The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter (meme)[edit]

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

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

Internet meme lacking secondary coverage. Note: I removed primary sources from the article before deciding the article could not be salvaged. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These links to social media where used as references, not as sources. I understand if that was inappropriate. YavBav09 (Talk) 08:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to last edit by me, but removed social media references and added the templates from your last edit.

Why do think the article can't be saved? YavBav09 (Talk) 09:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and references have the same meaning, at least in the context I was using them. Please read WP:PRIMARY.

Your only source currently is Know Your Meme, and according to WP:RSN, this source should not be used as most of the content is user generated. See this discussion. So you currently have zero reliable sources. The best I can find is these two junk sources commenting on a rumour that the dog died: [1][2]. Is that enough content to justify an encyclopedia article? I'd assume not, but I'll let other people decide. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By sources I meant a place the information is got from/can be verified from.

The only source I could think of was Know Your Meme. You're right - I agree that these sources aren't enough, but I could not find any other good sources. I'm sure that information in the article is true, but I get that people want to verify it. Is there something that can be done? -- YavBav09 (Talk) 15:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that there are no good sources is that it's just 1 Internet meme and there isn't much reason to write about it. The only reason that Doge (meme) has sources is that the meme is very popular and significant. YavBav09 (Talk) 16:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and clarification. I think you don't have a good understanding about the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia though. Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The simple fact of the matter is if there are no good sources and not much to write about, there shouldn't be an article on the subject. This is an encyclopedia, it's supposed to be a collection of information that is so notable it has adequate sources to cover it, not a collection of all information. We shouldn't include information just because it exists, regardless of whether it's true or not. Or in other words, we should only include popular and significant memes, not all of them. These concepts of notability apply to both the article itself and the information within it. For example, even if we find enough sources to keep the article, you shouldn't mention that according to the lore Walter and Doge are friends, unless you have a reliable source for that. The reason I put a citation request on that statement is not just because I want to verify it, I also want to see that that information is important enough to add to the article. Importance would be determined by secondary coverage of the matter. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to say was that I think the meme is notable enough, but there aren't enough sources, because there's no reason to make one for just an internet meme, but I understand Wikipedia:Notability. I agree that == Dogelore == section should be removed, since I heard that in some YouTube video. I'm going to remove it right now. YavBav09 (Talk) 08:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put [citation needed] on == History ==? The source is the generic source from Know Your Meme or did you put it because Know Your Meme isn't reliable?YavBav09 (Talk) 08:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I put a citation needed tag somewhere that would have been because that sentence did not have an inline citation. Please read Wikipedia:Inline citation. You shouldn't put sources at the end of the article, you should place citations at the end of the specific sentences they support. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I assumed this was an April Fool's joke/hoax — is it not? All the same, effectively unsourced and utterly non-notable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not an April Fool's joke. I created the page before that, not as a joke. It is unsourced, because I could not find any sources and It's not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability because of that, but I did think it was popular enough for an article (not according Wikipedia:Notability). YavBav09 (Talk) 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Fails reliable sources. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 14:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bull Terrier#Noted Bull Terriers: Barely found anything about the meme aside from a Medium article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This meme does not seem notable enough to even be mentioned in the bull terrier article. Reywas92^Talk 17:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's not notable enough for "Bull terrier". -- YavBav09 (Talk) 06:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Devokewater 21:24, 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) 12:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Storm (soccer)[edit]

Chicago Storm (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable defunct soccer team from non-notable league. Fails GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete as they appear to be a non-notable team. At most consider a redirect to American Indoor Soccer League. GiantSnowman 16:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you redirect them to the American Indoor Soccer League? They were members of the Major Indoor Soccer League (2001–2008). KitHutch (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose They were members of the Major Indoor Soccer League (2001–2008), which was a notable soccer league. All other members of that league have pages. However, getting rid of the Ultimate Indoor Soccer League is fine since it's not notable. KitHutch (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NTEAM, teams must satisfy GNG and there is no inherited notability from notable players or leagues. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete , Per nom. fails WP:GNG , Alex-h (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - playing in the MISL is only a weak presumption of notability. No indication that this topic passes WP:GNG, which, ultimately, is the requirement here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 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 redirect to Criteria (band). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sweeney (musician)[edit]

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

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

While this musician has been part of multiple notable bands, I can't find any significant coverage of him individually, nor any other indication of individual notability to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Lennart97 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Criteria (band). He has done little outside of that band. He was not a member of Bright Eyes but a one-time guest. He was in Beep Beep (band) but they are not very notable either. Criteria seems like the best redirect target. Occasional guest appearances on other people's records can be described briefly at the Criteria article. Also, when searching, beware of a baseball player of the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested and per WP:CHEAP. That has been our usual way out with marginally notable musicians whose only real claim to fame is they once playing in a notable band. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 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 No consensus, usual disagreement between WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG, which unfortunately does not seem to be possible to resolve in this nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1996)[edit]

Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1996) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Dropped because of poor performances. He hasn't done anything notable in his short career. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NCRIC having played in five first-class and a List A match. "Dropped because of poor performances" is an erroneous comment. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Has played 5 FC matches and 1 List-A match passing him for WP:NCRIC. Could possibly be redirected to List of Lahore Blues cricketers or similar as coverage is low. Could the nominator please link us to where he's found the player was 'dropped because of poor performances' please. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NCRIC as he have played in five first-class and a List A match which is enough to qualify. Grailcombs (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage, only wide ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The trivial pass of NCRIC, by virtue of playing part of a one season, does not trump the GNG failure. His opportunities for further appearances have likely been affected by the restructuring of Pakistan domestic cricket (reducing the number of teams from 16 to 6), but there is nothing to suggest he will return to FC/LA cricket based on his performances to date, which also give little confidence any significant coverage exists anywhere. Redirection is an accepted ATD, but no suitable target exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge into a list of Lahore Blues players if there is such an article. All the sources available are database entries, and it is not enough to dredge up a bunch of match scorecards and dress them up as a biography. There is no actual biographical information. If all the sources amount to a few cells in a table, then that is how the information should be presented. The GNG (specifically WP:SPORTCRIT) explicitly disallows articles based purely on numerical database scrapes, and takes precedence over NCRIC, so NCRIC is overruled and invalidated to the extent that it conflicts with GNG. Reyk _YO! 14:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepWeak keep: I don't really care for WP:NCRIC but it is what is and I've added a source to the article ... which sort of questions why no one else has found/discussed it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Djm-leighpark: Sorry, but you found a different Ilyas, a slightly younger one from Peshawar, for which there are lots of sources: Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1999). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Just goes to show how easy it is to mix up different similarly-named people when the sourcing is so sparse. It's a problem that's come up several times before, but of course the cricket enthusiasts don't want to know about it. Reyk _YO! 09:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thankyou for pointing that out. I have moved to weak keep mainly to be consistent with WP:NCRIC and similar for sports, not that I'm much keep about the criteria. More usefully I've added a hatnote to the article. I'd possibly support by by someone else but I'm not prepared to do it myself; if this gets deleted it would be helpful if the Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1999) mentioned the namesake to avoid any inaccuracies creeping in in future. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he passes WP:NCRIC by virtue of having played both first class and one day matches. Furthermore, there is no evidence presented that he was dropped for performance reasons; rather, Lahore Blues were relegated from the top division of the Quaid-e-Azam trophy, and therefore have fallen outside the purview of first class cricket. Moreover, he is young enough to play more first class matches- he hasn't yet turned 25, so any implication that his career is over is unsupportable. I think the original AfD reasoning is pretty misleading. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly no teams were relegated; Pakistan cricket was restructured with six new first-class teams. And secondly, this does actually significantly reduce his future opportunities. Not that this is relevant in any way – he's either notable by virtue of having enough significant coverage to warrant a standalone article now, or he isn't. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wjemather.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG, cannot find any coverage of him. WP:SPORTCRIT is also relevant here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies WP:NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The purpose of NCRIC as detailed at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines is to "provide bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". Although NCRIC indicates this subject is likely to meet GNG, a detailed search for sources reveals that they actually do not meet GNG. We are left with a biography consisting of a few sentences supported only by statistics, and both WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:WHYN make it clear that this unacceptable.----Pontificalibus 11:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, For playing in five first-class, passes WP:NCRIC , Alex-h (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Wjemather and Reyk. NSPORT and NCRIC are pretty explicit that articles meeting an SSG are only presumed to meet the GNG. At AfDs once BEFORE is performed by the nom the burden is passed to keep !voters to demonstrate an article does meet GNG -- and no one here has actually done so. JoelleJay (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NCRIC. Riteboke (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex-h and Riteboke, if GNG is failed it doesn't matter that NCRIC is met. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:38, 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 Global Alliance for EcoMobility. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EcoMobility[edit]

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

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

Notability and better covered in Sustainable transport Darrelljon (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Sustainable transport or ICLEI. The article mainly talks about an ICLEI project. Both references in the article are deadlinks.Trimton (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Sustainable transport. Mccapra (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could the participants proposing to merge clarify what content from EcoMobility they think should go into Sustainable transport and why? All the external links and detail about various conferences and such don't belong in Sustainable transport. Even the definition is not supported by reliable sources currently. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Global Alliance for EcoMobility which states "Currently the word 'EcoMobility' is still a rarely used term" followed by a couple of usage examples which aren't supported by the sources provided. It's a non-notable neologism that hasn't received significant adoption outside of this organisation.----Pontificalibus 14:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Pontificalibus Mccapra (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For some reason I don't understand, the talk page already redirects there.--Darrelljon (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to an appropriate target in the best judgement of the closing admin. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 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 merge to Bahamas–United States relations. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Bahamas in Washington, D.C.[edit]

