of the phrase, but also recurringly the description of the industry, its people, its organisations, business groups, travel etc as well as regional planning by administrative units that are well beyond trivial coverage (although some are trivial) and continued reference by tourism boards etc in historical summaries - and that is without going offline for additional sourcing (for which a reference list from the West Yorkshire Archive association is provided on the talk page). Koncorde (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a few links into Ext heading commented out - haven't got the time presently, but the Diocese of Leeds looks interesting.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree merge into West Yorkshire. One could make a tab about this district in the Kirklees Wakefield and Leeds Pages. And cover it in detail. Don't see why it needs a separate article. One other thing that could be done is to merge it into a new article which covers the former Yorkshire industrial history and cover all the areas with a district.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Railway JG (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anything with Heavy Woollen District Trades Council: 1891-1904 minutes but County Archives will have got the title right. Another Primary - is anybody bovvered? Not me.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Many keep arguments rely on widespread usage of the term in sources, but this isn't enough. For example consider "Central Southern England" - this is used in numerous contexts to refer to an informal area, but there's no consensus on what this area is, and no sources discuss this area in detail outside of their own specific contexts, so we don't have an article on it. Just because a trade union, or a bus company talk extensively about their "Heavy Woollen District", this doesn't make the term notable outside of those contexts. So we could have an article on the Heavy Woollen District branch of the General Union of Textile Workers, or the Heavy Woollen District Transport Association or whatever, but unless there are sources discussing and defining the area in detail outside of specific uses, we can't have an article on it (Look at the Further Reading on Staffordshire Potteries for the type of coverage needed). Lots of sources have been waved around, but can anyone name several specific ones that are sufficient to satisfy GNG? If not, WP:PAGEDECIDE suggests we may be much better off talking about this area in the context of another article, such as West Yorkshire.----Pontificalibus 06:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Pontificalibus. There is names for north and south Midlands which were used for Milton Keynes for example but nothing sufficient enough to warrant a separate article. Either a merge into the West Yorkshire Article would be better or a new article as you suggested with names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PAGEDECIDE states "When creating new content about a notable topic..." (emphasis added); this was created in 2005 and that content still holds good. This is typical of the contrived, artificial arguments that WP has been developed to allow; invoking sigcov, as I expected and wrote into Talk 29 March simply does not heavily apply to non-topical - historic - articles.

No-one wrote or writes copiously, explicitly, with the secondary-motive of anticipating third-party usage at some point - 1, 10, 40 or 100 years later.

7:2 !votes, not counting proxy-nom Crouch, Swale as an indeterminate, presumably recused and again an indeterminate, Eopsid (non-!vote) {not pinged to obviate shouts of canvassing]. There is ample evidence that this was significant around Batley, as just one place, contrary to the experiences of the de facto nom; and these uses are ongoing. One (ownership unclear) source has comprehensive coverage but with a lot off-topic, so add ((Unreliable source))? Obviously (again as I wrote at Talk), there's always going potential for some degree of CIRCULAR; I first encountered blatant local plagiarism and copyvio from national in 1980; 'they' (now Bauer) were entirely unconcerned, confirming it was expected in the print trade and something they learn as apprentices, but agreed it was OTT.

How many more changes of tack will there be? So, to summarise:
it's not a District;
no defined boundaries
there's no website/legal status
the de facto nom has never heard of it despite historic sources to the contrary
it fails GNG
The sources are insufficiently-deep and/or recent/regularly-ongoing
one source is unreliable/localised
it fails geoland
Anything else to invoke?

Moving/renaming would be WP denying history. I didn't just dream-up the Encyclopædia Britannica refs; almost though, after a sleep I awoke remembering another similar article, also termed as a 'district' from 2005, changed to "area" in 2017 (the deletionists don't know about it ).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you brough up the North Midlands and South Midlands RailwayJG but articles do exist for them. I'm a keep vote, because the article has lots of sources mentioning the district, I think a lot of which have been added since this deletion discussion started. but I will admit the article is quite messy at the moment. Eopsid (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus: Your point isn't really true - the district's clearly defined as being centred on Dewsbury and including Batley, and is discussed as a district by the Leeds newspapers in the 1890s, and is discussed as a whole in articles like this or this. The area's also been defined by the UK government. It's not a vague region, it is discussed and defined by sources. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThanQ, User:Eopsid, that is 8:2 !votes then. The article may have looked a touch messy, as I added a new ref under a separate Notes heading, which auto-generated a TOC; I then placed the historic union text behind the existing first part to verify the actual name, all as a separate lede, adding another placeholder heading for the main body. It looked 'wrong' as there's really not enough for headings, so I deleted the Notes heading, placing the ref inline, which removed the TOC, etc. I knew it would likely be messed with so wasn't a priority.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ringo Starr discography#Compilation albums. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icon (Ringo Starr album)[edit]

Icon (Ringo Starr album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pretty notable artist, but this particular compilation seems to fail WP:NALBUM. I can't find any coverage apart from the AllMusic review cited in the article, which by itself is not enough to establish notability. Did not chart and no other indication of notability. Should be redirected to Ringo Starr discography#Compilation albums Lennart97 (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ringo Starr discography#Compilation albums. 8 pages into google search showed only user generated sources and e-commerce platforms.Less Unless (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ringo Starr discography#Compilation albums Devokewater 10:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grays Corner, Buckingham County, Virginia[edit]

