< March 28	March 30 >

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) 01:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulkareem Al Olama[edit]

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

This page has been an orphan since 2012 and has had tags for sources to verify content since 2012 (the year it was created). A google search shows no substantive RS coverage in English-language sources. This page does not link to a Wikipedia page in another language, so I doubt there's better sourcing in other languages. There is nothing to indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 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 speedy delete per WP:A7. So Why 09:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lolfoundation[edit]

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

A noble cause, but I fail to see them satisfying WP:NGO, after I conducted a before search. The article no doubt is an WP:ADMASQ trying to draw awareness to their services. No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources could be observed & this is so bad, I thought for a while that the article might have been made up had I not narrowed my search parameters. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7. No independent sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:31, 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 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) 01:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bouloussou family[edit]

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

Non-notable political family. The patriarch, Bouloussou Soubramanion Sastroulou, might meet notability standards but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. None of the sourcing appears to be about the actual family the sourcing that is not about the previously mentioned Bouloussou Soubramanion Sastroulou are either membership lists, government surveys, or the papers written by the "Fourth Generation" member, who happens to be the person who wrote this article. I had previously tried to draftify the article, but was unsuccessful. GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, not written well at all, has no proper sourcing. Just another messy and unnecessary India article. Yeah, there's a lot here. Mostly schools and stuff. AdoTang (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While as the nominator I obviously believe that the article should be deleted, the subject being from India is irrelevant. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. We shouldn't write off a sixth of the world's population by prejudice, but judge articles about them by the same standards that we use for articles about British or American subjects. If we ever get to the stage where more than a sixth of our articles are about India then I may believe that they are a particular problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 International Friendlies[edit]

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

Not needed, very crufty. It's just an indiscriminate list of all (senior, youth, men's, women's, etc.) association football international games played in 2021. I'm not aware of similar lists in association football (or any sport for that matter). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless page, unless we're just listing every single sports match for each year now. AdoTang (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a clear example of WP:NOT, in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: @AdoTang: @Spiderone: I can get rid of all the youth matches and just list the professional men and women... This isn't useless because international friendlies gain a lot of attention and people would like to see the matches. Again I can remove the youth matches because they seem unnecessary. Mohammad (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: My position stands, even if only men's senior games are kept. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: Can you explain to me, thoroughly, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk • contribs) 00:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: I have already offered my explanation above, which is not only limited to the fact that there were youth, women's, men's, etc. games. Also, see the two users above's explanations as well. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: How is this any different than any sports competition article? I'm putting the matches of THAT competition (not every single national team fixture, but the international friendlies which is what I think you misunderstood) so it has a meaning. I'm not just listing all games, I'm listing all games of the competition, which is what every sports article does. What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: Please, remember to sign your comments. I haven't misunderstood; the difference between 2018 FIFA World Cup and 2021 International Friendlies is that International Friendlies is not a competition, while FIFA World Cup is. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: So I can't mention it because it isn't a competition? Where does it say that in the deletion guidelines? And if you say "because it isn't important" or something, then why is it streamed all around the world, covered by all tv providers, and has a lot of attention to it. Again, I'm talking about the men's senior so it is a big deal. Also, International Friendlies isn't a competition because there is no winner. That's the only reason why.

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: I never said that if it isn't a competition it must be deleted. I was answering your question "How is this any different than any sports competition article?". Please, read Spiderone's guidelines linked above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: So what I'm understanding is, there is nothing wrong with the point of the article (International Friendlies) but the way it is written (a list of matches) is the issue. If correct then I'm not a good writer so I need someone to do that writing. Mohammad (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with both the form and content of the article. A list of hundreds of friendly games is basically just WP:Listcruft. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: It's not going to be just a list, I am adding statistics and all that as we speak.Mohammad (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that it's a list (lists exists on Wikipedia). The problem isn't that it isn't a competition. The problem is that this list is too specific and unnecessary. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: What do you mean specific? And it isn't really unnecessary because it's listing the international friendlies. Mohammad (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: The issue is that it's an unusually specific, practically useless list. We don't have articles listing every single hockey game held in 1946 with scores and teams. We don't have articles listing every single race ever held on Hockenheimring with the names of every racer, their sponsors, and the winner. Your article is just a list of every single soccer match held this year and only this year. Even if these lists were somehow allowed, it'd still become very long by December 2021, and it would require weekly, if not daily maintenance for the entire year (and beyond if you count vandalism, corrections, or inaccurate information fixes). Read what everyone else has to say. We're not saying soccer isn't notable or anything, we're saying this article isn't needed. AdoTang (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the information is collected together, you can still find the same information in two other separate locations on wikipedia between the two national team season articles on wikipedia. I don't see the need for this. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - further to the other delete comments, I would struggle to see how such a list would ever satisfy WP:LISTN; these matches are not generally discussed as a group or even really referred to as a group. A friendly is just any non-competitive match between two teams and there is otherwise no connection between any of these matches. This is different from a list of matches in one tournament, where there is a clear connection between the matches and where, in some cases, the outcome of one match may have an effect on the outcome for teams not participating in that one match (in group stages or in terms of who to play against next in a knockout stage). There's no real connection between Ethiopia beating Malawi and then Oman having a goalless draw with Jordan 3 days later other than the fact that both games were completely inconsequential, which, in my view, is not enough of a reason to group them together in one list. Furthermore, I am struggling to see how this meets any of the purposes listed at WP:LISTPURP; it is not a valuable information source, it certainly isn't navigational (none of the individual matches are notable) and it does not aid in development of our encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we don't need a separate article for this. The relevant information is (or at least could be) in the team pages for the countries. As they're friendlies and not a tournament like World Cup, Euros/Copa America, there is no link between friendlies, and so as per Spiderone, I cannot see how it would ever be able to satisfy WP:NLIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a list of friendlies, does not merit an article Kante4 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dr Salvus 11:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everyone seems to think this is either useless and/or indiscriminate. I don't think it's either. In fact, if this 2021 version is the first of its kind on Wikipedia, I'm surprised. Assuming (and I may be wrong to do so, but in that case the article could probably be developed in that direction) this means only the official FIFA-sanctioned international friendlies, that's certainly a very clearly defined and finite list of matches, selected to suit the teams' objectives and carefully scheduled to fit within the specified friendly windows and around each team's other commitments; these matches also count towards official player statistics etc. And if you search for 'international friendlies', you get hits from the likes of BBC Sport, ESPN, The Guardian, etc., so clearly the term is used widely to refer to this set of matches. As for the argument that this information can be found elsewhere — sure, but that's true of most list-type articles; the whole point of lists is that they pull together information that is easier accessed as a list: if you know that, say, Luxembourg played a friendly against Israel in 2002, you can find that eg. in the article Luxembourg_national_football_team_results_(2000–2019), but what if you wanted to know who played friendlies against Israel that year, how easy would it be to find that information without a list like this? Finally, I don't think this is WP:CRUFT, as in "important only to a small population of enthusiastic fans": these are national teams we're talking about, not a bunch of mates playing Sunday morning footy in the park, with the matches televised and widely reported in the press. In short, I think this list is useful, the subject is notable, and with some improvements (mostly ensuring that only the official friendlies are included, and that the information is properly sourced) the article should stay. And similar articles should be created for earlier years. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally indiscriminate to bundle together all friendlies played by all nations in one year. There literally isn't anything unifying this random selection of matches other than that they were not competitive matches -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop AAPI Hate[edit]

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

Not notable NightWolf1223 (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Request withdrawn NightWolf1223 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I do not see a consensus to delete or enough doubt to justify a no consensus close, and WP:DINC, and the article does appear to have enough material sourced to independent sources. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAL Combat Air Teaming System[edit]

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

Marketing term for a group of products that does not yet exist. Perhaps redirecting to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is an option? MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge : Merge with HAL article. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait~~ : The topic has been quite nicely covered and I actually can turn it into a good article soon. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, since the group of products and rather a part of system which operates these aircrafts, at least "marketing" issues don't exist here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am comfortable with saying that the existing coverage easily passes WP:GNG. The topic is notable on its own. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per significant coverage as an independent subject at [1][2] and others. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a marketing idea or concept to gain funding could be covered in a few lines in the HAL article until something concrete comes out of the ideas. MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Whether it is a fully developed item or not, the article will have to be created anyway. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis of suggested links would be really useful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acceptable as per. WP:GNG. More of an under development aircraft system, far from being an advertisement at least. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given Hindustan Aeronautics Limited a government undertaking, and this teaming system seems to have sufficient coverage satisfying WP:SIGCOV and considerable material for an Article. Chirota (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalmay Institute of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

A few paid references with a BEFORE. Advertisement. Does not satisfy NSCHOOL. Creator is an SPA with just 2 edits. Vikram Vincent 05:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor is talking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an advertisement with extremely poor capitalization and grammar. But if we're keeping it, well, it needs a LOT of work... AdoTang (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did a clean up of all the advertising cruft. Sourcing is now limited to the college website only. Fails WP:NSCHOOLS Vikram Vincent 04:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NSCHOOL. Chirota (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable fails GNG. Setreis (talk) 08:37, 2 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. The keep is a weak one despite the !vote ratio.

Most keep !votes address the weakness of nominator's rationale, which is a reason for not deleting. Not deleting, however, does not imply keeping since AfD outcomes are not binary (i.e. either keep or delete).

If the above !votes are ignored when accounting for keeping, the keep outcome is only supported by two !votes, in which one is a weak keep while the other is from the creator. The lack of discussion on sources makes the keep outcome weak.

The discussion could have been closed as no consensus instead, but the keeping arguments are just strong enough after two relists. Either way, the article is kept.

Should this article be nominated for deletion again, discussion should focused on sources instead. The nominator should give a convincing rationale and respond if needed (though not to the point of badgering). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All_the_Fat_Children[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/All the Fat Children

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

The Band Page Lacks WP:Reliability and is non-notable. Pranhita (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands_and_musicians-related deletion discussions. Pranhita (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the creator of the article, I agree with nom. Vikram Vincent 18:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pranhita of the ten sources in the reference list of the article, which specific sources are unreliable? Please list them here so that we can discuss. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 10:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator has NOT done even a cursory WP:BEFORE. The sources used are The Hindu, Deccan Herald, Deccan Chronicle, Rolling Stone India(reliable for music info), Bangalore Mirror, DNA India and Times of India. While we do follow WP:TOI for political commentary, this is a music band and hence TOI can be used based on the claims being made. The other sources explicitly mentioned are clearly reliable. Even if the claim that there is no WP:SIGCOV in an individual article, though the TOI article does have it, all the WP:RS put together does satisfy the criteria of notability. Vikram Vincent 07:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Of WP:BAND, the page satisfies criteria #1 and #7. Vikram Vincent 07:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The current sourcing is mostly passing mentions, but there is also a pretty long Indian Times article mainly about the band that isn't currently in the article ( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/the-name-all-the-fat-children-was-our-way-of-fighting-our-body-image-issues/articleshow/60477913.cms), which is just enough to keep it in my opinion. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. Do Check WP:TOI Pranhita (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, but this isn't something where their bias would affect the reporting. I'll stick at weak keep since its not very reliable generally, though. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is some discussion of whether the subject has received significant coverage from reliable sources. Further discussion may help garner a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Speedy Keep I think the page needs to be speedy kept since the nom has not engaged in any discussion on the sources they claim to be unreliable. The WP:TOI claim was clearly misplaced. Of the 15 sources on the page that can be considered WP:RS, 10 are dedicated solely to the band, 1 is the Rolling Stones India page and the remaining 4 share article space with other bands. In sum, WP:SIGCOV is available. Vikram Vincent 07:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs indepth source discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RE: Relisting comment "Still needs indepth source discussion". Why? The nom says some of the references are not appropriate, but refuses to say which ones. Jeepday (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability Rajuiu (talk) 02:00, 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 merge to Denbury. Daniel (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denbury Primary School[edit]

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

Potentially fails WP:NORG here; in particular, WP:ORGDEPTH. I found a passing BBC mention, the Teignmouth Post had a story about new starters and then the school appears in a list of schools in Devon Live.

No coverage outside of Ofsted and you need more than one source to pass NORG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Denbury per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, most primary schools don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you recommend trimming it down to one or two sentences? I can't see that there is a whole lot of info about this school and most of the contents of the article seem to be OR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree much content doesn't need moving perhaps just the location and very basic info. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, selectively with Denbury. The only thing I would merge would be a single line description, and 1 or 2 lines about the BBC thing, which is cited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Denbury: per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, 1 or 2 liner is sufficient CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have sorted the structure, refs and infobox so this is easier to examine and consider. Instinct said 'merge' but it deserves a hearing first. It is of interest architecturally as a typical 1870s school building, it is interesting as an example of a school suffering from rural isolation and lack of funding, one that no academy chain would touch. There is a DYK hook that regional TV had used it when child wrote to PM. We have the GIAS and Ofsted references so it could be expanded. At the moment, nothing has be written about curriculum- KS2 language etc, work needed there. Overall merge to Denbury which in itself is very unloved so work is needed there. The lead editor says he is young and enthusiastic so please try to support and retain him throughout the process.ClemRutter (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is worth merging like other people have already suggested. Since I'm not sure what's saving here. The article is horribly referenced, written like a trivial add copy advert (no offense to meant to the person who wrote it though), and I'm not sure how that can change without sources that clearly don't exist materializing and I don't see that happening. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 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. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ardelt Project[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation. Not a hoax; [3] is a reference that a Mr. Ardelt did something with a Waffenträger in World War II. But the term "Ardelt Project" appears to be made up, and I don't see any coverage more substantial than this. (though I assume there is a description at the museum in Russia). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's actually a real thing, but it appears to have been called the "Krupp/Ardelt Waffenträger". It was moved to Patriot Park. Unfortunately, every single source I have for this is unreliable: Reddit, the World of Tanks forum, and the Heroes & Generals forum. AdoTang (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found only one reliable source for this topic. Not notable.Wasraw (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable news sources. Fails GNG criteria. Setreis (talk) 08:37, 2 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 00:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blu-ray 3D releases[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR. This is basically a list of movies that have been released on the Blu-ray 3D disc format. Such a list is not very encyclopedic, especially since the format is growing fast and new titles are being released each week. This would be similar to a list article of every movie released on DVD. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically, to compare, pages like List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games make sense because, y'know, a new SNES game doesn't come out every five seconds. Plus that page is just a really, really long table list. AdoTang (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too broad in scope, per WP:SALAT. Too ubiquitous to be of encyclopedic value. Not seeing this as different from listing all VHS releases, all DVD releases, etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see a solid reason why it should exist. Kolma8 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all fails GNG. Setreis (talk) 08:38, 2 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 02:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dillanm[edit]

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

Autobiographical self promotional article on a non notable subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them & do not satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with everything the nomination says. Wikipedia is being used here by this person purely to promote himself. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why this article exists is unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdoTang (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:AUTO Article, no signs of notability per WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and misses all criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN by a long way. Speedy delete WP:A7 also an option. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. Likely autobiography, not even an assertion of notability per WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, no independent sources provided, none found. --Finngall ^talk 19:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy even) - Good luck to the kid as he gets started. An Internet search reveals that he has put himself into all the usual self-uploaded streaming services and social media accounts. While doing so he put himself into Wikipedia too, but this site requires qualifications. Purely promotional and autobiographical. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per A7. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:05, 2 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 00:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lehman (surgeon)[edit]

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

Non-notable surgeon, clear fail of WP:GNG. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this guy's notable enough for a Wikipedia page, then I guess my teacher must be as well. Pah. AdoTang (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass notability criteria. Iflaq ^(talk) 11:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable without RS. GNG fail. —Kbabej (talk) 22:23, 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. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Saunders[edit]

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

Non-notable performer; lacks significant coverage in independently reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. References provided are mostly IMDB or social media references not independent of subject. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could not find any IRS via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (broader and deeper than Google). Fails WP:GNGACTOR. Cabrils (talk) 22:38, 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. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple cheesecake[edit]