Embassy of the Bahamas, Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was the subject of a previous AfD in 2019 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, Cairo) the result was procedural keep as participants clearly think the mass nomination was inappropriate and wanted the different embassies to be considered individually. The article is solely reliant on primary sources and it should be noted that embassies are not inherently notable. Fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:NORG / WP:GEOFEAT. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I generally agree with most of your points re poor sourcing/lack of notability in the different areas. I do see a benefit to having articles like this exist, given its highly structured format. As I'm going through several hundred embassy pages now, I'm curious if it would be worthwhile to re-explore whether embassies in general are notable or not, Shushugah (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shushugah, if the embassy is notable because of the role that it plays then it should be included in Bahamas-United States relations and I'm happy if that is the result of this AfD. Alternatively if we are talking about the embassy building then it would need to satisfy WP:NBUILDING. If you want to raise a broader discussion on whether embassies are inherently notable then I'm happy to participate. My observations are simply based on the outcomes of numerous previous AfD discussions held over the last 10 years. Dan arndt (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My first thought was that it should be notable, a search does not find enough to meet any flavor of WP:GNG, looking at the specific criteria mentioned by the nom, leave little option but to vote delete. Jeepday (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bahamas-United States relations, which I think would benefit from the extra tidbits about the embassy. Estheim (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively and redirect as per the wise suggestion of Estheim. The resulting target will be a better article. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Bypassed link to redirect (was Embassy of the Bahamas in Washington, D.C.) to make XFDcloser work better. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:07, 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 redirect to A Little Bit Longer. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BB Good (song)[edit]

BB Good (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. The available coverage comes from only album reviews. Two low chart entries and one component chart. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect - it charted far too low for automatic inclusion here, and there's just not enough coverage for an article. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 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 Burundi–United States relations. If embassies become inherently notable later, the article may be restored. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Burundi in Washington, D.C.[edit]

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

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

Was the subject of a previous AfD in 2019 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, Cairo) the result was procedural keep as participants clearly think the mass nomination was inappropriate and wanted the different embassies to be considered individually. The article is solely reliant on primary sources and it should be noted that embassies are not inherently notable. Fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:NORG / WP:GEOFEAT. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Burundi–United States relations. Dan arndt (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Dan arndt, that this article fails NORG, NBUILDING and GEOFEAT. However, I would push back on whether embassies are inherently notable or not. In short, I'm proposing something like a NEMBASSY policy of inherent notability.

Some embassies, like the Brazilian Embassy to Italy have extensive coverage of their building, Palazzo Pamphilj while others had extensive coverage of attacks, but that shouldn't be the minimum bar. Even a short stub like the article above (and it will probably continue to remain a stub), contains vital info that the List of diplomatic missions of Burundi won't contain, with room for more articles/interlinking in the future. Shushugah (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A search does not find enough to meet WP:GNG, existing policy does grant inherent notable, at this time the only possible choice is delete. If there is a successful push to grant inherent notable to embassies, the article can be recovered. Jeepday (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the bilateral relations article. If there was a picture or discussion of some fabulous state dinner there, a keep or merge would be a go. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School of Management Sciences, Varanasi[edit]

School of Management Sciences, Varanasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No RS found with a BEFORE. Zero notability(NSCHOOLS) Vikram Vincent 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 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 10:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia should have no articles sourced only to the subject's webpage. This should be so basic a principal we should be able to place a proposed deletion notice on them when they are in such a condition, and the proposed deletion should be unremovable unless a new source is added.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claims in the article, the meet WP:GNG, no references on the article that meet it, and I could not find any when I searched. Jeepday (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I found a few mentions in Google books, but no quotes nor anything else that I would consider significant coverage. I note for the record that vocational and business schools are not automatically notable, and we have never been a directory of such schools. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 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. Sandstein 12:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ramswaroop Memorial College of Engineering and Management, Lucknow[edit]

Shri Ramswaroop Memorial College of Engineering and Management, Lucknow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Zero RS with BEFORE. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 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 10:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is a flagrant violation of verifiability principals. We need secondary sources, not just an organization's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete There are definitely secondary sources. Apparently the place was turned into a temporary jail for Covid-19 quarantine? [3] [4] Also a student died getting hit by a car which sparked protests. [5] A team of engineering students there won a contest! [6] I am sure if I could access (or read) Indian sources I would have no trouble finding sourcing for this college. On an unrelated note, I discovered while looking for sources that engineering colleges in India offer classes on Shit Flow Diagrams which I'm going to immediately start looking into for notability, because that seems like a great first article to write. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL about the 'shit flow diagrams'. So a lot of schools and colleges were converted into isolation facilities as migrants were travelling across the country on foot during the lockdown. Those unfortunate events do not make the educational institution notable. Vikram Vincent 18:15, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Mättö[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because he was also murdered by the Lapua Movement, but was otherwise unnotable:

Yrjö Holm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete Both 'Erik Mättö' the related article 'Yrjö_Holm'. As the Nom points out, subjects fail WP:VICTIM I looked at the other language article & second subject other language page and do not see anything else that might meet WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable murder victim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Willis (musician)[edit]