Grays Corner, Buckingham County, 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)

Non-notable unincorporated area ( This is a testing balloon of sorts; if this is deleted I have a bunch of other unincorporated areas in Virginia to nominate as well, but I don't want to mass-nominate until I know if they would be deleted or not.) Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete - the searches I conducted bring up a couple passing mentions, but I couldn't find significant coverage of this location. Possibly a road junction. Either way, it fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Talk 22:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Virginia has massive swaths of articles falsely characterizing places as communities, or at least failing to establish such neighborhoods are notable, due to a ill-conceived mass production of pages from the WP:GNIS. Reywas92^Talk 22:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I found 1 fact, but it turned out to be about Grays Corner, Westmoreland County, Virginia, named after local landowners. Uncle G (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of philatelic material depicting an aspect of Pakistan[edit]

List of philatelic material depicting an aspect of Pakistan (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: This list only looks like a random collection of country links that fail notability WP:LISTN and WP:LISTVERIFY. No significant coverage in published reliable sources are found. Only one of the numerous entires has a source to verify its existence. ww2censor (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ww2censor (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ww2censor (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Return to creator, notability unknown. No discussion, not in any tome. (Apologies to Elvis.) Fails LISTN per nom and being too broad and ill-defined a criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No need to explain such an obviously failure of WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary, and I severely doubt pages like this exist for any other country. And if they do, delete those too. AdoTang (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A massive list sourced to a blog? Of stamps or stamp-like things that have something vaguely to do with Pakistan?? The content isn't even comprehensible enough to fit into Postage stamps and postal history of Pakistan. Estheim (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. As it fails WP:GNG. Iflaq ^(talk) 14:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Devokewater 14:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No obvious notability as a topic, fantastic title though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 19:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunda Empire[edit]

Sunda Empire (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 proposed the deletion of this article for the reasons of being a one-off Facebook meme that has no lasting notability.

The fictitious entity "Sunda Empire" is not a real historical kingdom nor a contemporary political movement with substantial societal followings and impact. This is shown from the excerpt from an article on the group by the Jakarta Post:^[1]

The ridiculous, if amusing, claims of the self-appointed Grand Prime Minister of the Sunda Empire-Earth Empire in Bandung, West Java, and the King of the Keraton Agung Sejagat (world empire) in Purworejo, Central Java, have led them to becoming laughing stocks over the past few weeks.

The quote shows that the entity does not seem to be a serious movement and more of a "meme" that has been consumed by the public on social media for an entertainment purpose.

Its "online meme" nature is also attested by the following quotes by another article.^[2]

The emergence of the so-called Sunda Empire-Earth Empire in West Java's provincial capital of Bandung, which the group claimed as the home city of the world's diplomatic corps, has caused a sensation online.

The Sunda Empire came into spotlight shortly after social media was rocked by the emergence of "Keraton Agung Sejagat" or “World Empire”, an apparently fictitious kingdom based in Purworejo regency, Central Java, which claimed itself to be the successor of the ancient Majapahit Empire.

The leader of the movement has been arrested shortly after the sensation and there has been no real development toward an actual creation of a legitimate political entity.

As such, there will be no content of the article besides their fringe claims based on no historical groundings, and the arrest of the leaders. A WP:WEBNOTE tag was placed since January and after several attempts by different authors to demonstrate the notability of the entity, it still does not exceed the length of a stub article.

For these reasons, I believe this article does not meet WP:GNG and needs to be deleted. JahlilMA (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The coverage is in Indonesian, but the titles suggest this meme may be notable, on the other hand the coverage seems to be from a short period of few days suggesting WP:NOTNEWS. But the article is confusing and may even be WP:TNTable. The lead mentions claims not supported by the body, and the article doesn't make it clear what is the topic. Is it a meme? An NGO? A hoax? It's a mess, that what it is. Ping me if better sources are found and this mess is rewritten to make it clear what the article is about. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I considered nominating this myself. It is some sort of joke/fantasy world that does not seem to have gained enduring attention. Mccapra (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Facebook fantasy does not have notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Mortimer[edit]