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

Trivial variant of Cheesecake. No information worth merging into main cheesecake page DeputyBeagle (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DeputyBeagle (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't even sound like it'd taste good. Oh, but also, yeah, trivial as hell. Not even a paragraph. AdoTang (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you know you're in trouble when this is the first search result in Google Books. Seriously, though, I'm not finding anything besides recipes and other forms of trivial coverage. Without anything substantial, this is a clear WP:GNG fail. (I also concur with AdoTang with regards to the lack of culinary merit of this putative delicacy.) I wouldn't object to a redirect to Cheesecake, if only to keep from breaking links. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proper thing to do is to just follow the merge, which was voted for and make a redirect... even if there is minimal information to merge. UserTwoSix (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure I see the point in redirecting. The page gets very little views, and there does not seem to be any links beyond the categories box. I don't think anything would be lost if there was no redirect DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with UserTwoSix (I think) that the technical procedure here should be to "merge" Pineapple cheesecake into Cheesecake by turning the former into a redirect to the latter and adding "all useful information" from the former to the latter—and if you find that there is no useful information during the merge (as the nom did here) then simply redirect without comment. But I don't know how much value the redirect would have—wouldn't be an issue but doesn't seem essential either—so I'll add a technical support delete/redirect/merge, whatever helps to get the job done. — Bilorv (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Cheesecake - I don't personally think it would make a particularly useful redirect, but as Redirects are cheap, I wouldn't object to it becoming one. A merge would be inappropriate as there is no actual reliably sourced content to merge - the only references being used currently are just recipes, and I can find no additional coverage outside of more recipes upon searching. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely any edible fruit can be used in the production of cheesecake? Is there anything to suggest that pineapple in particular has any cultural distinction anywhere over any other fruit? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I supported the merge but redirecting would be better since there isn't anything reliably sourced that we can merge. New content can be added to directly the cheesecake article. It's a major cultural variation cheesecake all'ananas for Italian ricotta cheesecake like strawberry cheesecake is for New York cheesecake. Spudlace (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources are food blogs, and those aren't RSs. I'm not seeing this article serving any purpose than to combine the word pineapple with cheesecake which is OR. I consider myself a major foodie and would 100% eat this, but it's failing all the WP standards. Bon appetit, Estheim (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that this might overdo the sweetness a little? I like cheesecake but if it has fruit on it then I would prefer something a bit more tart than pineapple. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phil BridgerDepends on the sweetness of the cake and the acidity of the fruit. Fruit preserves are pretty common for dessert making too, and sweetness/tartness can be adjusted accordingly. I don't think I'd say no to any decent cheesecake, even if it were some oddball thing like tomato or dragonfruit. Estheim (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to be merged. This article was created by someone who was banned for being part of a spam ring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IamKhandelwal Are the websites added by him owned by someone who paid them to do that? Dream Focus 04:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't realize IamKhandelwal had been banned. Can't these then be speedied? Spudlace (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/IamKhandelwal some were tagged as being from an editor who received undisclosed payment for making them. But that doesn't always mean the articles don't deserve to remain, some may still pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 21:38, 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. Additionally, a clear, consensus-based redirect target has not come into fruition within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Gilroy[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO; while a member of several notable bands, this musician has not demonstrated individual notability. I can not find any significant coverage of him as an individual. Neither do the Premiere Drum Contest he won as a 14-year old (not a notable contest) and the film he appeared in (as part of a band) establish individual notability. Lennart97 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect At this stage, it fails WP:GNG. After looking at all sources, two were trivial mentions, one doesn't mention him at all, one isn't a reliable source, and one is an article about winning a drumming contest when he was 14. If the author is able to provide sources that prove significant, reliable, independent coverage then I would be all for keeping it. I would like some mention of him somewhere, but at this stage, it shouldn't be its own article. Nexus000 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest providing a biography of him (with the small pieces of information available) on the page of the band he is best associated with. Then turn this page into a redirect to that section and turn any mentions of his name on other articles to links to the Ian Gilroy redirect. Nexus000 (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nexus000: Sorry, I meant to reply earlier. I guess the problem here is determining which band he's actually best associated with, which is not clear to me. But the articles on those bands already mention which different bands Gilroy was also part of, so the only information from Gilroy's article that is not present at any of those pages is him winning that drumming contest, which isn't relevant to any of the bands anyway. So I do think that deletion is the better option here. Lennart97 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it and agree with what you are saying. Nexus000 (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG, or redirect to The_Crocodiles. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PC AGE Career Institute[edit]

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

It seems to exist, but I could find no third party reference except inclusions on a list. Article present on WP since 2011. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 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 redirect to Akon. WP:RfD or WP:RM can be used for further discussion on the redirect itself. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Konnect[edit]

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

No release date and/or limited third party coverage. Falls short of WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Would support draftify or redirect. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Akon, because it appears that the album title is either confirmed or widely believed by fans and someone is bound to search for it in WP. When/if the album becomes a reality, the redirect can be transformed into a true album article. For now, per WP:NALBUM there is too much required information that is unconfirmed and unreliable, especially the release date and full track list. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason to think that anyone looking for "Konnect" would be looking for Akon rather than, for example, any of the other possibilities found by the Google Books search linked above? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that I did not think of this, but Wikipedia currently has no articles on anything else called "Konnect" except for Konnect Entertainment which is a longer name. Therefore the Akon album, as soon as it really exists, gets first dibs on the one-word title, or it could be called "Konnect (album)". In any case, additional voters can debate whether the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rule is relevant for this AfD. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as there is no other Wikipedia article with this title, that it should be the title of this article if it is kept, but I'm not sure that if it is not kept the word should redirect to Akon. It appears that this is a commonly used name for products and services. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Akon per DOOMSDAYER520. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:47, 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CGP Grey[edit]

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

WP:SOAP, notability not evident from sourcing provided, huge number of primary sources all WP:RSPYT, checked many others and they are clearly not RS for a BLP, have been tagged since 2018 about primary sourcing issues, simplest solution to delete unless viable WP:SECONDARY provided. Acousmana (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* – This was originally going to be a "Delete", but this channel's content has just been given too much attention from a variety of reliable, independent sources that I believe this meets WP:CREATIVE, insofar as he has "3) created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and furthermore because his work has "4(c) won significant critical attention."** This isn't just limited to the coverage in our citations, however; as an example, The Daily Dot – known to be a reliable source for Internet culture – has nine articles which exclusively cover Grey's works. The case for criterion 3) is compounded by the fact that Hello Internet has been a popular podcast, topping out as the number 1 iTunes podcast in five large countries. As we have a main article for it, the section "Hello Internet" should be reduced substantially and material possibly merged over to that article. That this article has been tagged for being too reliant on primary sources is not an ultimatum to delete it handed down by god; it just means that, according to one editor who placed it there (and I agree with this editor), the article needs to be trimmed back as to be less reliant overall on primary sources (as an example, "Videos are released on the channel and via RSS" really isn't relevant to our article unless this fact is somehow covered in reliable, independent sources) or for the content to be sourced to reliable, independent sources where possible.

* Disclosure: I watch the channel casually, but I spent a fair amount of time performing WP:BEFORE and remaining as neutral as I can.
** As a a YouTube channel like this serves a dual function of being the creative behind the work and the body of work itself, I sort of just treat it as a superposition between the two. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

whatever way you look at it, the sourcing on this is horrible, dependency on primary citations throughout is an issue for a BLP, with the bulk of content sourced to videos. Per WP:ABOUTSELF "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves...as long as: [5] the article is not based primarily on such sources." We could add "[1] the material is ...unduly self-serving" and we could argue that "[4] reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" exists. Acousmana (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm struggling to see how content like Grey decided to become a physics teacher in the UK; he went through a one-year course to earn a physics PGCE and graduated being qualified to teach physics in England and Wales is "unduly self-serving" or has "reasonable doubt" when supported by a podcast of the person describing themselves as such (I suppose timestamps would be nice in the ref but that's about it). It all seems appropriate to me. — Bilorv (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

self-serving in overall tone of soapy article, but hey, i'm not a fan of this obsessive cataloging of YouTube "personalities" that goes on here, and some random YT dude saying stuff on a some random podcast, he could literally say anything, and we are citing it as "fact." But again, wtf do I know? I literally never heard of this nobody before yesterday. Acousmana (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The last two paragraphs of CGP Grey#CGPGrey Channel clearly establish his notability. —Dexxor (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the primary coverage is fine—it just doesn't contribute towards notability. If you think it's a bit too much then the "simplest solution" is to fix it yourself, not to delete (which is neither the simplest action nor a solution at all). Notability is established through coverage cumulatively across, by descending significance: nine Daily Dot articles, four Gizmodo articles, two CBS articles ([4][5]), Washington Post, HuffPost, Mashable, Yahoo and The Guardian (about Hello Internet). Each source in this list except maybe the last two is (just about) long enough for significance (and reliable, independent and secondary) and the aggregate meets WP:GNG as they are about a diversity of videos across a wide time range. — Bilorv (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Furthermore, during WP:BEFORE, I found: Boing Boing (twice, thrice, another, and another, and a sixth, seventh, eigth), The Verge, The Washington Post (again, albeit this time in part of a listicle), Vox (twice), Popular Mechanics (twice, thrice), Business Insider (again, albeit same day; same author), Business Insider again, ScienceAlert, Quartz, the Staten Island Advance, WLS-TV (ABC Chicago), NPR, Slate, and this wasn't even an exhaustive search; this took me like five minutes. Hence, I changed my mind before voting. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. If there is an overreliance on primary sourcing that doesn't fall under something like WP:ABOUTSELF, then it should be fixed or removed. Not really an argument relevant to whether sufficient secondary sourcing exists to write an article. GMG ^talk 13:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As already mentioned above, the copious amounts of primary sources used in the article do not contribute to notability, but it ultimately doesn't matter because there are plenty of secondary sources discussing the channel as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable person. By all means remove any accumulated fancruft from the article, and tag anything poorly referenced, but the subject itself is fine. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In an episode of Hello Internet (forgot which one) Brady and Grey talked about how Grey and his wife had a debate over whether tennis balls are green or yellow. This went viral and was mentioned in dozens of news articles. While not many cited Grey he was the root cause. HiTheLegend 18:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I voted keep, and while this did appear to originate with Grey and was subsequently discussed in that article from The Atlantic, the debate thereafter from sources such as CNN, SB Nation, USA Today Sports, The Daily Telegraph, etc., did not include Grey as the progenator of this question whatsoever, making this, in my opinion, a very weak argument to keep the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so clearly this guy is much better known than that heavily primary sourced soapy article appeared to indicate, with more eyes on it, any chance we can strip the weak stuff out and leave/add stronger WP:SECONDARY? Acousmana (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crakmedia[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The awards they claim to have one are all non notable and the ref bombing is a mirage to create he illusion of notability. A WP:BEFORE search shows hits in unreliable sources such as this & this. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but TNT. They are web specialists, so they know how to generate paid/sponsored coverage, which is what has happened with several of the sources. However there is also decent French coverage that appears genuine:

"PME de l’année" = "Small or medium-sized business of the year" Together, I think that is probably enough for NCORP.--- Possibly (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undisclosed padi-for spam with no evidence of notability. GSS ^💬 07:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: what about all the sources I listed above? Also, the creator seems to be good faith, and they have said on their talk page that that have no COI. --- Possibly (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: None of these sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, they read like paid pr and are mostly announcements. Also, please see my comment below regarding their paid editing racket. Thank you, GSS ^💬 08:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to read French?--- Possibly (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes the notability and has been beautifully presented by Possibly. As far as spamming is concerned, there is nothing like spamming, every company lists their history, revenue, accomplishments etc. By this logic, every page on Wikipedia is spam. Should we delete all those pages? Regarding the links, the more the length of the content, the more there will be references. If anyone has objection on the number of links, I am willing to remove some of them. But I have provided the references to make the page more reliable. BelardEME (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BelardEME: we decide what to delete based on the number and quality of published sources. See WP:NCORP. --- Possibly (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 14:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note, as per off-wiki evidence user BelardEME was hired to create this page through Freelancer.com and were paid $450 by David Hamel. Also, as per their profile, they are a sock of Apifara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I have shared the details with paid-en, @MER-C, GeneralNotability, Praxidicae, and Berean Hunter:. @Berean Hunter Please see my last email that I sent you back in December 2018 regarding the same freelancer. Thank you, GSS ^💬 08:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 15:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TNT is needed here, and it would have been eligible for G11 anyway. MarioGom (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with MarioGom that WP:TNT is called for. It may be that the subject is weakly notable, in which case the article will eventually be recreated, but as it is the page is promotional in nature and not up to Wikipedia's standards in any way. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MIXR[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient coverage in secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The only sources provided are to the github project page and the project website. Other sources available appear to be primary journal articles, but nothing in the way of secondary coverage as far as I can tell. Polyamorph (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search does not find anything that meets WP:GNG, there are some minor mentions, but nothing significant. No claims in the article that the subject is notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Can’t find anything that suggests notability. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 15:06, 2 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) 05:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Box Critters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

nominating again after the last discussion resulted, inexplicably and against policy as draftify. Non-notable game, mostly just fan cruft sourced to the game itself. It's never received any meaningful coverage and there's no reason to think anything changed in the month since the last AFD. And as a note, I very much oppose draftifying this again as draftspace is not an indefinite holding area for non-notable topics and given the tendentious editing here, it should be deleted and an be reassessed in time if it becomes notable and sources can be provided. VAXIDICAE💉 19:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Lots of people have tried and failed justifying notability. — Smuckola (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, therefore the topic fails WP:GNG. Despite some very vehement arguments in the previous AfD, there is still no guideline-based reason for keeping this article and not even one decent, independent source has been presented. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found a repayable source. This website it is made by the people who made the game and it is not Fancraft. Also you may think the Twitter is underelayble but it is literaly run by the people listed in the credits. IF you look on there every time they tease something it get's added in the game. Just cause they don't have a Verified Tick doesn't make them un reliable. Also my idea about making this a article is maybe people will see it and try to help me fix it. Ik there is problems if there weren't then we wouldn't be talking right now but nothing will change if I can't get more people to help. The only person who tried to help me is Doggyboy (which I am really happy about tnxs Doggyboy) but I wish more people had faith in this and didn't nominate it the second I try to make it a article. I've tried to take off all the fan cruft and I think I did a pretty good job but I want to do better but not much people are helping me besides shutting me down. I've seen articles that are unfinished or stubs yet those aren't nominated while I have gathered research and put a article together only for it to get deleted. It is so sad seeing something I made, that I took time to make only for it to get noiminated 0.00001 seconds after realseing it for everyone to see. It is very sad to see it. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMAHER1 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been explained to you repeatedly, that, among the others isn't a reliable source much less an independent one. Perhaps you should've taken advice from the dozens of editors who tried to repeatedly help you and not tendentiously move this into mainspace when you couldn't provide a single RS. VAXIDICAE💉 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources do not count towards notability. IceWelder [✉] 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleMAHER1: I know it can be a bit disheartening to see your article nominated for deletion twice, but you need to understand that all the editors who are critiquing the article are doing it from a place of tough love, myself included. I can speak for every single editor here that we all want Wikipedia to grow. But, we do recognize that, sometimes, quality is better than quantity. We also recognize that there are guidelines put in place by the Wikipedia community as a whole after extensive discussions, and that we should not only follow these guidelines ourselves, but also make sure that every user/every page follows them as well, as that is what will ultimately make Wikipedia better. Stubs are a great representation of something that, despite being short, is an article that passes guidelines. I come across stubs all the time, and I always check them using the notability criteria, and nine times out of ten, they’re notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. Box Critters, while bigger than a stub, does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, as the article is built off of three types of unacceptable sources: social media (while reliable per SOCIALMEDIA, the Twitter account isn’t verified, and therefore is unreliable), fandom-wiki (which is unreliable per USERG as it is a wiki), and the official Box Critters website (which, when used sparingly, is reliable per PRIMARY, but an article shouldn’t be entirely built off of these). I appreciate your patience and understanding throughout this process, and I also appreciate that you will act according to Wikipedia guidelines when the outcome of this draft is decided. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the same reasons I mentioned last time. I asked for it to be draftified back then but it was unilaterally moved back with no discernible improvements regarding sourcing. Even the various content violations that were removed by myself and another editor were simply restored or changed by a table. It appears that deleting is now the best option. Pinging @BD2412, PascalsCalculatingHamster, and Doggy54321, who participated in the last AfD as well. IceWelder [✉] 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The consensus at the first AfD was to draftify the article, but the creator of the page demonstrated that they can’t find any reliable sources backing up the subject. At this point, it would be pointless to draftify it again as the creator would just move it back to mainspace, while also continuing to add fancruft with unreliable sources. I don’t think we need to look into topic bans just yet, but it’s getting really annoying that they are persevering this hard when every single editor who has interacted with them has told them to stop doing this. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: Pinging the admin who closed the first AfD to request an early close as Delete per WP:SNOW. LittleMAHER1 (page creator) has said and demonstrated that they cannot find any reliable sources whatsoever backing this subject up, and I see no reason why this snowball needs to spend a week in hell before it melts when it’s already melting at a fast rate. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no sources expect [sic] for its twitter and/or Fandom Wiki, from [6]. This was said on February 9, around two months ago. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources.-- Whpq (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry. After reading everything I guess there is nothing I can do to fix it. I really wanted to try and fix it but I guess there is nothing I can fix. You guys gave your points and I have no right to try and justify this especially with my track record. I don't want to get banned and Ik it will hurt seeing my project get deleted forever but at least now I won't be able to annoy you guys again. Also if Box Critter's does get popular and a wiki is made I will be able to help edit it. For now I think I will stick to editing articles and not making them. Maybe when I get more experience on editing I can try again and this time find better articles or make a actually notable article, I guess I am a little clingy and it hurts when people are saying how my article isn't up to standerd but I guess it is just tough love and I need to deal with that. I'm once again sorry about this and please don't topic ban me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMAHER1 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin or anything but I don't feel any sanction is necessary. You won't be the first editor to create an article on a non-notable subject and you won't be the last. I created many articles on completely non-notable topics back in my early days (when you didn't even need an account to create them) and they were correctly deleted. Wikipedia is often a learning experience not just for its readers but for its editors and page creators too. I hope that you can continue to channel your energy and enthusiasm towards improving the project. Working on existing articles is probably not a bad idea for now. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Unless you created a bunch of non-notable articles and showed no intention to stop, you wouldn’t get blocked. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Man. This may be a little unrelated but dang, Wikipedia is a lot more strict with polices then I thought. Before joining all I thought was Wikipedia was just a place full of articles however it could be un reliable because anyone can edit it. But after deciding to try it, the mods make sure that only the best is displaced here but they still take care of little articles as well. And that is something I can respect. LittleMAHER1 (talk) 15:34, 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 16:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ranch[edit]

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

An incorporated ranching operation should meet WP:NCORP to merit inclusion. No indication that this one does. BD2412 T 19:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11 and WP:G12 – Almost exclusively promotional for its entire existence and has shown no sign of improvement after 16 years. Furthermore, almost the entire article is plagiarized directly from the subject's own website – the article possibly having been created by the subject's owners or somebody related thereto during the Wild West that was 2005 Wikipedia. WP:BEFORE turned up nothing, though I'll concede I wasn't able to check historic newspaper sources where one would be most likely to find reliable, independent coverage about this subject should it actually exist. This one really slipped through the cracks. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11 (Advertising), G12 is not opportune at a 2 sentence article. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MB 19:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's old? Don't care. AdoTang (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no claim to notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that this has existed on WP for so long is disappointing. Good on nominator for catching. No notability. —Kbabej (talk) 22:40, 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. In addition to the consensus, WP:HEY seems to apply here. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney "Strix" Beltrán[edit]

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

Subject categorically fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:CREATIVE. The most compelling reliable, independent sources I could find regarding this subject are as follows:

An excerpt of a Polygon article: "Whitney “Strix” Beltràn, a high-profile indie developer responsible for the award-winning tabletop game Bluebeard’s Bride, is the project’s narrative director. [...] Beltràn also worked on Holovista, an ambitious mobile augmented-reality game that explored fantastical architecture and the culture of social media influencers. [...] Also on Twitter, Beltràn said she’s been working on the new D&D video game for some time."