Matthew Willis (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO; I can find absolutely nothing about this person that suggests notability. Tagged as such since 2009. Lennart97 (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to meeting notability. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, this reads more like an add trying to recruit students of his tutoring than an encyclopedic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V. Eliminating false positives for similarly-named persons, there are zero Google news/papers articles on this person. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish chess players[edit]

List of Jewish chess players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page was nominated for deletion and the community voted to delete it in 2005. (It's possible it was recreated.) Regardless it should be removed. Sukey (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator - Being that organizations such as the Jewish Virtual Library publish and maintain online lists of Jewish people in various professions and areas of life this list is defensible. Sukey (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sukey (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as the article explains, the overlap between Judaism and chess has received substantial coverage in the academic literature. Therefore, the reasoning in the previous discussion is incorrect. Since no other rationale has been presented, the list ought to be kept. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless the nom (or another interested party) can impeach all but one of the books listed in the last paragraph of the lede with titles directly relating to the topic at hand. That is, based on what's already in the article, the list topic, the intersection of Jews and chess, meets GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:NLIST says that "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." The article, as it exists, provides all of the necessary references that show that the subject is backed by independent reliable sources. The arguments made more than 15 years ago at the original AfD simply don't fly. Alansohn (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is an exceptionally well-sourced list. Mccapra (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Sukey, the fact that a different article with the same title was deleted 16 years ago is not a valid reason to wish to delete this one. What is your reasoning for why it should be deleted regardless? P-K3 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Notable well-sourced list, and there is no WP:DELREASON --Kemalcan (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - WP:OCEGRS states "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist" and uses Jewish Mathematicians as an example. Sukey (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) This is a list, not a category. 2) The combination is "a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right", as explained above. 3) You've inadvertently !voted a second time. Would you please change "delete" to "nominator's comment" or something like that? Thank you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:EXEMPT1E that states "These principles apply equally to lists" The issue with this list is that it has the potential to be dangerous for anyone on it who is living. If someone wants to go through it and remove all the living players included in the list and add a BLP header at the top of the page that would remove the safety concern but doesn't address whether any of the deceased included in the list would have wanted to be included (e.g. Bobby Fischer). It's surprising nobody else has an issue with this, particularly considering Wikipedia guidelines for BLPs. Sukey (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't really matter whether players "would have wanted to be included", especially if they are deceased. If their are reliable sources saying that they are jewish, there is no reason for them not to be listed as such. Now I'm not an expert on BLPs, but you can certainly list their religion. bop34 • talk • contribs 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Per Kemalcan above, and per my reply to Sukey. Also, the list clearly makes sense to have, as shown by "The topic of Jewish participation in chess is discussed extensively in academic and popular literature.", "Although Jews make up less than 0.2% of the world's population, of the first 13 undisputed world champions, over 50% were Jewish, including the first two." bop34 • talk • contribs 18:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I skimmed through the article, checked the uncited Joshua Waitzkin. There in nothing in his article about him being Jewish, apart from categories and a link to this article. As I understand it, this is not ok in WP-land. Also, the article (List of Jewish chess players) use JInfo.org as ref a lot, which doesn't seem obviously WP-good, especially not for living people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PrimeHunter pointed out in the Tea House that the Jewish Virtual Library maintains similar lists so I will withdraw my nomination (and keep a watch on the page in case anyone else nominates it in the future). I'll follow up on the issues you found. (Didn't want you to feel your comment was disregarded when I withdraw this.) Sukey (talk) 01:06, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relativistic Newtonian dynamics[edit]

Relativistic Newtonian dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article written by YaakovJoseph to promote the work of Yaakov Friedman and Joseph Steiner. Only uses WP:PRIMARY sources, which were published in the borderline journal Europhysics Letters. I don't think there exists any secondary sources, the main article [7] has been cited a grand total of 2 times by people other than the authors. Also, all the arXiv pre-prints are in the "gen-ph" section, reserved for crackpots. Tercer (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Barely cited in any publications not by the inventors themselves, and then in passing mentions within papers that are rather marginal themselves. I'm not even sure they know that the work is supposed to be an alternative to general relativity. One of them says: The discrepancy ... is considered to originate in general relativity, and is the subject of many different calculations, which obtain similar values (e.g, Friedman and Steiner, 2016). Another is similar: all of [general relativity's] predictions have been tested and verified in different limits [2]. In the weak field approximation, observations like the precise measurement of the perihelion advance of Mercury [citation here to Friedman and Steiner] ... show an impeccable agreement with the observations at solar system length scales. That's amazingly superficial, almost like the authors of the later papers Googled for something recent about the Mercury's perihelion precession and just stuck in whatever they found. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources means no wiki-notability. There's nothing to say, and no reason to try saying anything. XOR'easter (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not at all notable fringe stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, with coverage limited to a few poorly-cited articles from the creators of the topic. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW - never in 20 years have we ever published original research, and everybody knows that by now. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remyl[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BAND; unsourced and I can't find any significant coverage of this group, nor any other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability. No independent sources, no coverage, nothing. They don't even have an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that there is no evidence of notability. Every search I tried google asked "Did you mean anything other than Remyl? I've never heard of them." That was a bit amusing on it's own because google still pulled the Remyl musical group sidebar information from Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipal roads in Markham, Ontario[edit]