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

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

Election candidate for 2021_Hartlepool_by-election. WP:POLITICIAN is explicitly clear: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." All coverage is related to that making this a WP:TOOSOON case, which can be recreated if she wins. Valenciano (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Valenciano (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems daft, only to recreate it in a few weeks, but yeah, WP:CRYSTAL and all that. Jdcooper (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did think about that, but not nomming stuff like this is effectively giving people precedent to create articles on candidates in a 5 to 6-week run-up to an election and then arguing that we should just wait till election day and see. Such articles are often promo pieces. This largely avoids that, but there's nothing in it which isn't in the by-election article. Valenciano (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the stipulation that the page can be freely re-created should she get elected. --The Right 'Orrible (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election so that it can be more easily created if she gets more press coverage. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would support this idea. Would also help the page not get recreated in the meantime (unlike deletion). Jdcooper (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Chessrat. I considered proposing draftification, but it's enough of a stub that retainable content isn't really an issue. Vaticidalprophet 23:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Will set a bad precedent even for by-elections. Kalamikid (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election. It does seem harsh, as all but one of the other candidates are former MPs and have articles, but these are our rules. Farmer and local councillor plus candidate does not add up to notability. Keep the various categories for the redirect. PamD 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election, I think it's better if the page is for the meantime directed there- if she doesn't win, no skin off our noses, if she does win, can easily be recreated.BitterGiant (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As someone above said this is not standard practice for by-elections and they should not have an article until elected MP, which probably won’t happen in Hartlepool anyway. P.S. My guess is a Labour win on a very low vote share due to a split vote with the independent ex Labour candidate taking some anti Labour votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:C189:F4D5:14B7:427A (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per Chessrat. Will remove the risk that the page is turned into a campaign ad in the coming weeks. OGBC1992 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As usual, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, but this does not even try to claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten her into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy. I'm not convinced that redirecting unsuccessful candidates to the elections they ran in is warranted in most cases — for one thing, they significantly outlast the likelihood that anybody would ever actually be searching for that person anymore, and for another, they can actively interfere with the process of getting an article created if and when a different, more notable Jill Mortimer comes along. So I just don't see a redirect as necessary in such cases. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't the first time someone has jumped the gun and created a page for someone they think is the likely winner of a UK by-election, and it wont be the last. It's important we don't allow this to set a precedent. I disagree with calls for a redirect - I think its satisfactory for people searching the name to get a typical list of results, with the by-election likely being the first one. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for Parliament. --Enos733 (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NPOL as only coverage is informing us she's standing, not notable outside being a candidate. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election per TOOSOON. Article can be restored if the candidate wins. --RaviC (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy and snow re-direct or delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL. As per Maswimelleu, we do not want to encourage this sort of thing. Bondegezou (talk) 18:29, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Zoe Today[edit]

Dr. Zoe Today (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 don't think this satisfies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(media) FMSky (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability and lots of evidence of self promotion. Canterbury Tail talk 16:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As the subject doesn't seem to pass notability criteria. Top results from search engines are user dependent websites. Iflaq ^(talk) 20:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The notability test for radio content is not simply the ability to use the show's own self-published content about itself as technical verification that it exists — it requires journalistic coverage about the show to appear in media, but no such sources are being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sindee Jennings[edit]

Sindee Jennings (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 was nominated for speedy G4, but it has considerably more content and references than it had when deleted previously, so I think it would need another AfD. Beyond that, I have no opinion whatsoever. Whoever closes this, please do not consider my nomination as a !vote for delete or a !vote against deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I tagged this for G4, which was declined because of new references. Still lacking in non-trivial independent reliable references needed to pass WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Several porn award nominations, but porn nominations were deprecated from WP:BIO in 2014 as not credible indicators of notability. Other wikis indicate a NightMoves win, but that award failed the "well-known and significant industry award" criteria of PORNBIO. The article is basically a filmography rendered both as prose and as list, where the bulk of the references back up the only film appearances. A more detailed breakdown of sources: 1. IAFD - non-significant coverage; 2. Texas Confidential: trivial listing; 3. Do androids sleep...: cast listing (trivial mention); 4. XBIZ: promotional press release - not independent; 5. AVN: cast listing; 6. adultfilmdatabase.com: neither reliable nor significant; 7. AVN: trivial mention of cast members; 8. AVN: trivial mention in apparent press release; 9. AVN: cast listing in promotional press release.; 10. adultchamber.com: press release/business directory listing; 11. XBIZ: promotional press release; 12. IMDb: cited for porn award nominations. Independent searches for reliable sources come up with nothing substantial. No real change in notability since it was deleted in 2014. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it does not meet the criteria So I created the article in good faith and don't mind if it gets deleted. After some discussions linked by User:Gene93k at Talk:Sindee Jennings discussions were made to establish a criteria. But NOTHING was updated in the WP:Notability guidelines that new users or people editing these pages can find. This created a persistent issue as shown in multiple discussion AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicia Fox,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Daniels, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Chechik. User:Gene93k also mentions "claims of porn awards satisfying WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO fail without support of independent reliable sources. Nearly every such appeal since 2019 has failed at AfD. " so why is no one doing an RfC to update the Guidelines to prevent this issue? --Cs california (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG Devokewater 10:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 18:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Ho (oceanographer)[edit]

David Ho (oceanographer) (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 the criteria either for academics or business people HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment the MA profile shows a decent number of publications and citations, with 100 publications and 3500 citations in a presumably low citation field he seems to be either close or above the bar for WP:NPROF. Adding this to the media coverage the bamboo bikes have generated, he could probably pass the bar (article in NYT, SFGate etc). --hroest 02:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is actually a surprisingly highly-cited field. Per Scopus metrics of Dr. Ho and all 150 of his coauthors (with more than 15 pubs):

Total citations: average: 4487, median: 2458, Ho: 2464.

Total papers: avg: 84, med: 67, H: 60.

h-index: avg: 30, med: 26, H: 26.