Not quite plainly trivial and could maybe be construed as marginally advancing notability if presented alongside multiple other instances of much more significant coverage from other reliable, independent sources, but clearly nothing to hang one's hat on.

An excerpt of a PC Gamer article: "This was backed up by its project narrative director Whitney Beltrán, who has written for games like State of Decay 2 and Beyond Blue. [...] "Both Baldur's Gate 3 and Dark Alliance are set in the Forgotten Realms, but Whitney Beltrán has a writing credit on Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, a forthcoming supplement for the actual tabletop version of D&D describing D&D's underused gothic horror world, which would make a killer backdrop for a videogame."

Borderline trivial discussion of Beltrán. Akin to the first as far as establishing "Hey, this person exists and was credited in these three pieces of media", but coverage too insignificant to advance notability.

For those wondering about possible book sources, she does have a bio within the book Role-Playing Game Studies published by Taylor & Francis, but as best I can surmise, this is self-authored, as Beltràn is a co-author of Chapter 27 of this book and the biographies for other chapter co-authors read exactly as though they were self-authored, for example: "Edward Castronova wonders why vanilla ice cream is even produced in a world that knows chocolate. At Indiana University, he is Professor of Media, Director of the BS degree program in Game Design, and Chair of the Department of Media Arts and Production [...]". The second-most significant mention I could find of Beltrán in literature is in the self-published book "Analog Game Studies" Vol. II, and even this is trivial: "In this extreme example of prolonged immersion, [Patrick] Stewart was likely experiencing what Whitney "Strix" Beltrán terms ego-bleed, where personality contents of the character bleed-out into the player and vice versa."

There really is just no reliable, independent literature upon which to create an article about this subject, and the article in its current state reflects that. Every citation but one is primary, and the other one (which only contains a plainly trivial mention of Beltrán) is WP:FORBESCON, which per RSP should be treated as self-published. Half the lead is puffery based on a self-description published on the subject's website (there was even more obvious puffery before IceWelder removed it), and the already-short 'Career' section can be broken down as follows:

~30 words (~25%) about Beltrán's actual credited role in creating these games.
16 words (~14%) about a quotation of Beltrán's own description of the house in HoloVista.
72 words (61%) about what the game Bluebeard's Bride is, which in a longer article would function as good background information for the reader, but which in an article this short and bereft of detail about Beltrán herself functions as padding.

The only reason I appraised this as worthy of any discussion at AfD instead of just a PROD is because I sympathize with student editors who are thrust into the deep end of Wikipedia, and I therefore want to give this article the most fair shake I can. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep The sources I have found so far indicate she has received a prestigious honor (2021 member of the The Game Awards Future Class), what appears to be a notable award (2018 Game of the Year and Best Art from the Indie Developer Game Network), has been recently announced as a notable part of a team for an upcoming D&D game 1, 2, and has engaged in public commentary about innovations in the gaming industry. It is looking like per WP:CREATIVE, she has "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Beccaynr (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Also in The Verge: "The pair set about building a formidable development team, including [...] award-winning narrative designer Whitney “Strix” Beltran, [...]" Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm aware of the list, as I saw it in a press release published through Gamasutra. However, while I'm aware that The Game Awards are in and of themselves a notable awards ceremony, being one of fifty names with no further description in a brand new category of award that has received scant reliable, independent coverage at best marginally contributes to notability and frankly in my opinion does basically nothing toward notability. That somebody writes articles for the Internet ("engages in public commentary", if we want to euphemize it) has an impact of "literally nothing" on notability if said articles aren't actually covered in significant detail by reliable, independent sources. As far as notability for her role in the D&D game is concerned, I'm aware of the game, but once again, scarce little mention of her role is made, and furthermore, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" doesn't exactly fly when referring to an early development game that would likely be removed for being WP:TOOSOON if an article were created about it here. Obviously the wording in WP:CREATIVE criterion 3) is a bit subjective, but not so subjective as to seriously consider this as a reason to create an article. I reviewed the article again, and there's nothing new here that can even be construed as pushing the subject over the notability threshold. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am still working on it, and adding reviews and coverage of her work that are not referenced in the nom, biographical information, and additional honors and awards. The first source cited in the nom, referring to her as "high-profile", seemed like a clue that additional sources supporting notability could exist, and the way that she is similarly referred to in other sources further seems helpful for establishing WP:CREATIVE notability. And it is taking awhile to compile and review all of it, e.g. Vice interview with commentary, Dread Central review, report that she created an advocacy organization, Gaming as Other (VoiceAmerica) etc. Beccaynr (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I appreciate that it's still a WiP, but the Vice article is both far more about Bluebeard's Bride than Beltrán, gives little actual information about the subject herself, and as an interview is a primary source. While Dread Central may or may not be a reliable source, their article is solely a review of Bluebeard's Bride and doesn't mention the subject even one time. "VoiceAmerica" sounds impressive until you realize it isn't actually Voice of America and is instead some obscure Internet podcast. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is a writer and designer of the significant work(s) that have won a variety of awards and acclaim, so when there is commentary offered about the writing, e.g. by the Vice article, or the several reviews, it does seem to be about her, i.e. per WP:NAUTHOR. Nevertheless, even with the sources offered in the nom, there also appears to be sourcing available about her past career, and I've been continuing to develop the article. She operates in a somewhat niche industry, and appears to be quite well-known within it due to her accomplishments, and background information about her and her career appears to be available, so an article is looking justified. Beccaynr (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I changed my first comment above to a keep !vote per WP:CREATIVE/WP:AUTHOR, because Beltran "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" i.e. BlueBeard's Bride and the related titles as a writer and designer, as documented by the awards, including the 2018 IGDN Best Game of the Year (also reported by Geek & Sundry with a brief review), the 2018 IndieCade Grand Jury Award, "the best of IndieCade’s best" (also with a review), and a 2019 ENnie Awards nomination for Best RPG Related product, and per WP:CREATIVE/WP:AUTHOR, these works have "been the primary subject... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," including Dread Central, noted above (and apparently "founded in 2006" and "dedicated to horror news, interviews, and reviews," Dicebreaker (a Gamer Network editorial website - their flagship website is Eurogamer) (part of a larger review) , and Vice, as noted above, which includes commentary in addition to the interview. Also, per WP:CREATIVE/WP:AUTHOR, Beltran "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers," e.g. in the Polygon article above, noting she is "a high-profile indie developer," and a similar description published by GameRiv, i.e. "part of the new D&D game team is Whitney “Strix” Beltràn. popular indie developer responsible for the award-winning tabletop horror RPG, Bluebeard’s Bride," and she was selected by the prestigious Game Awards for inclusion in what is described as "50 talented individuals around the world who represent the bright, bold and inclusive future of video games," and she was chosen as a presenter for the 55th Annual Nebula Awards.

In addition, background on her video game writing career has been highlighted in e.g. PC Gamer, noted above, including State of Decay 2, Beyond Blue, and Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft. In addition, further biographical information going back to her childhood and including her education is emerging from interviews with BoardGameGeek 1, and RPGG 2, as well as her published academic writing, noted above and now included in the article's Works section, along with two publications from Wyrd Con that she contributed to in 2012 and 2013. And her WP:CREATIVE notability does not appear to be WP:BLP1E, because not only is she recently receiving coverage about her role as narrative director in the upcoming D&D game, she has not otherwise remained WP:LOWPROFILE, due to her founding the initiative Gaming as Other, which has included a variety of outreach activities, such as her participation in panel discussions and videos, and her written commentary published at the online science fiction and fantasy magazine Tor.com. Beccaynr (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beccaynr makes a convincing argument. I wasn't convinced before, but seeing this reasoning, I agree she meets the requirement for the subject specific guideline for creative professionals. Dream Focus 16:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, it seems like a valid argument. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Albert Prohl[edit]

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

Certainly accomplished, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, Before did not show up coverage which could establish notability, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Prohl's notability is based on his recognized accomplishments and contributions over 43 years of professional activity. First recognized as one of the original MIT students to work in the cooperative program with General Electric Company, he had a sustained publication record from 1945 to 1977 which is more usually a trait of a career in academia than industry.

His notability was also recognized in 1999 when he was awarded the N. O. Myklestad Award by ASME, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Founded in the United States in 1880, ASME is now an international organization with more than 110,000 members in 150 countries world wide. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Mechanical_Engineers. Established in 1991, N. O. Myklestad Award is given approximately every two years in recognition of a major innovative contribution to vibration engineering. (https://www.asme.org/about-asme/honors-awards/unit-awards/no-myklestad-award). Only thirteen other professionals have received this award. Kllwiki (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Kllwiki (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)kllwiki[reply]

Delete: Kllwiki's list is all very well and good, but satisfy no notability criteria, however important he finds Mr. Prohl. Ravenswing 01:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - longevity of 43 years of work does not equate to notability. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Teacher[edit]

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

I can't find any reviews nor any indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NFILM in searches relating to this film. It does not appear to meet any of the 8 inclusion criteria listed at WP:NFO. It has no independent sources at the moment and I can't see that any suitable replacement sources are available.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places? Happy to withdraw if suitable sources are located. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unable to find independent sources myself. Also to note that all sources so far can be considered as primary source. – robertsky (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet either WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:46, 2 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 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Salmeen[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, there is no in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. He appears to occasionally have off-hand mentions in press release-style news stories, as well as occasional quotes from him in news stories. The article is also blatantly written by COI accounts. It's basically a CV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah bin Mohammed Al Thani[edit]

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

There is no RS coverage of this person. I could find nothing on Google. The content on the page is, as far as I can tell, exclusively sourced to archived press releases. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a search in Arabic produces nothing. Mccapra (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Philanthropy does not automatically get someone an article on Wikipedia, unless it is covergered significantly in reliable secondary sources, rather than the unreliable sources herein. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Micozzi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely non-notable businessperson. All references are self published or just standard press releases. Created by a pretty much SPA, possible self-promotion or at least connected. Can't find reliable third party references or mentions that aren't basically press releases. Second nomination, was previously deleted but appears to have been recreated from the original draft and nothing has changed since then. Non-notable Canterbury Tail talk 15:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for everything you said. Is that what "per nom" means, actually? AdoTang (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Given this was recreated without anything changing, can't it be speedied? --Kbabej (talk) 23:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Majid Bin Thaniah[edit]

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

There is no RS coverage on which to write an article on the subject. As it stands, the content is just self-sourced puffery. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search in Arabic brings up nothing. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clearly a non-notable businessman. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 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 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 09:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Al Sayegh[edit]

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

There is virtually no RS coverage of the subject. The subject does not meet notability requirements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifa AlJaziri[edit]

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

There is virtually no RS coverage of the subject. The page was written like an advertisement by a likely COI account in 2010 and there has been nothing in the last 10 years that has substantiated that this person meets the notability requirements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to pass GNG. MarioGom (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References just touch on his involvement in the company. Not notable.Lesscynical (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps the company has more notability than this subject? Nevertheless, the subject of this AfD does not meet GNG requirements. --Kbabej (talk) 23:37, 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. This AfD was started after the article had already been redirected to Concentration of media ownership, which would arguably make RfD the right forum. But Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 27#Corporate media was closed in favor of this discussion. In this discussion, there is consensus to not retain this as an article, and no consensus as to whether a redirect is appropriate. Accordingly, the AfD is closed as delete (because almost nobody seems to think that retaining the history is in any way useful). All editors are now free to recreate the redirect and to re-contest it at RfD. Sandstein 07:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate media[edit]

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

Extremely McBad. WP:NPOV, WP:Weasel, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYNTH issues. Originally requested a merge/redirect/whatever as suggested by Neutrality, who went ahead with the redirect anyways. Then this RfD discussion opened up, where most people suggested the article be deleted instead. So here we are. Also, wow, this article's 16 years old? Damn. We're chipping into the artifacts to remove the dirt, huh? AdoTang (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a buzzword-type phrase rather than a specific concept that has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of topics already covered in other articles, such as media ownership. I would also be OK with a redirect to concentration of media ownership (which is where media ownership currently redirects). Neutrality^talk 14:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was one who first noticed that the unilateral redirect of this long-standing dumpster fire was inappropriate, and that the target was poorly chosen. The usage in most contexts, media owned by corporations, is too broad for the redirect to Concentration of media ownership. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, fails GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge It's easy to find other redirect targets such as media conglomerate, aka Big media. But why don't we see whether there are books on the subject:

The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest
Media Corporate Entrepreneurship: Theories and Cases
News Incorporated: Corporate Media Ownership and Its Threat
The Globalization of Corporate Media Hegemony
Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy
Journalism in Crisis: Corporate Media and Financialization
The Political Economy of Media
Who Owns the Media: Global Trends and Local Resistances
Megamedia: How Giant Corporations Dominate Mass Media
Big Media, Big Money

The broad topic in these is the control of mass media by large media empires which are mostly interested in making money. The phrase "corporate media" also appears in the title of numerous books about corporate media management – how non-media businesses can and should use the media to support their business. There's clearly lots to say here and that seems to be the main trouble – it's hard to make a simple article out of such a cacophony. And, of course, while we're working hard to figure that out, we read in our own media that the WMF is creating a corporation to market the results to Big Tech – the 21st-century version of Big Media. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Media is a redirect to concentration of media ownership, which was the proposed redirect target. The book titles you reference are a mishmash: as you point out, the first two are textbooks on media management, an aspect of business administration, while most others are specifically about media ownership or concentration of media ownership (in fact, at least of those books, by McChesney, is already cited at the latter article). It seems to the extent that any of the other books are useful sources, they would be most useful at one of the existing pages. I don't think it makes sense to have a gigantic article conflating two potential topics, each with very different focus (and it raises synthesis issues too). Maybe we should put a disambiguation page here, pointing to those two articles. Neutrality^talk 18:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's Big media that redirects to media conglomerate. Like I said, it's a cacophony. The issue is explained at WP:BROAD: "a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts." But, as we're an encyclopedia, we should not be ducking difficult topics, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 18:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we should be careful about how we cover topics, and should avoid redundancy. (Also: It's rather confusing that Big media (small 'm') and Big Media (big 'm') redirect to two different articles!) Neutrality^talk 19:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to concentration of media ownership. It is a short hand/politicized term, popularized by media critics like FAIR.org, John Nichols, Robert McChesney and Noam Chomsky etc..See https://fair.org/about-fair/whats-wrong-with-the-news/ which mentions corporate media. There are probably other redirects/topics we could make like Corporated owned media, but that's not the scope of this AFD. Shushugah (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems kind of pointless, it's either corporate or public-owned/not-for-profit, like the BBC, CBC, PBS. Someone has to pay the bills to run the thing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine as a personal opinion. I personally consume corporate media, state media, indy media etc.. but their characteristic differences and how their funding models influence their editorial coverage/independence is a subject of scholarly interest, as well as encyclopedic coverage. See State media for a relevant other article. Shushugah (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump and His Magic Wand[edit]

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

Noncompliant with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, and it fails WP:GNG and WP:10YT. The bulk of the cited sources have trivial mention, if any mention at all about the fiberglass creation. The image has been nominated for AfD at Commons. Footnote #1, The Hill, was published in 2016 before the statue was created; Footnote #7 has no mention at all, and most of the other cited sources are not RS, and so on. The cited interview with Zegan was about the rally, not the fiberglass statue. There are thousands of political paraphernalia during political conventions and rallies - this is just one of many. Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and non compliant with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News coverage fails GNG and there is no availability of WP:RS. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a one-time publicity stunt.--- Possibly (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two major news outlets coverage: NY Post CNN Dswitz10734 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NY Post is classified as not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources - but beside this you need by far more significant coverage to establish Wikipedia:Notability, your argument points more towards Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nomination; Does not meet notability criteria for GNG; also it is a COI creation, so it's likely that the article was created for promotional purposes. Netherzone (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, end-of-the-news-cycle man bites dog story. If this is the same statue thing that was at CPAC 2021 (I honestly don't care enough to Google and see), then it may be worth a mention there. Zaathras (talk) 21:49, 2 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 Gustavo Díaz-Jerez. Hog Farm _Talk 02:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FractMus[edit]

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

After ten years this article still contains no references, let alone reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Hardly edited would also be an indicator of lack of notability.