• List of municipal roads in Markham, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• List of municipal roads in Vaughan, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm lumping these two articles together, as they are both indiscriminate lists of local roads, many with no significance. Both articles are very poorly sourced and make no attempt to ascribe the notability of the roads chosen for inclusion in the list. Standard practise for Ontario roads is a list for upper tier municipalities, i.e. List of numbered roads in York Region. Markham and Vaughan seem to have spilled through the cracks, as they are the only lower-tier municipalities in Ontario (of 241) to have a list of roads.

Now, I'd just redirect these to the article I just linked... but they are unlikely search terms, and I'd rather that bit of salt to discourage re-creation in the form of an AfD. -- Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Ontario's local government system is weird enough already, best to trim out inconsistencies. Awmcphee (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not a transportation guide or directory. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per User:Indy beetle. Nott Mesjing (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MILL, WP:50k, and WP:GNG. Let's move on. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These were both created by an editor who used to try to create articles about every individual road in Markham and Vaughan, all the way down to residential cul-de-sacs with no discernible notability claims but existing and no locatable reliable sourcing but maps. A list at the regional municipality level already exists, and is all that's needed. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.U.K[edit]

M.U.K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has been unsourced and blatantly promotional since at least 2013, but on top of that, this person doesn't seem to pass WP:ARTIST, although I'm not entirely sure. The magazine article in the external link section could be significant coverage (but it's unclear to me whether this magazine itself is in any way notable) and I can't find anything else online. Lennart97 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete GNG fail. All I see in a search are Pokemon items, and a site that says M.U.K. means Marine Utility Knife. This is basically unsourced self-promotion. --- Possibly (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As a visual artist his name seems to have different permutations, with different numbers of periods from zero to three (this article title uses two), and those generate a few search results but they are basic directory listings and self-uploads. The article says he has released albums under the names "Fre(e)d, in solo" and "Moontain" and I can find nothing on those except basic social media entries. Some of the listed albums have been self-uploaded to Bandcamp and the like. None of the above satisfy WP's rules for reliable sources or significant coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails in GNG, not enough sources. GooeyMitch (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this fails GNG by miles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG Devokewater 20:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Voce di New York[edit]