Top 5 highest citations: 1st: avg: 579, med: 387, H: 388. 2nd: avg: 379, med: 180, H: 326. 3rd: avg: 252, med: 144, H: 193. 4th: avg: 203, med: 131, H: 93. 5th: avg: 171, med: 99, H: 83. JoelleJay (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, given above analysis by JoelleJay and Hannes Röst, the article may be kept per NPROF. Kirtos67 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with the above users, the hundreds of citations of his work meet the NPROF criteria of "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Furthermore, his involvement with the Bamboo Bike Project constitutes "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". I would suggest including here more information and sources related to the Bamboo Bike Project which mention David Ho (there are more more than a few). The Bamboo Bike Project is undergoing its own AFD discussion, that content could be partially merged into David Ho's article. --Alan Islas (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The citation record (under "David T. Ho") looks good enough for WP:PROF#C1 to me, and the coverage of his bamboo bike side project adds some interest and saves this from being purely "keep because numbers are big". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: . I agree with the above users, the hundreds of citations of his work meet the NPROF criteria; the lad has a big future in climate change, methinks. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Hazrul Shah Abdul Hakim[edit]

Mohd Hazrul Shah Abdul Hakim (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 games recorded in a fully professional league on Tribuna, Mackolik, Soccerpunter or Soccerway. No assertion or evidence of passing WP:NFOOTBALL.

I could not find any significant coverage of this player and none is cited in the article so I'm concerned that he fails WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFOOTBALL + WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable --Devokewater 11:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad College of Engineering[edit]

Sinhgad College of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No RS to satisfy NSCHOOLS Vikram Vincent 18:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:50, 28 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) 23:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DWARF optimization and duplicate removal tool[edit]

DWARF optimization and duplicate removal tool (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. Its a feature in linux that compresses files with a certain file extension. I couldn't find any non-primary sources for the software. One source is an email written by the original developer, the other is a download link.

There is an entry of the software within the official linux manual though, Although I'm not sure if that's considered notable enough.

Daiyusha (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources required to establish notability. The Linux manual is not independent or secondary, nor were any of the other sources I could find. Msnicki (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per Msnicki. Kirtos67 (talk) 16:51, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Environmental Conservation Organisation[edit]

Sinhgad Environmental Conservation Organisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A college based conservation club that did some minor activities that is not notable Vikram Vincent 18:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 28 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad College of Commerce[edit]

Sinhgad College of Commerce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A non notable tertiary institute that does not satisfy NSCHOOLS as there are no RS Vikram Vincent 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we need independent sources which are lacking for this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Institute of Technology[edit]

Sinhgad Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another non notable stub that does not satisfy NSCHOOLS and with no RS Vikram Vincent 18:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:31, 28 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) 23:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Yashin Cup[edit]

Lev Yashin 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)

Not notable Dr Salvus 18:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 18:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I see plenty of coverage similar to [12].--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, so this is part of a deletion nomination of about 12 articles that are about similar. Should have been a combined single AfD. Not at all convinced these articles should go, my extended remarks are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trofeo Cappelli e Ferrania. Herostratus (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of widespread notability. The appearance of data in RSSSF alone should not be enough to merit a keep. Eldumpo (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - on evidence available, does not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT or WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad College of Pharmacy[edit]

Sinhgad College of Pharmacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A non-notable stub which relies on a single primary source and no RS to support its existence. Vikram Vincent 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:23, 28 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smt. Kashibai Navale College of Engineering[edit]

Smt. Kashibai Navale College of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS and has no RS. Vikram Vincent 18:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:19, 28 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sou. Venutai Chavan Polytechnic[edit]

Sou. Venutai Chavan Polytechnic (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 diploma providing institution. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS and has no RS. Vikram Vincent 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:14, 28 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) 08:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FMF Cup[edit]

FMF 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)

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found this article, but, looking at the pictures, this has nothing to do with U17 football so is probably just an unrelated tournament organised by the Moldovan Football Federation. U17 friendly tournaments are not inherently notable and there is no evidence of notability here. Fails WP:GNG and looks to fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, so this is part of a deletion nomination of about 12 articles that are about similar. Should have been a combined single AfD. Not at all convinced these articles should go, my extended remarks are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trofeo Cappelli e Ferrania. Herostratus (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stadion Wals-Siezenheim. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salzburgerland Cup[edit]

Salzburgerland 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)

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteRedirect to Stadion Wals-Siezenheim - no indication that this collection of friendly matches passes WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question @Dr Salvus:, @Spiderone:, @CommanderWaterford: @GiantSnowman:, Would it be any use to redirect to Stadion Wals-Siezenheim where the event happened and mention with a sentence there? Govvy (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an option. GiantSnowman 12:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair enough as an WP:ATD. There is one reliable source in the article which would be enough to verify that the tournament happened. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Stadion Wals-Siezenheim. I've added a paragraph there for this. Govvy (talk) 20:23, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coppa Città di Torino[edit]

Coppa Città di Torino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is a mention of a tournament of the same name on the FIFA website but, considering that talks about a match between Juventus and AC Milan and the match was officiated by a referee born in 1882, it is clearly an unrelated tournament. I can't find any suggestion that the friendly tournament that is the subject of this article is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG, the FIFA search hit does not establish sufficient notability CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Reliable sources not found & Non notable. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trofeo Monte Bianco[edit]