23 revisions since 2009-07-04 (+650 days), 12 editors, 62 pageviews (30 days), created by: Suphysis (167) — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of spam "download here" links and non-RS found during a Google search (and a non sigcov), but ultimately nothing that can be used to establish notability. Fails GNG. Pahunkat (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the pianist himself. I got exactly two hits in Google News, one to a press release and another to just a website in Spanish, which I don't hablo. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. However, the target article has issues of its own (inline external links, few sources). Pavlor (talk) 15:19, 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 redirect to Righeira discography. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vamos a la playa (Righeira album)[edit]

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

Another non-notable album by this group, which continues to get recreated from a redirect. Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Righeira discography as is standard procedure in case anyone searches for the album title. Protect against reversion of the redirect too. This compilation contained two notable hit songs, but the album itself received no significant coverage in the music media, at least as can be found in online sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect with protection since it keeps getting re-created. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:49, 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 16:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Tawfiq[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted as non-notable. The reliable sourcing I can find amounts to an interview in the Irish Times (here), and a BBC report on a talk he gave in Cambridge once. He doesn't appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG; I've looked to see whether his writing might pass WP:NAUTHOR, but I can't find any reviews of either of his books, so it doesn't look like he does. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a combination of WP:BIO1E/WP:NOTNEWS. There are a few more mentions of the subject by other sources in relation to his conversion, but not enough for demonstrating WP:GNG/WP:BIO notability. Nothing appears to indicate notability on any other grounds such as WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP and block from recreation. Simply converting to a religion and in and of itself is not wiki worthy. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Conversion by itself is NN and two books about the process does not make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass NAUTHOR. Leaning towards a salting as well, considering we're on the third AfD for this subject and there's not indication of notability. --Kbabej (talk) 23:44, 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 12:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Damron[edit]

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

Had been deproded, seems to be a typical WP:BIO1E, some coverage about the shoebox action but no sigcov about herself at all CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Possibly merge a sentence or two to Samaritan's Purse to which Operation Christmas Child redirects. She was clearly a successful local organiser, but that is not enough to make her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Peterkingiron; absence of significant coverage about the person sans the event in question. PK650 (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no where near enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Dief[edit]

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

Individual who doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Delete’’’. This article is a resume about an everyday person, which is not an appropriate subject for inclusion as a standalone entry in an encyclopedia.
Delete Non notable individual. I agree that this person does not meet WP:GNG and the sources included don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Redoryxx (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Berg[edit]

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

The article has been created by the subject 'Kari Berg' herself user:MissDeVine as a means of self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diastinaut (talk • contribs) 12:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the majority of the sources in the article are not independent of the subject. Does not pass WP:NBIO. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this point there are not enough notability for this singer. No good sourcing or charting songs etc.BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have not been able to find sufficient sources to support notability per WP:BASIC, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL or WP:AUTHOR. Beccaynr (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, one article in Swedish, others are unrelated with only a hit on the Berg name. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons, plus because she made a page about herself and didn't even bother to follow proper styling. A quote in italics without quotations? Christ, dude! AdoTang (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons, and principally for violating Wikipedia's policy against self promotion. The article has only gone this long without deletion due to virtually no one searching or viewing it, except by accident. Diastinaut (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Yoo[edit]

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

Content is supported by 2 blog source and 1 reliable source (3rd one) however it failed verification and doesn't match up with what was stated. In addition, no point having an dedicated article supporting with self-published source and failed verification source when it can just be included in the television series article Empress Ki (TV series) as description under the cast name.

Sidenote Was told to AFD this instead of CSD, see the article history log instead hence don't blame me for WP:SNOWBALL. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless I didn't get the message and we're doing pages for random main characters in assorted fictional media. In which case, I call dibs on Michael De Santa! Nah, but seriously, this character isn't notable. AdoTang (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can have pages for fictional characters, but they need to meet WP:NFICTION/GNG and this doesn't seem to be the case here. That said, maybe there is more quality coverage in Korean? Ping me if better sources are found - but I won't hold my breath. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Dean[edit]

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

Musician who doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very obvious delete from where I'm sitting. The page significantly lacks sources, and the ones that are cited are trivial mentions or placed on non-notable websites, i.e. emeatribune.uk. Pretty sure Issuu is a user content creation website as well. I can't find anything on this topic that would satisfy 1 of the possible 12 eligibility requirements of WP:MUSICBIO to meet the bare minimum for inclusion into the encyclopedia. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Efsane Nur Düzparmak[edit]

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

Definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL as U19 caps and Turkish league appearances do not confer notability. Sources in the article are all just passing mentions and none address the footballer directly and in depth.

In a WP:BEFORE search using Turkish sources as well as Google searches, the only additional sources found were a passing mention in this Hurriyet news story and two mentions in squad lists here and here. Not enough for WP:GNG in my view. Given the low level that the player is currently playing at, I don't believe that there is a strong argument for future notability either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Dr Salvus 20:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niranjan E K[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Award of a 3rd level gallantry award doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. Doesn't appear to meet GNG either Gbawden (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Guy's a real champ, handling those bombs and shielding his team with himself like that, but all he did was... well, die doing his job. And if we need to make pages about every soldier who died doing their job, well... AdoTang (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Younus College of Engineering & Technology[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources are there giving enough significant coverage to the subject to establish notability. Clearly fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets see, an article about a private school that is referenced only to primary sources and I can't find anything in a WP:BEFORE except for a few trivial name drops in school directories. So this seems like a clear delete to me. Unless someone can provide WP:THREE in-depth, independent sources that would help it pass the notability standards for organizations. If anyone can then I'd be more then happy to change my vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is just the usual bare-minimum coverage. Adamant1 is correct here as is Kichu. WP:NORG failed as the organisation is not discussed in depth enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes Matha College of Science and Technology[edit]

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

Another article about an educational institution without any reliable sources. Nothing notable found on doing a WP:Before. Fails GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reliable sources are the backbone of Wikipedia, it is time we removed all articles without them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cleaned up the advertising cruft and apart from the college website there isn't any other RS. Vikram Vincent 16:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNothing notable about this school, no reliable independent sources either. Ira Leviton (talk) 01:35, 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, without dissent. No prejudice against restoration to draft if sources can be found. BD2412 T 03:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.N.U.Jayaraj Nadar Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

No independent Reliable Sources found to support WP: GNG. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both references in the article are primary and the only ones that I could find besides those were just brief, trivial, name drops in articles about other stuff. So, IMO this article should be deleted. Unless someone can find WP:THREE better sources then what's in the article already or the ones I mentioned so this can clearly pass WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:46, 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) 15:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Team New Age[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A relatively new team that has not competed in a major tournament. The sources currently used are either unreliable (#1, #2) or primary (#3, #4). WP:VG/RS shows zero results. IceWelder [✉] 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable; can't find any RS mentions — fails WP:GNG / WP:SPORTBASIC. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Can't find any RS either. Pbrks (talk) 21:52, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mckinney (US Marine)[edit]

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

Although interesting, I am not sure there is enough depth to pass WP:GNG. I ran a google search and I still don't see enough coverage in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing enough to pass GNG. It appears to have been speedily deleted on 21 March for copyright violations, only to reappear in a slightly modified form. Intothat darkness 13:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. No lasting coverage of his near-crime and conversion to Islam. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written, repeats the same 2-3 sources multiple times... yeah. This is a goner. AdoTang (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies here. "Poorly written" and multiple citations of a source are not deletion grounds. Having previously had copyvio issues is neither, as long as they've been rectified. (One might make a case for WP:BLP1E, but I don't think that quite applies either.)

As for notability, it seems this chap has written an op-ed piece (possibly in the Indianapolis Star?) which was then picked up by others, so you see a lot those around, and they're obviously not enough as they're close source. However, the BBC and News.com.au sources cited seem pretty solid to me, and there is also this coverage in the NZ Herald, Colorado Sun, Yeni Safak, and the documentary shown here on CBS. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS.--Catlemur (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting story, zero notability. This is a one-event news story at best. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoldFire Studios[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORP. It is mentioned a couple times in reliable sources (per WP:VG/RS) but only as passing mentions in routine coverage. Significant coverage about the company itself (as required by GNG) is lacking. This is the most in-depth I could find as it names the founder/CEO. Lastly, although not strictly a deletion reason, the article was apparently authored under a COI. IceWelder [✉] 08:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 08:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 08:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless their games were notable (and thre's no necessarily indication this new Arctic Awakening will be) there's no need for an article on the studio. --Masem (t) 16:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many in-depth and notable references for this studio. I've added several more to the article. These are not simply "in passing" as noted, but coverage in reputable sources specifically about the studio and the information provided in the article. The new sources added: The Oklahoman, KSBI Oklahoma Live, OU Daily, GameSpot. --Jls33fsls (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first three are routine coverage and interviews, not in-depth coverage. The GameSpot one isn't even about the company, nor does it include any significant information. Also, please disclose your COI (see WP:COIDISCLOSE). IceWelder [✉] 15:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Masem. The only sources here are routine coverage or interviews, which don't establish notability. Keep vote (which is also a COI) hasn't made any convincing arguments. Namcokid 47 16:04, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baikuntha Express[edit]

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

I couldn't see a speedy rationale, there are no sources provided, article fails WP:GNG. I did a quick google search and saw nothing to suggest in-depth reviews have been done either. Govvy (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no links, not notable, nothing. AdoTang (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my first question is: why was this nominated nine minutes after creation, and how do we know the author was not going to develop this article further, absent this BITEY nomination? Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Usedtobecool: I don't know why you felt this was bitey, but when I did a google search I saw nothing substantial towards GNG! 9 hours, 9 months, 9 years. I probably still nominate if this was still in this condition. Nothing has improved in the 24 hours since I sent it to AfD. Normally an article gets improved pretty quickly from my experience when sent to AfD. Govvy (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For one, this is one of the specific examples of bitey behaviour listed in that guideline page. It is a well-established norm to leave new creations alone a while to give author a chance, unless it meets one of the problematic CSD criteria or the author has clearly stopped working on it. The AFD notice on their talk page was reverted with the edit summary: "Its not a faked personality", so, given their history, I doubt we can safely assume that they know they can save the article by improving it.
Anyway, what the author did manage to include suggests the articles meets WP:BOOKCRIT#2. I don't think you acquired the list of Madan Puraskar winners to verify whether this book won in the year 2042 BS. That would be one of the BEFORE tests to make sure it fails BOOKCRIT. Obviously, I'll have to look, but this book is most likely notable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify (which is what I think should have been done in the first place, rather than AfD) to allow the creating editor to add content and, more importantly, references — which, to be fair, they should have done before publishing, but hey ho. I did a quick search and couldn't actually find any useful sources, but it could be that they exist in Nepalese, and/or off-line. If this really has one the most prestigious annual literary award in the country, then someone must have written about it, surely? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @DoubleGrazing: I would have moved it to draft if I saw good enough sources in a google search, but didn't, hence why we are here! Govvy (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Plenty of sources are available in Nepali language. I have added few. My search revelled the author is more notable than the book. Given the book was published 30 years back, the media coverage in the internet is small. There is academic discourse on the book itself, thus it definitely passes WP:GNG nirmal (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-I am wondering why the nominator is so insistent to delete, instead of improving. Haha.. nirmal (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK as having won a major literary award. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with some reliable coverage, and I’m going to WP:AGF that more sources are available. Deserves to be improved if it can. Archrogue (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winner of main literary award of Nepal, meets NBOOK c.2 Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was considering closing this with a "keep" outcome but I think it would be a WP:BADNAC#2 (controversial close), so I investigated the topic instead and convinced myself that winning the Madan Puraskar is sufficient for WP:NBOOK#2. Notice that no-one has advocated for deletion since the addition of references and since the first argument made for NBOOK#2 being met. — Bilorv (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the references at all, I still struggle to see notability. I didn't get the year for the prize and thought that was hoax at first because of the year, but now I understand there is a different calendar for Nepal. I looked at Madan Puraskar also and see notability problems there also for the prize, not one of the years is sourced, I was also thrown off by it all hence the nom. :/ Govvy (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue here is a lack of Nepali editors and people who understand the relevant languages. Five other language versions of the prize article is an indicator that it is significant. The issue appears not to be notability, but current sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Draft:Ordem Paranormal: Enigma do Medo, per WP:PRESERVE. BD2412 T 03:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ordem Paranormal: Enigma do Medo[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and likely a WP:GNG/WP:NVG failure. Zero hits in WP:VG/SE; the sources listed are either primary (#2) or unreliable. IceWelder [✉] 08:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 08:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely TOOSOON. Page can be recreated when there's more coverage of this by publications, otherwise it fails WP:GNG. Namcokid 47 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (which I think could have been done at the NPP stage): potential merit as an upcoming topic, with usable primary sources (even though such sources don't contribute to notability). Delete as a second choice preferable to keep. — Bilorv (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Aladdin Pinball[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NVG. Reliable sources only show one hit here, where it is mentioned in a screenshot caption. The Internet Archive has no magazines that cover the game, only the game itself. The article's current sources are primary (the game itself, a press release, and a store page) or tertiary (a fansite). IceWelder [✉] 07:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 07:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing much found for sources, as stated. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Namcokid 47 00:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Garrett Moore[edit]

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

Executive/designer does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is either not independent or is of routine accouncements, such as being appointed to a role. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting this discussion, wouldn't this individual meet the general notability requirements given the fact that the NYC public arts commission's government based website (where he is mentioned multiple times) is independent and reliable in its nature? Also do you think this page or the information about Moore himself could be merged to another article if the page were to be deleted? Bedrockbob (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedrockbob, since he's on the city's art commision, it's not an independent source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability. Lesscynical (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack indepdent 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. I don't see what's notable. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Narayana Guru. However, better redirection targets seem to exist. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Narayana Central School[edit]