La Voce di New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The homepage of this website (namely, the footer) claims it is located in "The United Nations Headquarters New York, NY 10017", which is fake news: this website has nothing to do with the UN. In the article, it claims to be "a newspaper", although it may well be considered a blog, currently ranked #1,237,472 according to Alexa. WP:NOTABILITY, WP:PROMO and WP:BLOGS are the major issues, but in Talk:La Voce di New York you could also find WP:POV, WP:PUFFERY, WP:PEACOCK and probable undisclosed WP:COI. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Update I am NOW in the position to demonstrate a GIGANTIC undisclosed COI that Modulato has in this article and that explains why he has so vehemently been trying to get VNY's article deleted over the past 10 days. Admins, please talk to me! This is about SPI and LTA Passani (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Update the editor actually works with the website, although he refuses to disclose his COI. For example, see https://www.lavocedinewyork.com/author/luca-passani/ —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NO COI: as I have explained (in this very page and in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#La_Voce_di_New_York) the fact that I wrote for VNY in the past does not imply a COI anymore than someone with a Facebook profile as a Facebook COI. I observe that the user who has nominated the article for deletion has pervicaciously refused to state that he/she has no WP:COI (User talk:Modulato#La_Voce_di_New_York_and_WP:COI). Passani (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL, so year 2021 means "in the past"? —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 12:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In fact, I may even write more articles in the future. VNY is open to contributions from anyone who has something meaningful to say. Passani (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article is entirely promotional and there is only the barest of substance under all the fluff. Mccapra (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 11:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am the article's original author and I think that the point is being missed here. La Voce di New York is a solid online newspaper with contributions from a lot of people including reputable and well known Italian journalists (details provided at Talk:La Voce di New York, but I could name countless other journalists). As far as WP:COI, it is not my case. While I did contribute articles to the newspaper in the past (I'm an Italian native speaker), I am not affiliated with the newspaper: I have not received any compensation, I don't plan to receive any compensation in the future, I am not part of the editorial board. Because of this, I maintain that there is no COI. Of course I followed VNY over the years, which made me knowledgeable and motivated enough to use my time to create the article. In fact, I would appreciate if the admin that is so passionately arguing for the deletion of the article could confirm that there is not some kind of reverse WP:COI at play here. About the article being promotional, I had already offered to address that issue in Talk:La Voce di New York and asked for guidance. That part was disregarded, while —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ. proceeded to request the deletion of the page. So, I humbly ask: what's the process here? If I went back and modified all the parts that could be interpreted as promotional, can we get the article to stay? I see that the Italian Wikipedia has translated the article making the content more sober in the process. Would something along those lines be considered a reasonable compromise? Passani (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is promotional (and self-published) in its entirety; assuming the website needs an article, it should be rewritten from scratch. As for it.wikipedia.org, it is a different project that has nothing to do with this AfD. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 14:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Again. I am all for finding a reasonable compromise that would still keep the page up, because it is my belief that VNY qualifies for a WP article. The question I am asking is: if I was to rewrite the article from scratch along the lines of what was done (by someone else) for the Italian version, would this make the deletion thing go away? Passani (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 17:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user who placed the deletion note keeps spreading fake news and refusing to acknowledge evidence (in Talk:La Voce di New York) that what is reported in the article is correct. I requested multiple times to confirm that there is no WP:COI (i.e. a will to damage VNY for whatever reason), but that request has been ignored. Can some WP admin look at this and advise? Mildly put, there's something fishy going on here Passani (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have nothing to do with your website. Sure, there is something fishy going on: your alleged affiliation with the UN is a hoax and shoud be removed. https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-website/fraud-alert/ —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 18:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You have avoided the question once more: can you positively affirm that you have no WP:COI wrt VNY (which, btw, is not my website)? Passani (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Wikipedia editor who read this article and decided to nominate it for the aforementioned reasons. The fact that you objected to the nomination and got furious doesn't mean that I have a COI with your website. By the way, you said that you used to work with the website; you should also avoid personal attacks. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have carefully avoided affirming that you don't have a WP:COI. Yet I asked you several times. I maintain that I am knowledgeable about VNY but do not have a WP:COI. I wrote a few articles for them, but never received any compensation, don't plan to receive it, I am not part of the board, I cannot represent VNY in any capacity. So no COI for me. But obviously there's COI involved for you. Passani (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem a bit confused. Conflict of interest doesn't necessarily mean paid contributions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 13:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that I have no Conflict of interest. You have not affirmed that you have no COI (in fact I strongly suspect that you do and are using anonymity to hide it. Passani (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. News media do not get a free article on Wikipedia, and in 2021, I would think everybody knows that after 20 years. Based on what I see, one can not assume good faith here. There's a single mention in a single independent source. That's far below what most editors consider WP:SIGCOV. I'm willing to change my mind, but to keep it would require a search for better sources and adding them to the article, or a change in the well-settled consensus. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article Author here. I am not sure why you are saying that I am not acting in good faith. I think that mentions by RAI (Italian State TV), La Repubblica, Di Blasio's letter and the Amerigo award, are all independent sources. Anyway, as stated before, I am willing to work to improve the article so that it meets WikiPedia standards. I could use some guidance, at this point. If being featured in TV programs in State TV is not considered an independent source, I am a bit at a loss about what is. Thanks Passani (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see that you do not consider articles featuring VNY by RAI and La Repubblica sufficiently notable apparently, but no explanation is being provided on why. Could this be a language problem? What about Bill Di Blasio's letter? Looking at WP:NNEWSPAPER, I see that other criteria are listed for notability of magazines, newspapers and other pubblications. It seems to me that VNY falls squarely under the The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works. criteria. Google Scholar will lead to several citations of VNY articles in academic work. Letting Google count the number of VNY pages returns a remarkable 60,000. I think only about 20k of those pages are articles, but still a pretty significant amount that vouches for the relevance of the newspaper in the Italian news media landscape. Of course, if I went looking for citations by other websites, that would bring up a ton of references to VNY articles. Passani (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad those results are not "academic works" proper. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad (for you) those results are academic works proper. While you are here... I still need to see your claim that you have no WP:COI in this article, yet I asked many times. You have been dedicating significant effort to taking down the VNY article, without significant contributions to any other pages. In the past, you have focused on a few selected articles. Your profile does not say much about you, but you exhibit significant knowledge of Wikipedia's mechanisms and processes. Time to come clean. Do you have a COI? Passani (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflicts of interest with any Wikipedia articles, and you should not accuse people of being "haters", "vandals", "cyber attackers" or "COI editors" just because your article has been nominated. That being said, you are off topic.
As for your results, the first is not even an article, and the second is a self-published book. I don't have enough time to check the others. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, an answer that avoids the question and an attempt to muddy the water. I was referring to the long lists of references to VNY articles that Google scholars brings up. You have repeatedly refused to look at the evidence I have provided and refused to look for consensus on the content of the article. My only hope is that admins will look closely at the provided evidence and reach their own conclusions on who is acting honestly here. Passani (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significant coverage of the newspaper in reliable sources.2A04:4A43:497F:E21A:2CBB:940E:C354:914F (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It would be nice if you could identify yourself when you cast a vote. Anyway, there is plenty of room to demonstrate that the article meets the threshold for notability of newspapers according to WP:NNEWSPAPER. Passani (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to create an account to participate in a deletion discussion. The closing admin does have the prerogative to discount or reduce the weight of arguments made by un- or newly-registered editors. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something very suspicious is going on here. First someone mentions that Modulato may be a sockpuppet and long-time abuser on your page, and you delete the comment without a reason. Then an anonymous vote shows up here and Modulato immediately corrects the wikitext to make it look good, followed by your immediate comment in support of the anonymous user. I smell sockpuppet/meatpuppet from 10 miles away. Passani (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passani the best way to establish notability for the article is to show it meets WP:GNG by showing it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Italia Oggi looks like one source, RAI probably another as I couldn't hear it without registering. Other sources don't look independent: La Repubblica looks like an interview with Stefano Vaccara and Di Blasio's letter and the Amerigo award are both referenced to La Voce di New York. WP:NNEWSPAPER is a WP:ESSAY so it is not conclusive. TSventon (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon the RAI website does not really require registration in the sense that SSO with a multitude of social accounts will get you to the content. If you do login, you will see (1:10) RAI's cameraman follow Vaccara inside the UN building and interviewing him (in his UN office!) about La Voce di New York. About Di Blasio's letter, you can find it at this link. It was written by Di Blasio's office and signed by Di Blasio. La Repubblica interviews Stefano Vaccara inside the UN building as well (this was 2013, when VNY was at its inception). La Repubblica and Il Corriere are Italy's two top newspapers, you don't get an interview with them that easily. Amerigo's award is referenced by the Amerigo website and it's an initiative endorsed by the US embassy in Rome. About WP:NNEWSPAPER, it may not be conclusive (nothing is at this point), but VNY does qualify for notability accoding to it. Passani (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails wp:GNG92.40.192.10 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Almost all sources cited in the article are to the newspaper itself. The award mentioned in the "Awards, Recognitions and Acknowledgements" section was also set up by this newspaper, not awarded to it. The only independent source cited, an article in la Repubblica [8], contains only a couple of brief mentions of the newspaper. Nothing to show satisfying WP:GNG or WP:ORG here. Nsk92 (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it looks like I missed a few sources listed at the start of References. Of them one, Italia Oggi, does seem to provide significant coverage of the subject. I have not been able to access the RAI TV report but in general TV and printed interviews with the subjects themselves do not contribute to their notability. De Blasio's letter was published in La Voce di New York so it again doesn't count unless there are other sources that discuss this letter. There is still far too little here for satisfying WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability requires significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. Most of the references now in the article fall far short of that standard. The first reference is an interview with VNY's editor Stefano Vaccara, and is a recapitulation of its early coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is not significant coverage of VNY. The second reference is an interview with Vaccara, which does not establish notability because it is not independent. The third reference, an article in Italia Oggi, appears to be significant coverage, but I do not read Italian. A complicating factor is that Vaccara used to work for Oggi. This seems to be the most promising reference. Reference #4 is something written by Vaccara for VNY, and therefore of no value for establishing notability. Reference #5 verifies that VNY won a non-notable award but does not devote significant coverage to VNY. It is a passing mention. That does not establish notability. References #6, #7 and #8 were published in VNY, are not independent, and therefore do not establish notability. The ninth reference appears to be a video interview with Vaccara (correct me if I am wrong), and if so, does not establish notability. References #10, #11, #12 and #13 were published in VNY, are not independent, and therefore do not establish notability. Reference #14 is about recipients of an award that VNY gives, and does not include any significant coverage of VNY itself, and does not establish notability. Reference #15 is a duplicate of reference #5. Reference #16 was published in VNY, is not independent, and is of no value in establishing notability. This debate has been damaged by the fact that the original author has an obvious COI and yet vehemently denies their COI, attacks other editors and is bludgeoning this discussion. That is most unfortunate and I urge the editor to correct their disruptive behavior. But I made my decision based only on an assessment of the sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, California[edit]