Trofeo Monte Bianco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:50, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trofeo Valle d'Aosta[edit]

Trofeo Valle d'Aosta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:09, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Torneo Città di Milano[edit]

Torneo Città di Milano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence this short-run friendly was a notable tournament. StarM 18:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:09, 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 Chitkara University, Punjab. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology[edit]

Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology (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, WP:NORG and WP:NSCHOOL. The only source in which it is covered in detail is an obviously paid piece here. My attempt to boldly redirect to Chitkara University, Punjab was reverted. There is nothing to merge, so proposing Redirect to Chitkara University, Punjab or Delete. Muhandes (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect--Asterisk7421 (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: the above editor is the one who objected the redirect in the first place and seems to have changed their mind, making this entire AFD redundant. --Muhandes (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE- I am suggesting redirect opposed to delete because deletion of article is totally absurd, i objected redirection earlier as i thought this article should exist as a standalone page. that's it!!! --Asterisk7421 (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. It seems like redirect is a better idea than deleting the article as there is already a mention of this article (name) in the redirect page. Iflaq ^(talk) 20:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SUGGESTION- Hi, I am fairly new here but have took my time to understand this issue and i think redirecting Chitkara Institute Of Engineering and technology to specifically to its mention in Chitkara University Punjab in the list of Schools and Institutes might be a solution. it has been done before with sandoz to novartis page --Wikigetter (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chitkara University, Punjab. The college is not notable in itself. Vikram Vincent 13:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Righeira discography per WP:PRESERVE, as there is a clear consensus that there should not be an article on this topic, but no argument that the title should not redirect to an article properly mentioning the topic. BD2412 T 19:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bambini Forever[edit]

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

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

While this group had several hit songs, none of their albums, including this one, appear to meet either WP:GNG, and definitely don't meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nomination, the album doesn't qualify NALBUM. Kirtos67 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Righeira discography as is standard procedure in case anyone searches for the album title. Neither this album nor any of its singles made the charts and it received no significant coverage on the music media, at least as can be found in online sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is evidence that an interested editor keeps reverting redirects for this band's articles, so Protect against reversion of the redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Righeira discography: Same thoughts with similar AfD. Barely found anything about the album. Search results return article in Italian and I can't tell if it's briefly described there or just passing mentions. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:, per nomination, the album doesn't qualify NALBUM. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 19:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XCade[edit]

XCade (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:N. No significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The WP:VG/RS custom Google searches returned 0 sources. A standard Google search found a handful of trivial mentions but plenty of unreliable sources like forum posts, social media, YouTube, and mirrors of this article. Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I couldn't find any material in reliable sources, Google Scholar, or Newspapers.com. There are passing mentions in two books (via Google Books) but nothing even close to significant coverage. IceWelder [✉] 16:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Very old article, and it shows. No significant coverage outside trivial mentions in citations for other, unrelated topics. Nothing to redirect to, either. Namcokid47 22:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Well, Shareware is passé, as is software for Palm OS. This is very old, and superseded by new apps and new iterations of Linux, etc. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)D[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Rose Wiesel[edit]

Alex Rose Wiesel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable actress, perhaps too soon but there is no meaningful coverage, it's all interviews and press releases (or blackhat SEO) and she hasn't held any major TV/film roles, just repeated unnamed background characters. VAXIDICAE💉 14:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not currently satisfy acting notability or general notability. There is already a draft at Draft:Alex Rose Wiesel; the draft can be left in place, and may become an article in the future if she becomes notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC✉ 20:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, sufficient sources to support notability per WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC do not appear to exist. Beccaynr (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --Kemalcan (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nominators assessments, news are not credible. Peter303x (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanat Sawant[edit]

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

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

Contest PROD by IP user. Subject clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN; no songs or albums in the charts at any point, no significant accolades, no significant influence within field/genre, has no entries in any reputable encyclopaedias. Fails GNG as has zero coverage outside of his own press releases. This article was protected from creation last year as a pre-emptive measure due to persistent sockpuppetry relating to Sawant in draft space. This protection was recently lifted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt and consider lodging the creating editor in a new SPI. Nom has covered everything. Picture is up for deletion on Commons. Fiddle Faddle 15:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that all of the other edits were done while logged out. I can't find any other accounts linked with this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under WP:G11 as this is a vanity page. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @GPL93 As long as it is salted. Otherwise AfD gives us a G5 opportunity to keep this material off Wikipedia Fiddle Faddle 17:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Timtrent - Nope - "A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: per G11. Currently only serves Promo, would neet to be rewritten entirely. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've tagged this as G11 as I agree with the above comments. If that IP sock removes the tag, please restore it. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just semi-protected the article for 24 hours because of persistent edits by IP addresses, which appear to be the article creator evading his block. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Every Reference is included I think it is important to keep this entity as he’s already famous in most of the nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:6:A0B7:1823:3DDC:F023:13F1 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The IP is not only a single-purpose editor, but is a presumptive sockpuppet of the original editor. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 28 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. Daniel (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Technical Education Society[edit]

Sinhgad Technical Education Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Had to clean up a tonne of advertising cruft. Wikipedia ain't a web host for non notable cruft. RS missing. Fails NSCHOOLS. Vikram Vincent 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:57, 28 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, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2013-10 NBN school of engineering no consensus