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

~~Non-notable college, only has a primary source. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking this over it's not a "college" as in a institution of higher learning. Plus, I don't think it's public either (not that it matters that much). So, it's not automatically notable and therefore WP:NORG applies. Sourcing wise, the article has zero references and doing a BEFORE only yields a few trivial name drops. In other words, from what I can (or more like can't) find there is nothing about this that passes either WP:NORG. Let alone WP:GNG. If anyone can come up with WP:THREE in-depth, independent sources I'd be happy to change my vote to keep though. Since it's possible (although extremely doubtful) that I just missed them. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate/Contest for speedy deletion The institution fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. It is not a notable institution. Besides, this article doesn't have reliable sources, to be honest, it has zero references. Without sources, it can't be verified. That's why this article should be contested for speedy deletion . A.A Prinon 09:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A7 states that educational institutions can't be speedy deleted for lack of notability. The only way a school could be deleted is through WP:G3, if it is a blatant hoax or WP:G11, if the entire article is pure spam with no decent content. I don't think any of the G3 or G11 criteria apply here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That should really be changed now that the whole "schools are inherently notable" thing isn't one anymore. If nothing else it could cut back on the amount of clearly unnecessary, time wasting AfDs for schools that have been going on lately. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Narayana Guru. It's not inherently notable, and the sources are weak and shallow. A student might be using this search term, so a redirect is cheap and easy. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It would fail my standards for high schools. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - another AfD started by the same block-evading sock Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since other editors have suggested delete/redirect, this isn't a case of WP:CSK#4. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Bearian. Further reading in a parallel discussion (diff). I express principled opposition to procedural action here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Carmel Convent Anglo-Indian Girls High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. No reliable sources apart from directory links found. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A respectable, substantial and historic school covered in a variety of sources including The Way We Were: Anglo-Indian Chronicles and 1600-1947, Anglo-Indian Legacy. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, Do you have any reliable source to prove the notability? I've already done WP:Before before nominating the article. YogeshWarah^Talk 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yogeshwarah, This is no particular criticism of you, because this is something I see with many deletion nominations, but I wish people would do more that put the title in quotes and perform a Google web search before claiming to have performed WP:BEFORE. For example the first search I did on seeing this title was this, recognizing that there would be too many hits for "Mount Carmel" and that it has probably given its name to many convents. I then used my favourite encyclopedia to determine that "Quilon" is an alternative name for Kollam and that Tangasseri is a part of that city. Now, that's not enough for me to say that I have looked hard enough for sources to nominate an article for deletion, but it's a start. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:ORG , no WP:RS at all CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified by Andrew D in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is covered by multiple reliable sources, as Andrew has pointed out. I have added some of those to the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Plenty of sources, not great but acceptable. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Bhatia[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ article on an “angel investor” businessman and engineer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The REFBOMBING is a facade to create a mirage of notability. A WP:BEFORE search confirms their non notability and hits found are mainly in unreliable sources such as this & user generated sources which are not to be considered reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks the level of in-depth sourcing we need for an actual passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His works have been covered by BBC, Yahoo, Huffpost and Search Engine Journal which makes him pass per WP:THREE. Also this segment from WP:NACADEMICS is relevant here: "However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements." Chiro725 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ashish Bhatia is well known for his contribution in developing social media tools, writing books. He was mentioned in several well known sites so this article should not be deleted. --Hushraitloy (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has done some notable works. May pass WP:GNG ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the idea that NACADEMIC applies to this person is contra to the spirit of the sources provided which are all general interest rather than academic in nature. Timnit Gebru would have been an example of an academic working outside academia. When actually examining the links provided you have is coverage of the patent he wrote. All the sources provided are really the same story, with no actual biographical coverage of Bhatia. I have not done the requisite work to establish that he's not notable so I'm not formally !delete, but I challenge the assertions made, essentially without evidence or backing in guideline or practice, that he is notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, lacks sigcov to sufficiently establish WP:GNG further indeed masquerded article, 2/3 is promoting anyway CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course there are levels of notability and there are outstanding examples with which we can not compare when it comes to assessing notability for a subject. Timnit Gebru is certainly more notable than Bhatia, but that does not imply Bhatia is non-notable. Also, NACADEMIC never says we need biographical coverage. In fact it says coverage about the work and achievement of an academic which we clearly have here in several highly respected media like BBC, Hffpost, Yahoo, SEJ etc. Chirota (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons and sources indicated above. A handful of primary sources in the article should be removed. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - three reliable sources quote him, and that's usually my standard for notability. However, there's nothing other than a single paragraph in each source, barely mentioning that he's an engineeer and quoting him, interview-style. Reasonable minds could differ whether this is WP:SIGCOV, but for argument's sake, I accept that's enough. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although participants have raised questions on the reliability and prominence of non-local sources going towards WP:GNG/WP:NORG/WP:NBUILD, there is some consensus in the discussion that the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florence House[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just one of many run of the mill halfway houses that every mid to large cities in the nation have that by the nature of their business, get local press coverage. It does not meet WP:NORG or WP:ORGDEPTH with sufficient audience interest to be in a global scale English encyclopedia. The https://web.archive.org/web/20120305213535/http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/12470/Default.aspx source is a whole lot of direct quotation of people involved in the project. I feel this coverage is pretty routine about an opening of a such facility. Argument made by MelanieN in previoius AfD has valid points. these organizations are everywhere and maybe they're important in the local community but overall, they lack sufficient notability from world perspectives. Per WP:SIRS, series of coverage by the same journalist and same publication counts as one, and coverage that is made up mostly of cluster of quotes from people aren't really significant and independent coverage. Graywalls (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is an essay and so "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". We already had a community discussion which arrived at a clear conclusion to Keep this topic and the nomination does not provide a good reason to overturn this. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG. Even if we exclude the numerous Maine-based sources discussing the subject in detail (and we should not), Florence House is the subject of an entire chapter in a published study of homelessness. Similarly, it is written about extensively in this honor's thesis at Assumption College. GLAAD has also published material about it on their national website.--User:Namiba 17:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that there may be many similar organisations is not an argument to remove articles. After all there are many sports teams, churches and hospitals which are pretty similar and get lots of local coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not really sure whether this falls under WP:GNG, WP:NORG, WP:NBUILD or what. The academic sources aren't good (a single presentation at a conference, an honour's thesis for a BA?) and most of the sources are local. If I were the sole arbiter I'd probably be a weak WP:NORG delete, but I'm firmly neutral on this one since that may not be its correct application. SportingFlyer T·C 11:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: the conference presentation and GLAAD coverage in combination with local coverage makes me think there's enough for a decent article. (The BA thesis is not reliable, by my understanding of the American education system.) However, it's borderline. — Bilorv (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there is some consensus that he satisfies the SNG those suggesting that the SNG was met have not provided any sources exist and there is a consensus that he does not pass the GNG. As WP:NSPORT says meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. and so in this case there is a consensus to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Laeeq[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing notable in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable cricketer, played in first-class matches per WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has played 3 FC games and 6 List-A games, so just under the 10 discussed at WP:Cricket. While a online search brought back limited sources, his career and U19 international career makes me think that in offline and Pakistani sources there would likely be some significant coverage for him, enough for him to pass GNG, and so be kept. A potential redirect to Faisalabad cricket team is available if needed though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep played in multiple first class and List A games, and was in Pakistan U-19s. Passes WP:NCRIC. No details provided by nominator of what WP:BEFORE checks were undertaken before the AfD was presented. No details of whether those searches were in foreign languages, where it is particularly likely that sources for this subject would reside. No evidence of how the AfD fits with the WP:ATHLETE approach of being lenient with subjects residing outside the Anglophone sphere. No evidence provided to justify comment of "non-notable cricketer". This is nowhere near the appropriate standard or evidence base for an AfD. DevaCat1 (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Found very little coverage outside of the usual wide-ranging databases built on scorecard data, and only one of any substance, but just about enough to suggest more might exist somewhere. If would certainly be useful to be able to reliably verify his date of birth... _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Withdraw - please anyone uninvolved here may close this. Störm (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First he was dropped out in Under-19 squad because of false date of birth given by him for consideration in team squad. In my search, I found national news website's articles who tells the story about why PCB dropped him from Under-19 tournament. Second article says about his selection in inter-region state team. He cheated PCB for consideration and that is why PCB dropped him when they had sufficient proof against him. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 9 matches at domestic level, plus his deception and sources about enhance his notability. StickyWicket (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. WP:NCRIC does not apply, because the article is sourced to statistical databases. With no significant coverage supporting the article, it fails the guidelines at WP:NSPORT (of which NCRIC is a subset).4meter4 (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough notable as he has played in first-class matches. Gold ★ ⁷⁸⁶ 13:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The claim is that the individual fails the GNG, so discussion of playing in matches and the like is not helpful to resolution. Instead, discussion should focus on the amount of reliable and independent reference material available about this individual and whether this would satisfy the GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interestingly, there is one article that's actually about him, though the article as a whole doesn't really provide SIGCOV! Most of the sources are statistical directories failing WP:SPORTCRIT, and I can't find anything else notable on him. The U-19 World Cup is a youth international tournament which doesn't really lend itself to notability unless there's clear SIGCOV. There may be a suitable redirect target. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All sources used in the article is a statistic database (except for one), which according to WP:SPORTCRIT cannot be used to establish notability. The one non-database source talks about him being dropped from the Under-19 Pakistani squad. Following that there aren't any other reliable sources I could find myself, there isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Alternative, redirect to List of Faisalabad cricketers. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 00:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above strong arguments. The sources really are raw stats. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. Riteboke (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per RolledOut34 above. Most sources seem to come from the "Pakistan Cricket Cricket Archive". bop34 • talk • contribs 19:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are other mentions of him besides the stat databases, but they're just passing mentions. Until otherwise proven, I agree it lacks WP:SIGCOV. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R3 (album)[edit]

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

While everything is sourced here, none of the listed sources demonstrate that the album is notable, or even that it exists in the first place. versacespace talk to me 04:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. versacespace talk to me 04:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it doesn't "exist" yet because it hasn't been released. dx talk 13:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylxpedia: I've already noted that it hasn't been released. It also doesn't have a release date, doesn't have an a cover art, doesn't even have a title, and almost all of the references have nothing to do with the album, only the songs in them. This is why we have drafts. versacespace talk to me 04:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd support merging this article into Rosalía (singer) instead of deleting it completely. dx talk 12:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It must be admitted that most of this article simply duplicates large parts of the sections "2018–2020: El Mal Querer and international recognition" and "2020–present: Third studio album and collaborations" in the main Rosalia article, and most of it is about one-off collaboration singles in the past three years, and very little is actually about the album itself, so merging any additional information to those two sections might be a possibility. Given that her last album topped the Spanish and Billboard Latin charts, won the Grammy Award for Best Latin Rock Album, and was included in the most recent update of Rolling Stone's Top 500 Albums of All Time, there's no doubt that this album will be notable when it eventually comes out. But at the moment, not even the title is confirmed. Richard3120 (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is is not a thing. If Rosalía is in fact developing a new album that process can be, and already is, described in the relevant historical sections of her article (see the comment by Richard3120 above). There should be no album article until the album exists with a confirmed release date, title, and tracklist. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above reasoning, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. Chirota (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. The album isn't released yet and the information appears sparse and fragmented. GNG is a far cry. The content of the article isn't even centered all that much around the album but deals with singles. Singles =/= album. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. Riteboke (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep the page. Further discussion can occur on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Minnesota's 6th congressional district election[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. Anything notable about this race can be merged into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Content is largely candidate biographies, doesn't need to be separate article. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was actually a pretty high profile race at the time. This was Michele Bachmann's first election were she ran as a fire-brand conservative and really defined her career moving forward. Her opponent was the Patty Wetterling, the mother of Jacob Wetterling who went missing in the district in the late 80's. Patty really made an effort to advocate for missing children and also made it a big part of her campaign. This source from Congressional Quarterly in the article [7] gives a pretty in-depth look of the race at the time. Given that this race happened in 2006 much of the coverage was in newspapers which I managed to find plenty of significant coverage of the race [8] [9] [10] [11], including this article from the Washington Post [12] which covered the race between Patty Wetterling and Michele Bachmann's extensively, along with the issues that were important at the time. George W. Bush even headlined a fundraiser for Bachmann which gave a huge boost to her and her campaign [13] [14]. Overall the article can definitely be expanded and improved much like 2006 Minnesota's 5th congressional district election's article was recently after a previous AfD. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayJay. Kablammo (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge President's in off years especially will campaign at huge numbers of events for candidates from their parties. I am not convinced anything about this election truly stands out, and it is clear we do not have the will to create articles for every election ever, so I think it is in the best interest of having even coverage overall to merge this article to the article on all the congresional elections in California in this year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayJay, this race received extensive and national coverage, making it an exceptional enough race to deserve a standalone article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Nothing about this election stands out enough to make WP:SPLIT valid. Should be upmerged into our list of races. SportingFlyer T·C 15:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayJay. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether consensus exists to keep the article or merge content into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources provided in the discussion by JayJay is enough to meet WP:GNG. For notability purposes, WP:SPLIT does not matter if WP:GNG is met.
It would be nice if someone can incorporate the sources here. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources given by JayJay would provide notability per WP:GNG. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the sources found demonstrate this pass GNG. --ScorchingElijah (talk) 20:06, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan Charleston[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability outside of the show. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not familiar with the reality TV show she was on. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian, hi. Neither was I. It's a struggling show on Bravo, with about 600k viewers. Cancelled after the 2019 season. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I simply don't agree with the nomination neither do I agree with the language used about how this is a struggling show that got cancelled. The TV star is all over the news and no she doesn't get discussed only in the context of the show. Maybe many of the news articles refer to her as Southern Charm star in title and throughout the text but not that is only what she gets discussed for. I can go ahead and post links to to the lots of articles she was in, but google news will do. DavidLe (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several hits in GNews bring up People magazine (a few times) and other sources, for this "star". While I don't think she is a star, she's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. I'm conflicted on this, but the article's got enough proper sources. No one cares about her, but she's allowed to have her article, I guess. AdoTang (talk) 22:06, 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. BD2412 T 21:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sivagiri Vidyaniketan[edit]

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

~~Non-notable school, nothing notable found in WP:RELIABILITY and Fails WP:GNG. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aluva#Schools and other educational institutions: The subject fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only considering the less strict WP:GNG here.
Sources in the article definitely do not meet WP:GNG. Searching with "Sivagiri Vidyaniketan" -wikipedia does not yield wp:reliable sources that are wp:independent with wp:significant coverage. Using the native name from Google Maps, querying with "ശിവഗിരി വിദ്യനികെതന് സീനിയർ സെക്കൻഡറി സ്കൂൾ" -wikipedia returns one result that only provides basic information for a school. So the subject fails WP:GNG.
Suggest redirection per WP:ATD-R. The list at the redirect target does not seem to have notability requirements for inclusion so a redirect is possible. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:GNG, WP:NCORP and my standards for schools. First off, it's so poorly written as to be difficult for the ordinary reader to understand it. Secondly, there's a lack of coverage as an organization or generically. I don't see anything that would allow it to meet my standards for high schools. For example, it appears that it only recently was a primary school, and in the past few years graduated a "batch" of students. I evaluate schools on a case-by-case basis, and this one is not worthy of inclusion here. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - nominated by a vandalism-only sock in evasion of their block, therefore this AfD is an act of vandalism Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly in agreement with Bearian (mainly: doesn't meet GNG, not NCORP). Spiderone's procedural argument is completely invalid. It doesn't matter who the nominator is, the discussion has taken it's course and the reality of the matter is pretty apparent. An AfD is a discussion. A substantive discussion can't ever be vandalism. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kot Hasan Khan[edit]

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

This article only had one reference when I started to copyedit it, and the reference referred to Hafizabad city instead of Kot Hasan Khan. In fact, most of the article talks about Hafizabad city (which has its own article), and it's only at the beginning of §Industry that the two are conflated. There's also a distinct tone issue throughout the article, but that's something I can correct. Other than that, it seems like the article should be deleted (or reduced to a stub). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub — I found it in this 1951 census village list, on page 42, so its existence can be verified at least, along with some (presumably very outdated) information. It certainly meets notability guidelines as a populated place, and any issues with the current article can be fixed easily enough, even if it ends up very stubby. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and added the census info to the article. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@3 kids in a trenchcoat: The source seems inaccessible using a browser. Is a specialized program needed to access it? ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aseleste: The .pdf file? I can view it in Chrome. You might need the Adobe Acrobat extension for that, and it may take a while to load as the file is 352 pages long. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand why this keeps getting relisted. We have a cast-iron reliable source showing that this was a village with a population of 1,710 in 1951, obviously passing WP:GEOLAND. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like the place is populated and legally recognized from the above source (finally got access to it), meeting GEOLAND. I agree with reducing it to a stub though. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 8,065 people in 1,059 households according to the 2017 Census (see p.2). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:54, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Boulevard[edit]

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

Non-notable road in Singapore. A WP:BEFORE search turns up only buildings which have addresses along the road, and of another road with the same name in San Francisco R22-3877 (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search brought up only passing mentions, meaning that this street fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Marina Bay. The street may not be iconic in the way Rodeo Drive is, for example, but it is the site of Singapore's new financial district. If anything, this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. I think this page should either be kept, or the content preserved on the Marina Bay page until there is more coverage or an editor has the time and inclination to build it up. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kohlrabi Pickle: At this point, almost no part of the article is worth merging into Marina Bay, and the Marina Bay article is itself needing expansion (and would be a more appropriate place to put the content about the financial district), so it's probably better to just delete the article. R22-3877 (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@R22-3877: I appreciate your view and the rationale for the AfD nomination but I’m not sure it’s the right call. There are a number of iconic roads in Singapore, well-known amongst locals, including Waterloo Street and Shenton Way. I similarly struggled to find sources that say they’re notable, or dedicate significant attention to them. Marina Boulevard is not quite on their level, but it is a major road and likely to become major-er. The article itself isn’t in terrible shape. It isn’t so frivolous as to clutter the encyclopedia. If it were up to me, I’d keep it. If not, I do think that it merits a section in the Marina Bay article (even at risk of WP:UNDUE) because it forms the western boundary of Marina Bay (Marina Bay Sands being on the south). Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:12, 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. After extended time for discussion, consensus has become clear. BD2412 T 03:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Premise (company)[edit]

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

the references are only notices of financing and personnel changes, and thus do not meet WP:NCORP. The notability of the directors does not imply the notability of the company. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article's filled with junk now but the original source list is good: [15][16][17][18][19][20] czar 13:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV based on CZAR. I also found some more recent coverage with a quick Google search around COVID surveys and data they have been doing. Needs to be rewritten as it is incredibly promotional. Redoryxx (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP and not GNG. None of the references either in the article or posted above meet the criteria for establishing notability. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
- Announcements of funding fail WP:ORGIND as they are based on PR and announcements/information by the company and/or partners. The following are examples: Pitchbook, TechCrunch 1, TechCrunch 2 and Pulse 2.
- Profiles of company executives (or articles announcing appointments, etc) which rely entirely on information provided by the company or interviews or which fail to provide detailed information about the company fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Examples are GovTech (profile of Blackman, no mention of topic company), GovTech 2nd (profile of Blackman, no mention of topic company), PR release EY of the year, Govtech 3 (interview), WSJ announcement of new CEO and WSJ 2 Interview with founder
- Advertorials relying on company information/interviews which "explains" the company/product and does not contain "Independent Content" or fails to provide information on the company fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH - advertorials from Time, CNN, Wired and New Yorker
- Mentions-in-passing in "Best Of" lists or other Announcements such as new offices also fails ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH such as WToP new offices, Forbes "Best Startup Employers 2021" list and Deloitte's "fast 500" list.