Rich, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It's not clear why all roads seem to lead here in the oldest topos, but all map evidence is that it was an isolated railroad siding/station and nothing more. There is a large foundation which could have accommodated a station building, but it doesn't show up on the topos. I would have just prodded this, but searching is, as you can imagine, not terribly fruitful. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could it have been the lonely water stop named "Rod"? Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No post office. Non-notable railway station: [9] and [10] so WP:STATION applies. I think Rod station was elsewhere, the Rich Station reference is from 1915, whereas the lonely water stop named "Rod" states that the name Rod was from the early 1900's - so Rod and Rich are probably different. It looks to me like that Suckow found colemanite when drilling on a ranch four miles from Rich Station. Suckow's deposit eventually became the Rio Tinto Borax Mine. In 1927, more borax was found near Rich Station, see [11]. Searching for '"Rich Spur" Mojave' finds a few railfan websites that are not WP:RS. As Rich seems to be only a station and is only mentioned in passing in trivial articles, it does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My search does not find anything notable, both the nom and user Cxbrx are unable to find anything. Jeepday (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SNOW. "There's no there there." Bearian (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Agree it looks like it was a rail station, and was probably put into USGS as a populated place because it appears on topo maps. If it had a station house it was "populated" at one point, but I'm not seeing evidence of any notability in any event, even if Kernite was discovered near there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:56, 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. Failed to establish that WP:ORG is met by the sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky commando films[edit]