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jack Frost (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoX[edit]

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

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

Audio editing software. Unclear notability (WP:GNG). Cites no third-party sources, and a Google search finds no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 12:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, covered in several books on Linux [13][14][15][16][17][18] – Thjarkur (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thjarkur's sources. ~Kvng (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thjarkur's sources. ~ Klimov (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Halzle[edit]

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

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

Meets neither WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom. There's a smattering of "transactional" coverage discussing his hire as an assistant coach, but you'd expect that of all assistant coaches. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG + WP:NCOLLATH CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:49, 28 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. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Institute Of Management[edit]

Sinhgad Institute Of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Had to throw out a tonne of advertising cruft. Org fails NSCHOOL. No RS found. Created by a SPA. Vikram Vincent 12:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:50, 28 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. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Institute of International Business[edit]

Balaji Institute of International Business (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 page post clean up does not satisfy WP:HEY. Org does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS. RS missing with a BEFORE. Relied upon primary sources, paid adverts, press releases. Creator is a SPA. Vikram Vincent 12:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:26, 28 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. Sandstein 11:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Knickerbocker[edit]

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

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

A similar article at this title was previously deleted, and this new article was tagged with WP:G4, but the source used in the new version post-dates that deletion discussion so I've declined the speedy tag and am nominating here for a new discussion. I can't find any indication that GNG or NACTOR are satisfied: I can find UGC fan-site coverage of the subject, but only passing mentions in RS. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per non, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. --John B123 (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per non, fails WP:NACTOR -- Alexf^(talk) 10:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BASIC due to insufficient sources and no indication of meeting WP:NACTOR. Beccaynr (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Striking !vote per Dream Focus comments below. Beccaynr (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NACTOR. It's not enough to show that a voice actor exists, they must be notable. The subject does not approach this bar. Ifnord (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD I find this https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=135490 where it says (2016) Won Staff Choice Award & People's Choice Award for Breakthrough Voice Actress of the Year at 4th Annual BTVA Anime Dub Awards So that's one notable award, I not sure about the other one. Meets the subject specific guidelines for voice actors found at WP:ENTERTAINER, #1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Notice the roles that are bold are major/main characters in the notable anime she did voice work in. Dream Focus 16:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see that category listed on the article's page and while "multiple" is up to interpretation, I would contend she's only been the major character in very few productions. WP:TOOSOON, IMHO. Ifnord (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple means more than one, always has, always will. Been discussed many times in many places. Few is still multiple, it more than one. And the Too Soon essay is about someone only mentioned as being in something in the future, not that they have already been in plenty of things already. Dream Focus 03:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Keep, per Dream Focus and Beccaynr, they appear to be notable. Link20XX (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ENT, and because I redoubled my efforts to find sources, and have added references and information about additional works that were not previously included; she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, [...] or other productions, including video games. It also seems relevant that so much of her filmography is linked to other Wikipedia articles - while her article is currently tagged as an orphan, I have been able to de-orphan it by bluelinking where her name already appears, and there is a lot more work to do. Beccaynr (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC) As I review and update the linked articles, it also appears that per WP:ENT, she has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following because she has been a featured guest of a variety of conventions, i.e. in 2019: Daisho Con, Setsucon, ColossalCon, and Youmacon, as well as SacAnime in 2020. Beccaynr (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC) And there appear to be additional conventions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough reliable and independent sources to justify an article at this time. Would support drafting the article. Most sources are only series announcements and fan sites. Esw01407 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the Anime News Network articles are more than annoucements, because they help independently and reliably document her significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows; it also appears that additional sources documenting her prolific career WP:NEXIST based on the links to other Wikipedia articles, which have not yet all been incorporated into the article (I have made it about halfway through, and all of her works are not currently listed in her article); in addition, the subculture websites finding her worthy of notice help show she has a large fan base and provide further evidence of the significance of some of her roles, based on the how the writers highlight them, e.g. Animation for Adults, reporting on her award and one of her roles: "Breakthrough actress (both staff and fan pick) went to Brianna Knickerbocker (Durarara!! x2)," ConFreaks & Geeks, describing her as "a multi-talented entertainer who's best known as the English voice of Rem from Re:Zero: Starting Life in Another World. Brianna also has a starring role as Rin in the upcoming Catherine: Full Body on PlayStation 4, an enhanced version of 2011’s Catherine. She was recently a guest of honor at Animanga 2019 in Pomona, CA," and Culture of Gaming, "[...] Some of her roles Rin from Catherine: Full Body, Rita Bernal from Mobile Suit Gundam Narrative, Sakura & Charlotte from Fire Emblem Fates, and Filo from The Rising of Shield Hero. She has an impressive body of work and will be playing Ling Shenhua in Shenmue III next year. [...]." There is also this VoyageLA interview highlighting her music career. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC) I've also found sources for her starring role in Carole & Tuesday, including from Monsters and Critics 1, and three reviews 2, 3, 4, as well as references for a recent video game where she voices a significant role from Inverse 5 and Yahoo!News 6, and a reference for a previous video game from GameSpot 7. Beccaynr (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC) I've continued to find sources on subculture (not fandom) websites, by searching her name and various works, including one from 2017 about two video games she voices, describing her as "a rising, shining star in the video game and anime voice acting community. Last year, she lent her voice to Fire Emblem Fates’ Princess Sakura and Charlotte. This year, she continues her exemplary work in Fire Emblem Heroes, where she reprises her role of Sakura and also voices Ninian and Est," and others noting the popularity of other works where she has had a significant role 1, 2, as well as a brief review of her work 3 in another significant role. Beccaynr (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dream Focus. Looks to be somewhat notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Bass Day[edit]