None of the references I can find get out of a company-led PR echo-chamber and therefore fail our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in strong agreement with HighKing. NCORP indeed need be applied, and his characterization of presented sources as advertorials is spot on. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 4meter4 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Makinian[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Nothing on persian websites about thoses claims of winning awards. Even her Persian page on fa.wiki used an interview of her for this claim. Diderotd (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also noted that the main source for the "awards" section is this CV published by the actress herself.Diderotd (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added quotes from two international fringe reviewsKaybeesquared (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons already listed. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:11, 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. Opinions of low-participation accounts are given little weight, leaving a clear consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 04:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Ama Poku[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited from being a Deputy CEO of a bank. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mid-level functionary of a quasi-government bank. Fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject under discussion is notable for various tangible references which justifies her notability. The subject has track records of enough information online which makes her notable. Her contribution and recognition as a Ghanaian Banking executive is clearly significant in most media platforms online especially. Not only is the subject a Deputy CEO, but is noted for her contribution to Banking and Businesses in Ghana. There have been cases where she is often interviewed on major news platforms in Ghana to educate and talk about investment and businesses in Ghana. Respectyourselfhere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the "keep" !vote does not address WP:GNG and hence I am currently leaning towards closing as delete, I am going to need further analysis of the sources present in the article before a consensus is reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following references are verifiable and objective evidence that the subject has received significant coverage and attention from independent sources to support my notability claims WP:GNG: https://yen.com.gh/179259-meet-ghanaian-female-banker-deputy-ceo-mba-18-years-experience.html, https://hypercitigh.com/business/nana-ama-poku-amongst-women-taking-over-top-positions-in-the-banking-industries/, https://www.myjoyonline.com/deputy-exim-bank-ceo-nana-ama-poku-wins-global-leadership-excellence-award/, https://yen.com.gh/179259-meet-ghanaian-female-banker-deputy-ceo-mba-18-years-experience.html, https://www.amazonswatchmagazine.com/exclusive-qa/showcase-successful-female-leaders-to-inspire-the-younger-generation-nana-ama-poku/attachment/nana-ama-poku/. The subject is essentially not a mere short-term interest and should therefore be kept. Respectyourselfhere (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be aware that voting twice isn't allowed, especially since you are the author of the article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for her significant roles in the Ghanaian banking sector. WP:GNG. Zbonzome (talk). 06:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this account is a newly-created WP:SPA. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets the notability criteria since she has been significantly recognised by many media houses in Ghana and the sources cited are verifiable Robert Jamal _{…talk to me💬} 16:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for various tangible references and her significant roles.Jemima2019 (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable executive. Does not meet WP:BASIC per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per above. I can't attest to Zbonzome's claim that the subject holds "significant roles" (Deputy Chief Executive Officer...Member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing... doesn't seem all that encyclopedically significant on it's face), and unlike Robertjamal12, I don't see how the sources are "verifiable", etc. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly nothing more than a promo page and Wikipedia is not Linkedin or a "Who's who". See WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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) 01:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Channon[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:AUD. While I considered merge into Robert Duncan as altenative to deletion, it isn't solely his company. Graywalls (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2016-10 ✗ G6

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. After much-extended time for discussion, consensus is now clear. BD2412 T 03:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McKeever[edit]

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

McKeever does not appear to meet the requirements laid out by WP:NOTE generally, WP:PERSON particularly, or (if considered as an academic) WP:ACADEMIC. The article was created 15 years ago and remains a stub with one source, which is self-published. The content of the article, mostly a bibliography of McKeever's work, can seemingly be merged with Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and related articles. The article was previously tagged as potentially not notable but later had that tag removed removed shortly afterward by the same editor due to "niche notability," presumably within criticism of the church. A cursory view of usual sources to establish notability turns up McKeever's work directly, but not anything yet in the way of secondary sources that establish his work's importance. Without evidence that McKeever's work has received significant attention, it seems that an article about him personally is not warranted under notability guidelines. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject comes no where even close to meeting the GNG, notability for academics, or really any other notability guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject has published several books with reasonably well-established evangelical publishing houses, so WP:NAUTHOR is plausible. I only managed to find one review so far [21], but my search was rather cursory. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another user (@Genericusername57:) found a second review of the same book as well, in addition to Jacobson's review that you linked:
  - Pyle, D. Charles (1996). "Review of Questions to Ask Your Mormon Friend: Challenging the Claims of Latter-day Saints in a Constructive Manner". FARMS Review of Books. 8 (2): 231–250. ISSN 1099-9450. JSTOR 44792720.

I'll note that this review serves more as an extended response to McKeever's book than anything else. I'll further note that Jacobson's review explicitly presents their view: "Questions to Ask Your Mormon Friend is little more than a rehashing of material drawn from previous anti-Mormon books." Given the content of these reviews (and more that User:Genericusername57 is presently finding), it seems that McKeever may be more notable than we thought, though of course among two very particular groups. Still not enough for me to withdraw my proposal, but worth considering. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't think there are enough book reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. Christianity Today has mentioned him a few times in passing (example). It's possible that there are offline print sources covering him and his work, but I don't have the requisite library access to go look for them. Cheers, gnu 57 18:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, and selectively merge anything worthwhile into Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints per nom. While there's some progress towards WP:NAUTHOR, no one has managed to turn up sufficient evidence of impact to justify the standalone article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Mill, California[edit]

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

As best as I can tell, this was a literal mill. No evidence it was notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Handball Club[edit]

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

Deletion is proposed because there is no evidence that this meets wp notability standards. An editor removed a prod. But none of the reasons presented by the editor changed that view. --2603:7000:2143:8500:40E5:C46D:4560:BA39 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above statement is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 21:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - has there ever been a discussion as to whether all Oxford sports that award a "blue", or award a Blue" or a "half blue", deserve an article? I am inclined to think that the clubs for sports that award a "blue" definitely deserve an article, but I am less sure about "half blues". We should be consistent. --Bduke (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have not checked for such discussion, but can point you to the current wp notability guideline for teams. It is Wikipedia:NTEAM. Nor, frankly, do I see a reason to view teams as notable that otherwise fail our notable requirements. But are from one of the British universities or those in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand that have such a designation. There's not parity with teams from schools in other countries, or in those countries but dont have that designation.2603:7000:2143:8500:40E5:C46D:4560:BA39 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teams in other countries, and teams in the UK other than Oxford and Cambridge may have other designations than "blue" that indicates that they are notable. It is just one label that indicates they are more notable than teams that do not award a "blue". Yes, other evidence is needed but I would be surprised if the Oxford Clubs that award a "blue" will not be found to be notable using our regular criteria. I concentrate only on Oxford as I know more about it as an Oxford graduate. --Bduke (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The US has "NCAA Division I" teams. But I would not think all are notable. Also, if "blue" teams otherwise meet our notability criteria, they would not need another entry point in. My guess is this would be a tough new rule to convince the community to adopt, and my starting point would be one of skepticism. 2603:7000:2143:8500:40E5:C46D:4560:BA39 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apologies, but I thought that a discussion about the award of a "blue" might be helpful. I still think it is, but others disagree. This sport only awards a "half blue" and that fits with the clear evidence from the article that it is not notable. --Bduke (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtfulness. I think that if you want to engage the larger community as to whether there should be an exception for "blue" teams, the better place to do that may be on the talk page of the notability section that deals with sports. Best. 2603:7000:2143:8500:40E5:C46D:4560:BA39 (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)]][reply]

Look at the Category for Oxford student sports clubs as it shows just how many Oxford University sport clubs do have articles. I suspect they all award a full blue, not a half blue, but I have not checked. --Bduke (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Gliding Club is another non-notable club in that Category. But I'll stop here, as we are taking the AfD discussion off its target. Best. 2603:7000:2143:8500:10E7:42F0:ACD8:5EF5 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke: I maybe agree that there are not notable as an university club. But they played in an European handball event which results in the notability of the club. So the discussion about blue half blue etc. doesn't matter because there are notable because of the international games. I found some sources from other countries about the club. Please look at my comment below. --Malo95 (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Hi. If we keep the blues/half-blues status aside (which I grant could be misleading), would the Club meet the notability criteria because of its participation in non-university competitions? The club participates in the National league and it participated in European competitions [22][23]. Otherwise, a substantial list of articles on handball clubs that have participated in that European competition should also be listed for deletion (for instance Wacker Thun). --Xave ri us 15:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaverius (talk • contribs)

Where is that reflected in a wp notability guideline? As to other handball clubs, see wp:otherstuffexists ... as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nottingham University Handball Club. 2603:7000:2143:8500:10E7:42F0:ACD8:5EF5 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit confusing, because the Sports criteria specify "for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level", but that refers to individual sportsmen. But them for teams it says "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs" here. This means that any of the players who were in the teams that played at the European competition could get a wikipedia entry of their own? Anyways, tht's besides the point, because for clubs and teams the sports notability page re´directs to the general rules; then again, news articles from national [24] and university papers covered the European tournaments, and those are independent and reliable sources as specified in the general nontability guidelines. I want to think a combination of newspaper articles + international competition should be enough?--Xave rius 11:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see GNG-level coverage of the club itself, which is what we need. Passing mentions aren't sufficient for GNG. Best. 2603:7000:2143:8500:20A5:9F62:A893:774A (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there's also a full-page Spanish paper article: "En Oxford se estudia, se rema, y se gana la liga de balonmano," Marca (Madrid), 17/Nov/2006.--Xave rius 11:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the Marca site, all I get is this.[25] 2603:7000:2143:8500:BCF5:5F66:95C5:171F (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that's because the online archive only goes to 2009 [26]. The paper article is there.--Xave rius 08:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would I see the paper article, so I can assess its depth of coverage of the team, and its quality? With people seeking to save the article having sought to rely on what are clearly not in-depth articles on the team, and given that that is part of the criteria, that would be helpful. --2603:7000:2143:8500:195:56DE:B473:D081 (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep They played in a international competition. And therefor they are notable. --Malo95 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that reflected in a wp notability guideline? 2603:7000:2143:8500:10E7:42F0:ACD8:5EF5 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[[reply]

I did some more digging and found some news articles about the club at the Challenge Cup. You can see if you are participating in an European handball competition you are notable. Sources: Pay to access (Sorry), [27], [28] [29] And all the talk that they are an university team doesn't matter because they played international. If they would had played only at the college championship I maybe would agree that there are not notable. --Malo95 (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again - Where is it reflected in a wp notability guideline that if a team played in an international competition, they are therefore notable? Furthermore, minor news stories and passing mentions do not satisfy GNG. 2603:7000:2143:8500:D1E8:4726:3913:A58A (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the WAZ is not a minor news story. Half of the story is about a german player how played for Oxford and the other half is about the club self. I know there is not a lot of coverage but there are some articles in newspapers from other counties therefor the club has international importance. Malo95 (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of players per our rules does not equate to notability of the club. And the level of coverage does not meet the GNG requisite of significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail. And again - where is it reflected in a wp notability guideline that if a team played in an international competition, they are therefore notable? --2603:7000:2143:8500:4C3:DFC9:A0E5:F915 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep If this were an American college sports team, I think we would unquestionably keep it. I know UK university sports are organized differently, but is that a reason fordeletion? DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, Otherstuffexists is not an argument given weight. Second, the AFD of a UK club in this sport is above. Second, even if it were, you "think" we would keep an American club with this background, but you have not in fact even presented any supporting evidence suggesting your thinking is accurate here. I think the opposite is the case. I believe we would apply GNG or other notability standards, none of which this club would pass. You have not even discussed wp notability standards. And third, of course there are other AfDs of sports clubs in the UK where the result is other than what you imagine. The above AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nottingham University Handball Club, for example. And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Holloway, University of London Boat Club. Perhaps the reason we don't see any college handball clubs in the US on Wikipedia, as you can note here,[30] is because they tend not to meet Wikipedia notability standards. 2603:7000:2143:8500:B544:63A7:9D80:BFC0 (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument of Otherstuffexists works also the other way. If similar things doesn't exist at Wikipedia it doesn't mean that everything of this category is not important. And please don't look it as only a college club. You have to put the blue, half blue stuff a side. And you have to ask yourself if the club is enough important with the international coverage in Spain, Germany , Finland etc. for the games at the EHF Challenge Cup. In my eyes you can clearly answer this with yes. Malo95 (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malo - Nobody is arguing that the reason to delete the page is that otherstuffdoesnt exist -- the above point is simply a response to the editor's mistaken assumption -- pointed out as mistaken -- that otherstuffexists was a sufficient reason here. It is not. As User:Kbabej has pointed out at AfD (he/she can correct me if I misquote), there are hundreds of university clubs, and not each deserves an article. The point is that this article fails to meet any applicable wp notability criteria. Including GNG. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E500:A993:E39A:99BE (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the two full-length articles in international papers (Marca and waz.de) count as significant, reliable, and independent sources. You, anon, insist they aren't. I could see how univerity newspaper and passing mentions in other newspapers (Belarussian, Finnish), reliable and intependent as they are, may not be significant enough. The Blues status is apparently bot enough because there has been no discussion on it. Other than that, there is the case to be made that taking part in European Handball competitions should be a sports-specific criterion for notability, but since it does not exist as such in wikipedia, this is being held against the article. I'm sad to say it boils down to that, right? How do we propose such notability criterion for handball?--Xave rius 10:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. GNG states that "no fixed number of sources [are] required .... but multiple sources are generally expected" in order to establish notability. The word multiple is purposely left vague in the guideline because "sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". I haven't seen that (and in practice, "two" sources - while the bare minimum of "multiple" - is I believe rarely seen as sufficient). I will try to read the paywall protected sources you point to to see their quality and depth of coverage more clearly. (update: the waz article is about a 2007 tournament, and an individual player, but not a full-length article about the team per se). As to where one might go to seek to change/expand the notability criteria for sports teams such as this one, I believe it would be the talk page here - [31]. 2603:7000:2143:8500:195:56DE:B473:D081 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To counteract DGG's argument above, university sports are organized in Britain completely, 180 degrees, differently from in the US, apart from a couple of sports at Oxford and Cambridge (of which handball - a major sport in much of continental Europe but vitually unknown in the UK - is not one) and many at Loughborough, which specialises in sport. Universities do not have stadiums or sports scholarships, the amateur levels of major sports are not organised around university teams and for the most part even when it comes to major sports at major universities the participants outnumber the spectators. As one example of this my son came in the top twenty in four different individual sports in UK student championships, but it would be laughable to think that he came anywhere near notability for this. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sports teams in UK universities can hardly be compared to those in the US, but in this particular case the Oxford Handball club does not play in a University-only competition (BUCS) like, e.g., the OUAFC. It plays in the national league of the EHA and, because of this, it has participated in Profesional European tournaments (EHF CHallenge Cup).--Xave rius 07:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the basis for believing that this is relevant under our wp notability criteria? 2603:7000:2143:8500:81A9:AB39:74E1:92AE (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline. This team does not meet GNG because there is no sufficiently significant and sufficiently independent coverage (Oxford U sources are neither here or there in terms of being independent IMO), etc. I find the arguments and refutations of user 2603:... to be generally successful and those of the keep advocates not very successful. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Riteboke (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. Although notability is not inherited, any organized sports team associated with an internationally known institution like Oxford University, and participating in a schedule of matches against teams from other schools, seems highly likely to be notable itself. BD2412 T 03:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Philadelphia Police Department#Notable events. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone article; redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Thomas Jones[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Although the incident did receive national coverage at the time, most of it was redundant (WP:DIVERSE), and the aftermath fizzled without much fanfare, as the subject pled guilty and the officers involved were suspended (WP:LASTING). Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Keep this article describing a notable event with significant coverage, or merge to Philadelphia Police Department#Notable events. An organization threatened to post the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the law enforcement officers involved in the event, which sparked significant debate about the issue of the privacy of the officers. This incident had significant implications about race relations and law enforcement. This incident has a listing at Philadelphia Police Department. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Johnpacklambert:, @Metropolitan90:, @Kncny11:, why must we delete the article if the history can be kept via a merge? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philadelphia Police Department#Notable events: Per WP:ATD-R. A merge is probably unnecessary here since the incident is already mentioned there. However, I will copy the missing content to the redirect target now. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copied. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; I also don't think it's a likely search term. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philadelphia Police Department#Notable events per Aseleste. As long as it's mentioned there, I don't see any reason to delete here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultra HD Blu-ray releases[edit]

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

This is basically a list of movies that have been released on the Ultra HD Blu-ray format. Such a list is not very encyclopedic, especially since the format is growing fast and new titles are being released each week. This would be similar to a list article of every movie released on Blu-ray Disc or DVD. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons I put here. AdoTang (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom and 2 comments above. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too broad in scope, per WP:SALAT. Too ubiquitous to be of encyclopedic value. Not seeing this as different from listing all VHS releases, all DVD releases, etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the rationale above for deleting it. Kolma8 (talk) 17:38, 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 no consensus due to persistent lack of participation (discounting the creator of the article). No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Roadracing Association[edit]

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

Not seeing the kind of WP:SIGCOV to meet ~~WP:NORG~~ WP:NONPROFIT. Newspapers.com has (more?) matches for an Edmonton based org, but they are mostly passing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the page WP:NORG, "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams." The Motorcycle Roadracing Association is a 501(c)(7) not-for-profit sports organization created solely for the common interest of the membership. The Edmonton based organization is irrelevant and has nothing to do with our club. If you're not finding WP:SIGCOV then please let me know how you are determining that since I can find copious references through google with "MRA Colorado motorcycle" as a search string. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjbbrewer (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, WP:NONPROFIT then. There are websites that come up on a google search but which of them provide reliable and in-depth coverage of the association? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The MRA is covered at least bi-monthly in Roadracing World & Motorcycle Technology^[1], which is a worldwide printed & online publication. Part of the main reason for creation of the MRA wikipedia page is to collect historical information and references about the organization which includes a number of former members who have received national championship recognition and others who have competed at the world level of motorcycle racing. I am still in the process of collecting that since much of it is from non-electronic (printed) sources. Also, there are other racing clubs with Wikipedia pages with almost identical objectives and membership that have existing pages. For example: ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] So please let me know what I need to change for the MRA page so that it conforms to the guidelines that seemingly these other pages/organizations are conforming to. Thanks in advance! Jjbbrewer (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeffrey Beall (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing to add content and references to the MRA entry as I collect historical and referential data. I notice that this relisting occurred >7 days after the last discussion entry, so I'm hoping that is an indication of capitulation regarding deletion. As stated in the relisting guidelines, ".. having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors." That is an understatement as I am doing this for free for a not-for-profit organization. I will keep monitoring this so please, if you have any concerns, post them! Jjbbrewer (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still checking here and still looking for any discussions or comments. I have more content and external references that I'm currently working on. I sure hope we can close this discussion soon. Jjbbrewer (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