World Bass Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Likely hoax (pre April 1), no reliable independent sources WWGB (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searching "30.3., Basovski dan" as well as "World Bass Day" only comes up with Wikipedia, mirrors of Wikipedia and the group's own Facebook page. If this is to pass WP:GNG, there should be plenty of reliable news coverage but there isn't. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Against deletion. World Bass Day is celebrated in choral singers community since 1996 - and is definitely not "a hoax". Various banquets and celebrations are held every year on March 30, and WBD is definitely a notbale minor observation. I advise those promoting deletion to consult with experts in choral singing before taking any action. B15563T5 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide multiple reliable sources demonstrating that this warrants a stand-alone article in an encyclopaedia? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete. World Bass Day is just a couple of days away from its 25th celebration - it would be a shame to delete a wikipedia entry of this time-honored festivity just because someone (who I presume is not a singer) can. KAP Jasa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— KAP Jasa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If this isn't a hoax, then it falls incredibly short of WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and GPL93. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG, seems to be a hoax anyway CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Likely hoax that is created by someone who is now indef'd for socking. No improvements have been made to the article since this listing either. Delete please. --Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 18:11, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social Finance (consultancy)[edit]

Social Finance (consultancy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional article. While it looks like there are a lot of good sources here, the primary subject of all the RS listed is Social Impact Bonds, the policy this firm is promoting. They thus all fail WP:CORPDEPTH Mottezen (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:24, 12 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 12:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Bass Sciences[edit]

Institute for Bass Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Likely hoax (pre April 1), no reliable independent sources WWGB (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't even find one reference from a reliable & independent source; fails WP:NORG. If this organisation exists, it's certainly not notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion. The Institute for Bass Sciences was founded in 1996 and its research papers have been published in various journals, e.g. the International Choral Bulletin. The management of the Great Bass Choir, the instigation of writing and composing the Ode to Basses (all clearly referenced in the article!), the provenance of its members (mostly basses from world-class choirs as the APZ Tone Tomšič etc.) clearly show that the Institute is not "a hoax". Deletion would be frivolous and based on ignorance, none of which conform to Wikipedia deletion policy. I advise those promoting deletion to consult with experts in choral singing before taking any action.

Additionally, I am appaled by the attitude of certain editors attacking new contrubutors, labeling their legitimate contributions as "likely April 1st hoaxes" and deleting their sincere and corteous explanations by rude remarks such as "begone!"B15563T5 (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:ORGCRIT, please provide significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete. As an occasional contributor to IBS's research I resent the notion of an "April 1st hoax". (disclaimer - I am a personal friend of the creator of this article and can vouch for his expertise) KAP Jasa — Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— KAP Jasa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• it needs independent references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Whether it's a hoax or not (and it sure does smell like one), it's completely unverified, and unverifiable, as search returns only self-published 'sources'. Fails notability with flying colours. Could've been speedied, IMO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Honestly this should be speedy deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not satisfy WP:NORG. No RS to support notability. Vikram Vincent 13:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Najib Kilani[edit]

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

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

DEPRODed because of allegedly several awards received, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BEFORE gave me only catalog entries of some of his books, no prove of any award received nor reviews of his works. The 2 sources are CAT Entries of his books, 1 source is unrelated. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 11:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No comment for article. But the author seems notable to me. 2000+ worldcat librray holding. Several non-English full-length critical works exist about his work. --Gazal world (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep There are claims of notability in the article and the same in this other language article My search returned several hits. While the article does need improved references, I think they are available. Jeepday (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Published literary study in his work here, profiled in Al Jazeera here, researchgate paper comparing his work with other writers here as well as plenty of other sources in Arabic I’m not up to ploughing through. Mccapra (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the existence of multiple independent reliable sources. And I would like to remind editors that while English language sources are preferred, they are not required. Being an English-language Wikipedia means only that we write articles in English, not that we are limited to English language subjects or sources. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:40, 28 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. Paying particular attention to those who assessed the topic after the page's significant expansion (all arguing for a "keep" outcome), there is a consensus that GNG is met. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook Display Team[edit]