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) 01:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Brown Wanamaker[edit]

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

Individual related to famous people fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources are available apart from a one-paragraph New York Times death announcement. KidAd • SPEAK 02:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now first x to do y is getting to absurd levels. Her first x is not just enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Once the socks are discarded, there is a consensus to delete. I did consider draftification but given the previous history of sockpuppetry and persistent recreation of the article after AfD deletions, I have decided not to do this. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prashanth Nair (IAS)[edit]

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

The subject is only getting some incidental coverage for a programme he initiated. Does not have enougj significant coverage from the sources. Fails GNG. Its better we merge it with Operation Sulaimani Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Google Search, Google News , News, Google books, Result, Prasanth Nair Is Taking His Debut Film to cannes, Collector Bro' Prasanth Nair's short film to get world premiere at Cannes festival, Times of India, please see Who (film). ProudMallu (📨│📝) 11:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Strike vote by confirmed sock. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not helpful here to present search-links. If you want to argue that this article should be kept, it's up to you separate the WP:GNG-wheat from the chaff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to others: The user ProudMallu, who created this article is under suspicion for violating our guidelines. There is already a case against this user at SPI regarding personal attacks like this [32] and using multiple accounts. ProudMallu is also suspected for sockpuppetry. See this [33]. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Routine update: ProudMallu has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable based on the position they hold, and specific independent reliable sources containing in-depth coverage of the subject have not been identified. BD2412 T 19:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the article needs a major revision to incorporate sources that include significant coverage, because per WP:NPOL, Nair appears to be a 'major local political figure who has received significant press coverage,' e.g. Kozhikode IAS officer does it again: Now offers biriyani to clean water body (Indian Express, 2016, "An IAS officer in Kerala, who has often been in the news for his ingenious campaigns to improve public amenities and increase youth engagement, is back with a new formula."), Kozhikode collector promises to give people biryani if they help clean a city pond (Scroll.in, 2016 "IAS officer Prashanth Nair, who was behind the initiative, is known for his out-of-the-box campaigns to improve the state of his constituency."), Kozhikode’s ‘Collector Bro’ Prasanth Nair appointed private secretary to Tourism Minister KJ Alphons (Scroll.in, 2017, "Nair earned public acclaim when he started several initiatives in Kozhikode during his term as the collector, The Indian Express reported. He earned the moniker of “Collector Bro”, and even ran his own Facebook page, which has nearly 2.5 lakh likes."), How an IAS officer in Kerala used Facebook to help flood victims (The Print, 2018, "First, as the district collector of Kozhikode, IAS officer Prasanth Nair won the hearts of his home state, earning the moniker ‘Collector Bro’ for his citizen-friendly and participative approach in governance. Now, a few years later, at a time when Kerala is battling the worst natural calamity it has faced in living memory, Nair has inspired a volunteers’ movement to help the hundreds of thousands in need."), ‘Collector Bro’ Prasanth Nair Is Taking His Debut Film to Cannes (The Quint, 2018, "Considered as one of the most social media savvy IAS officers, Nair commands a large social media following on his official Facebook page due to his work in Kozhikode, as well."), Prasanth Nair's Masterstroke That Arrested Hunger In A Wayanad Tea Estate (Outlook India, 2020). Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR discussion --Beccaynr (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment It appears that this AfD may have been created in bad faith. See this statement at ANI where editor Kashmorwiki/Kichu, who nominated this AfD writes: "Inorder to make sure Im right, I set something like a honeytrap by opening these two deletion discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divya S. Iyer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prashanth Nair (IAS)" Appparently this article was nominated for AfD as part of some broader plot to "trap" the article's creator based on the belief that they were a sockpuppet. I would strongly recommend that this AfD needs tk be closed with prejudice as it was not nominated in good faith. I suppose that a Speedy Keep would not be possible since there was a Delete vote, unfortunately. Kashmorwiki/Kichu may wish to refrain from nominating any more AfDs for a long time, as this is incredibly inappropriate. Hyperion35 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment I have reviewed the pending ANI and the concluded SPI, and particularly in light of Kichu's history as an editor and participation in this discussion, I feel that these AfDs are brought in good faith due to genuine concerns about whether the articles meet Wikipedia guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hyperion35, setting the honey trap was only the other side of the coin. When this same user came to with this same draftz previously, I declined it. So this is not only honeytrap. This article deserves AFD nomination. So are you saying that this is a well written article. The creator of this article has been warned twice for paid editing. We need to consider all that factors. So this is not at all bad faith. I have no intention of making this project disruptive. My edit history itself will prove that. And 80 percent of my opinions in AFD's were in favour of my comments. And you can see that most of the articles I nominated has been deleted (75 percent) . [34]). Finally my doubt has been confirmed. 7 accounts has been blocked for sockpuppetry including the creator of this article itself. [35]. So if I havent set this honeytrap which you said I did in bad faith, I would not have been able to provide evidence. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Kashmorwiki, I had a public policy professor, back in college, who would respond to any policy proposal that referenced an irrelevant point by asking "and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?", to emphasize that we had not properly addressed some salient issue. My point is that reading through your response, I am finding myself asking the same question. Whether another editor was or was not using sockpuppets, whether 75% or 0% of your AfD noms are deleted, whether this AfD helped you catch a sockpuppet, all of this is irrelevant, what does it have to do with the price of tea in China? Or more specifically, what does it have to do with this AfD? Please see Point for guidance about why we should not engage in disruptive editing to prove a point, which you appear to admit in the final line of your comment, where you claim that nominating this AfD was the only way to catch a suspected sockpuppet. As for this specific AfD, I have not decided to vote either way. I have no strong feelings for or against. As a career civil servant myself, I question whether the job is likely to result in notability. On the other hand, I am not familiar with the Indian civil service system, which may be sufficiently different from the American system that my experience is not directly relevant. I was leaning towards voting Delete, since this subject lacks one key component that made a similar subject appear notable, but now I do not feel comfortable voting, and I do not feel that I can do so in good faith, if this AfD was proposed for the very reasons that you claim. Please strongly consider retracting both AfDs and renominating, as a show of good faith. If you do so, I might consider voting Delete on this article, but as I said, I cannot do so in good conscience on this AfD, as I feel it has been tainted by an improper purpose. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment To clarify my comment above with regard to the WP:POINT guideline, and specifically the section WP:NOTPOINTy, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". I do not believe there is any basis to conclude that these AfDs were only brought to illustrate a point, or that there is no basis upon which to have a thorough discussion about how to interpret the notability guidelines. And I do think that an editor's history is one factor to consider in making this determination, but not the only one; but I do believe that Kichu's disclosure of the background issue here and their history generally provides additional support for an assumption of good faith with the AfDs, even though they were otherwise trying to protect Wikipedia. Beccaynr (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hyperion35, I think your concern is that me saying that this is a honeytrap. But I already told you, I already had plan of nominating this article because the exact copy of this aricle was declined at AFC. I regret I should not have said the word honeytrap, because some users like you is misinterpreting it. My basic motive here is to delete this article rather than trapping the sock. Please try to accept that. You are still saying my whole motive behind this AFD was to prove my point. But thats not correct and is just your assumption. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR discussion --Beccaynr (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment It appears that this AfD may have been created in bad faith. See this statement at ANI where editor Kashmorwiki/Kichu, who nominated this AfD writes:

"Inorder to make sure Im right, I set something like a honeytrap by opening these two deletion discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divya S. Iyer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prashanth Nair (IAS)"

Appparently this article was nominated for AfD as part of some broader plot to "trap" the article's creator based on the belief that they were a sockpuppet. I would strongly recommend that this AfD needs tk be closed with prejudice as it was not nominated in good faith. I suppose that a Speedy Keep would not be possible since there was a Delete vote, unfortunately. Kashmorwiki/Kichu may wish to refrain from nominating any more AfDs for a long time, as this is incredibly inappropriate. Hyperion35 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed the pending ANI and the concluded SPI, and particularly in light of Kichu's history as an editor and participation in this discussion, I feel that these AfDs are brought in good faith due to genuine concerns about whether the articles meet Wikipedia guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperion35, setting the honey trap was only the other side of the coin. When this same user came to with this same draftz previously, I declined it. So this is not only honeytrap. This article deserves AFD nomination. So are you saying that this is a well written article. The creator of this article has been warned twice for paid editing. We need to consider all that factors. So this is not at all bad faith. I have no intention of making this project disruptive. My edit history itself will prove that. And 80 percent of my opinions in AFD's were in favour of my comments. And you can see that most of the articles I nominated has been deleted (75 percent) . [34]). Finally my doubt has been confirmed. 7 accounts has been blocked for sockpuppetry including the creator of this article itself. [35]. So if I havent set this honeytrap which you said I did in bad faith, I would not have been able to provide evidence. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, I had a public policy professor, back in college, who would respond to any policy proposal that referenced an irrelevant point by asking "and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?", to emphasize that we had not properly addressed some salient issue. My point is that reading through your response, I am finding myself asking the same question. Whether another editor was or was not using sockpuppets, whether 75% or 0% of your AfD noms are deleted, whether this AfD helped you catch a sockpuppet, all of this is irrelevant, what does it have to do with the price of tea in China? Or more specifically, what does it have to do with this AfD? Please see Point for guidance about why we should not engage in disruptive editing to prove a point, which you appear to admit in the final line of your comment, where you claim that nominating this AfD was the only way to catch a suspected sockpuppet.

As for this specific AfD, I have not decided to vote either way. I have no strong feelings for or against. As a career civil servant myself, I question whether the job is likely to result in notability. On the other hand, I am not familiar with the Indian civil service system, which may be sufficiently different from the American system that my experience is not directly relevant. I was leaning towards voting Delete, since this subject lacks one key component that made a similar subject appear notable, but now I do not feel comfortable voting, and I do not feel that I can do so in good faith, if this AfD was proposed for the very reasons that you claim. Please strongly consider retracting both AfDs and renominating, as a show of good faith. If you do so, I might consider voting Delete on this article, but as I said, I cannot do so in good conscience on this AfD, as I feel it has been tainted by an improper purpose. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify my comment above with regard to the WP:POINT guideline, and specifically the section WP:NOTPOINTy, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". I do not believe there is any basis to conclude that these AfDs were only brought to illustrate a point, or that there is no basis upon which to have a thorough discussion about how to interpret the notability guidelines. And I do think that an editor's history is one factor to consider in making this determination, but not the only one; but I do believe that Kichu's disclosure of the background issue here and their history generally provides additional support for an assumption of good faith with the AfDs, even though they were otherwise trying to protect Wikipedia. Beccaynr (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion35, I think your concern is that me saying that this is a honeytrap. But I already told you, I already had plan of nominating this article because the exact copy of this aricle was declined at AFC. I regret I should not have said the word honeytrap, because some users like you is misinterpreting it. My basic motive here is to delete this article rather than trapping the sock. Please try to accept that. You are still saying my whole motive behind this AFD was to prove my point. But thats not correct and is just your assumption. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Kashmorwiki: Please perform a better WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. Kolma8 (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Kolma8: I dont know how did you came to the conclusion that I havent done proper WP:Before. By the waylet me ask you somethings. Did you know the exact copy of this draft was declined at AFC ? Did you know that I was the person who adviced the creator of this article to find more sources that give sigcov? Did you know I done a WP:Before in both English and Malayalam to find any sources so that I can accept it in AFC? Did you know the creator and his socks abused me just because I declined thier drafts and asked about using multiple accounts? So my advice is to you is that before accussing anyone blindly, try to understand the exact things happened here and dont take anything personally. What I said is that lot of sources exist here, but none of them give enough sigcov to the subject. Plenty of source does not alone make anyone notable. Thats my point. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kashmorwiki, don't take it personally it will cause nothing but stress. On my books @Beccaynr: did a great example of WP:BEFORE to support a keep vote. You might disagree that the sources provided is enough to support GNG, but that is a different issue. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I did not accuse you of anything; I politely asked you of something... In return you should do the same, my friend. Your tone is rather aggressive or maybe I am just reading in it too much. When you start three questions in a row with "Did you know..." and then add "So my advice to you is..." that does not read as a nice answer. So stay calm and stress free. Thank you. Kolma8 (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kolma8, you just said to me please perform a WP:Before. It is indirectly an accusation that I havent done a proper WP:Before. Let me say you one thing. This is a discussion and it is not only me, who have the oponion to delete. Some other users have also the same opinion as mine. You can disagree or agree with anyone. I dont have any issue with that. But you dont have the right to simply say that other users havent done this or that. Yes, Beccanyr found some sources. In my opinion these are not sufficient to passing GNG and I already said that. Does that mean I havent done WP:Before? Thats why I said you to do not say the things that you dont have an idra about. By the way, I havent done anything aggressive here. I dont know if asking some questions to prove my part is any part of aggression. Also advising another users is not a bad thing in my opinion. It is indeed required for our development in any fields. Anyway if you feel that I got aggressive with you, I take this opportunity to apologize you. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kashmorwiki: Good deal, my friend! Stay well, respect the fellow wikifolks and apostrophes, and remember that irony is the hygiene of the mind. Kolma8 (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like Kashmorwiki said this is an exact copy of the draft which was declined at AFC. Kolma8 expressed a concern regarding whether the nominator had done a proper WP:Before. I think Kashmorwiki had done it properly because I also did a WP:Before and was not able to find any sources giving subject the in-depth coverage. Having recieved some trivial coverage and mentioning in some reliable sources does not make any one pass WP:GNG. For that, we need sigcov and in this case, it does not have. Poppified ^talk 17:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sources that focus on Nair and include in-depth coverage include: 'Collector bro' Prasanth moved out of Kannanthanam's office (OnManorama, 2018), Serving the people makes Prashanth Nair a local hero (Times Kuwait, 2018), 'Collector bro' Prashant Nair hospitalised, diagnosed with sudden hearing loss (NewsMinute, 2018), Superman 'collector bro' of Indian state Kerala (Gulf News, 2016), Kerala govt in a spot as fight between Kozhikode collector, Congress MP escalates (FirstPost, 2016). Beccaynr (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it has been deliberately created with a minor misspelling to bypass previous AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasanth Nair (2nd nomination). It fails to satisfy GEN. He has served at various posts, but none of them are notable. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and the sources set forth above show WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time in multiple independent sources that transcend any one political position he has held, and include his personal biographical information, his film, and his notable social media presence. Beccaynr (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a dearth of independent, persistent coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC, and no indication that the subject reaches WP:ANYBIO. ——Serial 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be relevant to note that the article for Divya S. Iyer, a former Sub-Collector who moved into another political role (but not a national one like Nair) and had a film role (but did not make a film as Nair did), was recently kept. Some of Iyer's national news coverage focused on her high-profile marriage, while Nair has sustained national news coverage over time as the 'Collector Bro' and his use of his social media platform for public service, regardless of his political position. Both articles need revisions to incorporate additional sources, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Beccaynr (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created a source assessment table below for news sources from 2015 through 2018 that appear to support WP:BASIC and WP:GNG notability due to the significant and in-depth coverage, and also appear to show "significant press coverage" for WP:NPOL notability:

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
2015 Kozhikode collector goes all social, gets more than a few likes for his work, The Indian Express	The article focuses on Nair, and includes commentary, such as "Prashanth Nair is not your regular kind of district collector," and "In a rapidly changing India where smartphones and Internet users multiply by the day, Prashant represents a new breed of administrators who wants to capitalise on the situation to reach out to more people." as well as reporting, such as "He commands more than one lakh followers on Facebook, addresses each of his young male audience as ‘bro’ and leads innovative crowd-funded campaigns through social media," and third-party commentary: "Dr Suresh Kumar, founder of Institute of Palliative Medicine and who works with Prashanth on several initiatives, finds him dedicated and open to suggestions. “The thing is no one is forcing him to initiate some of these programmes, but he is taking out time to contribute to a good social commitment,” he said."	✔ Yes
2016, Kozhikode IAS officer does it again: Now offers biriyani to clean water body, The Indian Express	The article focuses on Nair, and includes commentary, such as the subhead, "Prashanth Nair has an almost cult following in Kozhikode in Kerala" and the description that he "has often been in the news for his ingenious campaigns to improve public amenities and increase youth engagement," and some background career information, such as, "Before being posted as the district collector last year, Prashanth was secretary to the state Home Minister," and "The IAS officer also takes special interest in organising cultural programmes and has written-directed a short film for the state government."	✔ Yes
2016, Superman 'collector bro' of Indian state Kerala Gulf News	The article focuses on Nair, and begins with the commentary "The last time Keralites idolised a district collector was when Malayalam superstar Mammootty set the silver screen on fire as a feisty IAS officer in his 1995 blockbuster ‘The King.’ But now the object of that collective adulation is a real life Collector who is making the on-screen hero pale in comparison in both popularity and mass appeal," and describes him as "no less a cult figure, not just in his administrative province but across the south Indian state." The article reports on his Facebook page, his appearance, and states he is "redefining transparency in government administration by using social media as the main medium of communication." The article also provides biographical information about his education and early career before politics.	✔ Yes
2016, Kerala govt in a spot as fight between Kozhikode collector, Congress MP escalates, First Post	value not understood WP:GNG states, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and this article includes commentary: "the collector is a darling of common man, especially the new generation. The new generation demonstrates their support to Prashanth, whom they call ‘collector bro’, mainly through social media. With over 2.5 lakh followers in Facebook alone, Prashanth is perhaps one of the most popular district collectors in the social media across the country today," and reporting: "The collector has been using the social media not merely to take the administration to people but also to draw ideas from them and ignite collective action for the betterment of all sections of people, especially the marginalized sections." It also notes that his Compassionate Kozhikode project "caught international attention. While the last ITB-Berlin has chosen it as one of the 50 inspirational projects from around the world, Digital Empowerment Foundation and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation has selected it for the social media for empowerment (SM4E) award," and includes biographical information: "Prashanth said that his main source of inspiration was his mother, who is a doctor by profession. She taught me not to fear anybody when you do the right things. “I believe I am on the right path,” he added."	? Unknown
2017 Kozhikode’s ‘Collector Bro’ Prasanth Nair appointed private secretary to Tourism Minister KJ Alphons Scroll.in	The article focuses on Nair, and provides background on his career as he changes political positions from Kozhikode collector to the Kerala higher education department to the private secretary to Minister of State for Tourism, and also discusses some of his projects, including Operation Sulaimani, and "his own Facebook page, which has nearly 2.5 lakh likes."	✔ Yes
2018, Serving the people makes Prashanth Nair a local hero TimesKuwait	The article focuses on Nair, and includes commentary, such as the title and the lede that says he "has achieved somewhat of an iconic status among residents of the district with his form of participatory and transparent governance." It also reports on some of his projects and comments, "Crowd-funded campaigns like these are giving him an almost cult-like following in the district. Prashant has brought with him a lot of energy and drive that the young generation are easily identifying with."	✔ Yes
2018, How an IAS officer in Kerala used Facebook to help flood victims, The Print	value not understood The article begins with a focus on Nair, and includes background information on his career development: "First, as the district collector of Kozhikode, IAS officer Prasanth Nair won the hearts of his home state, earning the moniker ‘Collector Bro’ for his citizen-friendly and participative approach in governance. Now, a few years later, at a time when Kerala is battling the worst natural calamity it has faced in living memory, Nair has inspired a volunteers’ movement to help the hundreds of thousands in need. Nair, now deputy secretary in the union ministry of new and renewable energy, wrote a Facebook post on 16 August, imploring the participation of volunteers in rescue and relief operations."	? Unknown
2018, 'Collector bro' Prasanth moved out of Kannanthanam's office , OnManorama	The article focuses on Nair, and includes background information on his career, and commentary, such as "He was perhaps the first collector in the country to have used social media to reach out to people with telling effect."	✔ Yes
2018, ‘Collector Bro’ Prasanth Nair Is Taking His Debut Film to Cannes, The Quint	The article focuses on Nair, and provides background about his career, his social media, his inspiration for the film, i.e. "Nair, who earned his moniker Collector Bro due to his community-driven umbrella initiative called 'Compassionate Kozhikode', only chanced upon filmmaking because he wasn’t very “happy with the promo for the initiative” given by ad agencies. With some prodding by his friends and colleagues, he decided to make the promo himself" and his film-making process. This article also points to other news coverage about the film that is available, per WP:NEXIST.	✔ Yes
2018, 'Collector bro' Prashant Nair hospitalised, diagnosed with sudden hearing loss, The News Minute	This article is focused on Nair, includes background about his career and information about his social media, and biographical information.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Beccaynr (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The table data presented by Beccaynr is compelling show that not only WP:BASIC is satisfied but also WP:GNG. Vikram Vincent 18:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Supporting Beccaynr. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 07:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — Sharath Abhivadyah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Beccaynr (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to others: This user is a suspected sock of ProudMallu. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and let is vet through the AfC. Riteboke (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdown Economy[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent sources. The "Globee" award does not confer notability, it consists of awards made in 392 categories all of which require submissions and most of which are paid for, so winning one is quite unremarkable. The claim it is "recognised" by the United Nations as Acceleration Action for Sustainable Development Goals" is not supported by the sources. --Pontificalibus 09:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

improvement has been made to the article thank you. Ruby D-Brown (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. KidAd • SPEAK 02:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Simmons[edit]

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

Non-notable animator / filmmaker. Of the four sources cited, the AWN one comes closest to sigcov, but it's based on an interview, and in any case cannot alone establish notability. The other three sources only verify that this person has created the films in question, providing barely passing mentions. Much of the article is unsupported by citations. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ENT.

The article has been rejected at AfC multiple times, and has now been republished essentially in the same shape as before (the AWN source was already there), so might need salting as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - working animator, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NCREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to establish consensus given concerns about AfC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject seems to exist but sources do not indicate impact sufficient to have an article (fails WP:NBIO and higher-level policies). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 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 List of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club players. Daniel (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Smith (cricketer, born 1905)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, no obit. on his death. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/weak redirect to List of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club players Yes has only played 1 FC match, but it was in the County Championship. Searching was almost impossible due to the number of other Tom/Thomas Smith cricketers and a Tom Smith rugby player who played for Northampton, so nothing found, but sources may well exist offline because of the time of his career and playing in the County Championship. For some previous AfDs have found that other similar County Championship players (one or a few games) coverage has been found. If coverage can be found then obviously a keep, but the redirect is there if needed as a WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above - he barely passes the SNG, is currently sourced only to a website which fails WP:SPORTCRIT. If more information is found, we can always re-create the article, but based on what we know he's not notable enough for a stand-alone article (fails WP:GNG). SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club players. Not enough there for a stand-alone article, but there is a suitable list article to redirect to. Reyk _YO! 07:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Surrey County Cricket Club players. There is consensus that this subject doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Smith (cricketer, born 1854)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Surrey County Cricket Club players Has played 1 FC match, but it was in the County Championship. While searching I found this which seems to suggest that even the team he played for don't know anything on him, but the club he played for is there so we have some more to go on now. Nothing else found in a search made difficult due to the number of Tom/Thomas Smith cricketers out there. Sources could exist offline though due to playing in the 1800s. At the moment I'm redirect as a suitable WP:ATD but if something can be found as has been with other County Championship AfDs i'll reconsider. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source in the article fails WP:SPORTCRIT and the article as it stands fails WP:GNG. Also barely passes the SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:00, 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 Sri Lanka Air Force Sports Club (cricket). Daniel (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wille[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sri Lanka Air Force Sports Club (cricket) Has played 2 FC and 4 List-A matches, but I couldn't find any coverage. Sources may exist offline and in Sri Lankan sources but his career was quite recent so I would have expected to find at least something if there was something there. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time we start holding articles to passing verifiability and GNG, the later of which this article fails by miles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to lack of participation. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Thomas (director)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Some minor coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Atrocious references. scope_creep^Talk 00:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he appears to be notable based on his body of work, but I won't !vote because we have one mutual friend. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but there is no references there. Not one of them support a BLP. There is examples of work, but where is the secondary sources that say he is notable? According to the fourth reference he became a director in September 2013, but even for 7 years work, which is nothing, it like 2 or 3 feature films work, there should be coverage, except the first 9 references don't show a single secondary source. scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 00:33, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Taneja[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP of a venture capitalist that was deleted at AfD in 2013. There is more material now but much of the sourcing here is corporate announcements. Quite a few of the refs don’t mention him at all, and there are a lot of passing mentions. There may be a GNG pass somewhere in all of this but with all the refbombing I’m not really sure. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the author of the article, I apologize. I didn't realize that there was a bio that was deleted previously. It looks like, at that time, he had not received substantial press coverage. However, Taneja is at this point an established expert in VC, edtech and healthtech, and has been covered as such. See:

Recent, long-form profile of Taneja and his business partner by Katie Jennings of Forbes (link)
Long-form Q&A in Boston Business Journal (link)
Longform Q&A in Coinbase (link)
WSJ coverage of Livongo (link)

Additionally, respected publications have included him in "notable" lists, including the New York Times/Crunchbase(link), the Forbes Midas List (2020 link)and Business Insider (link). While I understand that these lists do not in-and-of-themselves denote notability, they're legitimate, third-party (not PR-driven) validation of Taneja's prominence in the industry.

Also, while not qualification for notability alone, Taneja is quoted regularly by journalists in the VC/healthcare space, and featured as a key voice on disruption, edtech and investing. He is widely recognized as an expert in his field. See:

Quotes in in The Economist (link) or TechCrunch (link)
TechCrunch coverage of Taneja's 2016 INNOVATE talk (link)
CNBC featured expert on crypto (link)
Featured member of Barron's VC roundtable (link)
Featured in NPR's program on disruptive innovation (link)

Finally, his investments get substantial reputable coverage, and Taneja is featured regularly. See NYT on Snapchat (link), Bloomberg on Olive (link), WSJ on Grammarly (link), or TechCrunch on Digit (link), among others. WisePraline (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but one more. He was also featured in MIT Spectrum for his philanthropy. (link). WisePraline (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be a thought leader who has helped bring some major companies to market. I wish he had that big, glowing profile but those are so hard to come by these days anyway. Miaminsurance (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A paid for article. Not a thought-leader and bringing companies to market isn't an indication of notability. The first 10 references are very poor.

[36] Search listing. Non-RS.
[37] Profile listing
[38]] Another profile. Not independent.
[39] Company position for funding. This is a BLP.
[40] An interview. Not independebt.
[41] Company news.
[42] As a company reference is fails WP:ORGIND.
[43] Another company page.
Same ref 4 as above.
[44] An announcement to say he has moved to SF.

Not a single secondary source amongst the lot of them. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV, [{WP:BIO]]. It is brochure articles disguised as a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the well argued points of the editor who made the Strong delete argument above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree with the idea that this is a paid article (and concerns about this and NPOV have already been discussed and addressed in the article) but to the other points that Scope creep raises:

MIT Profile (#2 above) MIT Spectrum is not a profile listing. I'm not proposing that it alone is RS, but it's not a corporate profile.
Thought Leadership: I'm curious how Scope creep would define "Thought Leader" given that Taneja:

Contributes regularly to reputable publications like HBR and TechCrunch
Has published two books, which have been featured by editors at reputable publications like the MIT Sloan Management Review, as well as academic pubs (American Health and Drug Benefits), and are sourced in journal articles (The Business and Management Review)
Is, again, regularly used by reputable journalists and experts as a source, including Barron's VC Roundtable, NPR, etc.

Venture Capitalist Notability: I disagree strongly that building, investing in and "bringing companies to market" is not an indication of notability in the venture capital space. A quick review of Existing VCs on Wikipedia produces hundreds of individuals who are notable specifically because they have built, invested in and brought companies to market.

I should note that I would welcome input from the community on how to improve the article (and have, again, already worked with multiple editors to do so, and will continue to do so). However, I fail to see how a quick review of a handful references is at all an argument for a "strong delete." (Please pardon/feel free to correct any formatting issues here.) WisePraline (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping back in here to note that I've also begun to overhaul the sources in the article, including additional profiles of Taneja and cutting less reputable sources. WisePraline (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just because someone is not a household name, it doesn't mean they aren't notable (I've run into this issue with contributions); Taneja is notable in finance and that should be taken into consideration Pogobryan (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying keep without evidence to support verification of fact is against policy and is egregious. This editor is WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 10:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The paper at [45] is only cited by two people, [46] which is a remarkably low cite count for even people in the financial industry. The Sloan review is not in-depth, like most of the coverage. Since there has been an attempt at WP:HEY, lets look at the references again:

Ref 1: [47] It is a blog. It is not independent.

Ref 2: [48] This one is contentious as it is an alumni magazine.

Ref 3: [49] An announcement to say he has moved to SF. It is also a press-release.

Ref 4: [50] It is an announcement. Press-release.

Ref 5: [51] 40 under 40. These X of Y articles went out with the ark. Really low-quality ref.

Ref 6: [52] An investment notice, press-release. Non-RS. This a BLP.

Ref 7: [53] Taneja tells FORBES Not-independent.

Ref 8: [54] Snapchat is the company that will figure out how to move TV viewers to mobile,” said Hemant Taneja, a Snapchat investor and managing director at the venture firm General Catalyst Partners. “YouTube and others have worked hard to bring video to mobile devices, but Snapchat is the first to crack how users behave on mobile. Not in-depth.

Ref 9: [55] Not in-depth. A passing mention.

Ref 10: [56] Press-release.

Ref 11: [57] Hemant Taneja of General Catalyst Partner came in at No. 70 on the list. Not in-depth.

Ref 12: [58] Non-RS. Forbes contributor.

Ref 13: [59] Non-RS. Forbes contributor.

Ref 14: [60] An interview.

Ref 15: [61] We think that companies like Livongo can reduce healthcare costs by $100 billion in diabetes alone,” said Taneja in a statement. Not-independent.

So of the first 15 references, 3 are dependent sources, 5 are non-rs, 3 are press-releases, 1 is an interview, 1 an alumni magazine and 1 is an X of Y references which are the lowest quality ref that is possible to get (simply there generate clickbait). Another very poor attempt at WP:HEY. scope_creep^Talk 10:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Scope_creep, Could you point me to a WP definition of "press release" and "independent" please? We have material differences in understanding and WP:Reliable sources isn't turning anything up. Specifically, I'm concerned with your definitions of the following sources:

Ref 1: Silicon Valley Business Journal is not a blog. It's part of the American City Business Journals newspaper chain and has a clear editorial masthead. The writer of the piece is the editor in charge of startup/tech coverage for the paper. It is independent.

Ref 3: Xconomy is not a press release. It is literally a news article on the person in question, written again by an independent journalist.

Ref 4: Again, American City Business Journals, different (again independent) journalist. Not a blog.

Ref 6: Alex Konrad is the senior editor at Forbes covering venture capital. He is an independent journalist, writing a story about a significant player in the venture capital space.

Ref 8: Ingred Lunden is an independent TechCrunch journalist covering venture capital. This is a T1 tech publication writing an independent article about a significant technology company, of which Taneja is an investor.

Ref 14: Katie Jennings is a staff writer at Forbes. This is a feature article on Taneja in a leading business publication.

Ref 15: At the risk of [beating a dead horse here, TechCrunch is an independent magazine and website, and this is an article written about Taneja's company being launched, covered by [Jonathan Shieber, who is, again, a reputable tech journalist who feels Taneja and his company are worth coverage.

WisePraline (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 00:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::@Vaticidalprophet: You are what is known as a WP:SPA in Wikipedia. All you do ever is work on that article and I honestly don't know if you know what good reference is. The fact that you don't know what independent means, means that you never even looked at the notability policies. Biographies of living people require multiple in-depth reliable sources about them that are independent of the subject. All that is seen her, tons of paid advocacy. scope_creep^Talk 11:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Did you ping the wrong user? ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aseleste: I did indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. scope_creep^Talk 12:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear it up, Scopecreep headed to my talk page to explain the mixup and there are no hard feelings. :) Vaticidalprophet 15:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scope_creep I've read the notability policies multiple times, both before writing the article, and while trying to figure out how anyone could insist that Taneja isn't notable. My comments around defining press release and independent were tongue-in-cheek, because I believe that you're using the terms incorrectly.

As I wrote before, I'm happy to work with you to improve the article, because I think that it's for the best of Wikipedia. However, the discussion here is whether Hemant Taneja is notable and whether this article should be deleted. It should not be:

Hemant Taneja is a venture capitalist and entrepreneur that is well known enough to meet the criteria outlined across WP:BLP, WP:BIO and (especially) WP:Notability (people):

Taneja has received coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. As per my comment above, Taneja has been the subject of coverage in Forbes, TechCrunch and multiple smaller (but still unconflicted) sources, which meet the requirements of WP:Independent_sources.

While there is reason to dispute that certain sources, such as the 40 under 40 listing, articles about Taneja's portfolio companies, or the MIT Spectrum profile, would alone confer notability (as you have done), those articles are secondary and support only small points in his biography.

WisePraline (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know if this is a paid-for article, but both the article and the Keep statements have many of the usual features of a paid-for article:
- - The Keep statements include walls of text that make it difficult to challenge the article.
  - The article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, which make it difficult to test the notability.
  - The subject is defended as a "thought leader", which is in itself a flag of marketing buzzspeak.
  - After reading the article, I still don't know what the subject does other than to invest money.
- The article does not make a case for general notability, and the article should make that case without the reader having to wade through 37 references.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for your feedback Robert McClenon. I've pared down the references significantly. Please let me know if you have other suggestions for improving the article.

Not sure how to respond to the allegations of verbosity though :)

(Also, minor point of order: Taneja was never referred to in-article as a "thought leader," and there isn't buzzspeak in the article. Another editor, with whom I have no association, raised the term) WisePraline (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The analysis of each presented source show that there currently is insufficient significant coverage about Taneja from independent secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Also, none of the keep !votes really identify RS evidence that actually go towards this person satisfying a notability guideline.
The closest that I could find are the two Forbes articles (1, 2); they are both similar in that most of the text is Taneja talking about specific companies rather than Forbes talking about Taneja. The second article falls short of being significant coverage, while the first article is right on the borderline. Altogether, there isn't quite enough for GNG but it is a somewhat close case.
It is also worth pointing out that there is one review for one of the books that the subject co-authored (review for Unscaled) and something that I thought was a review at first but is so short and un-review-like that it appears to be a news release for the other book (link for UnHealthcare). The actual review goes towards WP:NAUTHOR#3, but we would need to more published independent reviews to satisfy that criterion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scope creep's assessment above. Riteboke (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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