Chinook Display Team (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 single aircraft display team - most air forces have single aircraft disoplay teams and the Royal Air Force normally has three or four officially nominated every year (for at least 40 years) and of all the many single aircraft displays it is very rare to be of any note and previous teams have been deleted before for not being notable for inclusion MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here's a book about the team and there's plenty of coverage in the aeronautical and general press too, of course. The topic therefore passes WP:GNG and the usual policies apply: WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how about using those refs to expand the article so the rest of us can see what can be made of it? Right now it has only WP:PRIMARY. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have three online meetings this afternoon and I'm already late for the UK Wikimeet. See WP:CHOICE, "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." And now I was just interrupted by someone at the door chasing the census return. No peace for the wicked... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well that is what I was thinking, since you found more refs you should be fixing the article to the point where it passes WP:GNG, instead of expecting other editors to do the work. As it stands, the article does not pass GNG, so with an indication there may be refs out there, unless it gets fixed so it does, I would support sending it to drafts for more work, since it is not ready for mainspace right now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:NEXIST which explains that "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question". See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well that was exactly my point. If this book does make the subject notable enough to pass GNG, but is not currently used as a ref in the article, then the article should be kept, but moved to "drafts" until the article is updated to incorporate the ref. I would update the article myself, but I don't have the book, so can't tell you what in it might be of use. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That would not address the nominator's argument, which is that the team should be deleted because it only has a single aircraft. The fact that it's an official display team of the RAF, has been covered by the BBC and had a book written about it impresses the nominator not at all. He still doesn't like it. Me, I'm fine with it, have supported my position by reference to multiple policies and so my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to note, I am not trying to get you to change your !vote. In fact I think we both agree that this book ref may indeed show that the subject is notable, but that, as it stands, the article is not sufficiently well-referenced to stay in mainspace. I haven't decided which way I will !vote yet, this discussion is all part of my examination of the issues. If the article does get deleted as "not worthy of an article" then further consideration is moot. If it is moved to drafts as "possibly notable, but not ready for mainspace", then that would seem a sensible outcome based on what we have right now. If is is just "kept as-is", then further action will be required, either adding some non-primary refs or moving it to drafts for more work. Right now I could be easily swayed towards "keep", if someone can add some serious refs, but that hasn't happened yet. - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect, you really should read the policies that Andrew cited. What you are suggesting is simply not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The guidelines are very clear that we are not to delete articles simply based on their current state or because known existing sources have not been added yet. The existence of references is what determines notability, even if they have not yet been added to the article. You are welcome to vote however you wish, but please be sure to base your voted on what Wikipedia guidelines actually advise. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you read what I wrote. I am not supporting deleting the article at this point in time, I have suggested that if it only has primary refs then it should be moved to drafts or if third party refs are added it should be kept. What I have suggested is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia policy. You can also note that the article now contains one third-party ref from the BBC. It is a bit of a weak ref, though, as it is just a video report and contains some obvious inaccuracies, but it is a start. Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. BilCat (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see evidence that the single source found (book) has in-depth coverage. But hey, if Andrew has a copy, I'd be fine with moving this to his draft space to he could improve it at his leisure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there are multiple independent reliable sources, then the subject is notable. Please read WP:DEL and WP:ATD because Wikipedia policy is very clear that what matters is whether sources exist, whether the subject is notable, NOT the current state of the article. Please, re-read the policies. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyperion35, Where do you have the multiple sources? So far, one book that may be relevant (may, as nobody has declared they actually read the contents) has been suggested as relevant. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book is obviously a detailed account of the subject: "Tom Mercer has had unprecedented access to the UK Chinook Force and for the first time ever will take you behind the scenes of the Royal Air Force Chinook Display Team. Read all about the work that goes into the display work-up, the all-important Public Display Approval and key moments from across one of the team's busiest ever air show seasons. ... 160 pages". It's easy to find more detailed and respectable coverage such as this BBC documentary, Britain's Ultimate Pilots. While the book requires purchase, I find an accessible clip of the BBC programme which shows the team performing an impressive nose-over manoeuvre. This helps explain how the single heavy helicopter can put on a spectacular show by itself. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So no more noteworthy really then all the other tens of single aircraft display aircraft flown for many years, the RAF has at least three or four official teams every year that can be just as impressive. If you think the book is really noteworthy then perhaps that should be the subject of an article. 12:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)MilborneOne (talk)

As a general rule, we usually advise people against using "but there's an article on this other subject" as an argument for Keep. The converse is probably true as well, the lack of articles for other display teams is not an argument for Delete. It may be that no one has bothered to create those pages. It could be that this display team has more coverage than other display teams. The question is, do we have sufficient coverage from reliable sources to establish notability? Hyperion35 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. Mztourist (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. WP:Preserve, WP:Not paper and WP:HEY. Not the article and referencing it was when nominated for deletion. Has enough references NOW. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Since the article has now been expanded and third party refs added it now meets WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reuters says its the World's largest military air show [19]. The BBC has a show about them. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0360xc3/player Searching for their official name gets more results. Dream Focus 14:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RIAT is the world's largest military air show, but what does that have to do with notability of this display team? Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, they participated at the most famous military air show. The coverage they get confirms notability. Google news search for their official name, Royal Air Force Aerobatic, shows coverage of them around the world wherever they will be ad, and about their red arrow displays and other things they do. Dream Focus 15:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, the Red Arrows are a separate display team (they fly the BAE Hawk, if I remember correctly). Still, the fact that this team flies at RIAT and other air shows alongside famous teams like the Red Arrows should mean that there's some good coverage in various reliable sources, which is the important thing. Hyperion35 (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No-one questions the notability of RIAT. The fact that the Chinook Display Team performs at RIAT is only relevant if there is significant coverage of it. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]