Lucky commando films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No third-party reliable sources to indicate notability; references are all the same recycled press releases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The news articles mentioned in this page are independent sources of information and are not press releases Jiasally (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone glancing at the reference section can see that is clearly not the case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not enough to pass GNG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH imo. Kolma8 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep produced 7 big budget movies, passes GNG. Tictictoc (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may want to take a closer look at those 7 "big budget" movies. None of those are anywhere near a big-budget movie; they're either shorts, web series, or music videos. The last one in the list (which I've removed) was dated as "2022" and didn't seem to exist, as the links are either broken or go to different articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:13, 23 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⁺⁺ 14:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The production company is a notable company has produced many web series, films and short movies music Albms. It has enough citations on trusted reliable, independent resources such as: passes WP:NCORP

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Powerfultample (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The page recycles sources repeatedly and makes films that don't have Wikipedia articles. —ÐW^(T·C) 20:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The production company is a notable company has produced . It has enough citations on trusted reliable, independent resources such as: Nabutiger123 (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC) — Nabutiger123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment "Such as" what? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Those news articles are engaged in this , they have big all the articles and are independent, these articles can be trusted . — Ppp00007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Another SPA with an argument that doesn't make any sense. Before you go creating further throwaway accounts, bear in mind I've opened a sockpuppet investigation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the vocal single edit accounts, there does not seem to be any reason to keep this. My search did not find anything. There is are no other language articles, given that they produce in languages other then English, it would seem self evident that don't meet Hindi notability. Jeepday (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NCOMP/GNG. I did my own BEFORE and the company has next to zero visibility. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 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 merge to Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. Sandstein 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Iranian conflict[edit]

Arab-Iranian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has multiple issues because its contents are mainly overlapped with Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, and does not meet WP:NEVENTS, WP:PLOT and WP:NOR -- Wendylove (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose : Firstly, half of the body of the article is about Iran-Iraq war, not Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and secondly, in my humble opinion, this article needs to be expanded (with other current and ancient conflicts), not deleted.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what sources say there is an "Arab–Iranian conflict"? The one source I checked that doesn't fail verification on this point is the 2020 book (so it's probably too soon to tell if its ideas are the majority view or not), and it only deals with the interwar era, long before this article which starts in 1980. (t · c) buidhe 14:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article has already been nominated for deletion in May 2020, resulting in "Keep" consensus. Participants of that 2020 discussion should be notified of this concurrent re-proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 08:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively the information and soruces into the main article; right now it's a WP:POVFORK, then redirect. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 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. Consensus is that WP:MILUNIT #2 is met, and very importantly WP:V is met. There is no "weak keep" close, so this will have to do. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5th Nasr Division[edit]

5th Nasr Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has been DEPRODed without any sources present. WP:BEFORE gave me some mentions with operations of the islamic Guard. Suggest redirect/merge into Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or delete. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just nothing there in the way of coverage. I assume that it exists but without any coverage who knows? Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If the source cited regarding the commander mentions the 5th Nasr Division, merge - would be our first entry for an IGRC division. Otherwise delete. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:MILUNIT #2. Certainly appears to exist. How can divisions not be notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the opening wording to MILUNIT states "presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." and that is completely lacking here. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, but I still can't believe that a division is not considered to be notable. Common sense issue. WP:IAR and all that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is what matters, nothing else. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Sourcing is one part of the guideline for notability--and the entire notbility guidelien and all itssubrules is just a gudieline, and many attempts to make it policy have all failed. That means that the criteria in it are only guides to what is notable in the sense of being worth covering in the encyclopedia . (The actual policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE). Coving mulitary units down to this level is far from. indiscriminate. So it meets the policy. For areas and aspects with difciult to find ocverage such as this, we can reasonable use a bvery broad interpretation of applicable guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that keeping a completely unsourced page is ok? We don't even know for sure that this unit isn't a hoax. Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It's not a hoax. It's listed as one of the units that fought in Operation Beit ol-Moqaddas, the First Battle of al-Faw and the Battle of Mehran (1986). Foreign Policy says Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf once commanded the unit.[27] The American Enterprise Institute provides a few details as well, including Qalibaf's replacement, Esmail Qaani.[28] Radio Free Europe mentions an operation mounted by its 1st Brigade.[29] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:MILUNIT no. 2. It's a real division-level formation. Appears to have been engaged in serious actions (e.g., an entire brigade was reported destroyed in action in 1987 in the southern Majnun oil field during the Iran-Iraq war). It's also known as the "Ansar Corps" or "Sepah-e Nasr Corps" according to this book, which discusses its role in exfiltrating Bin Laden's fighters from Afghanistan. Searching for articles in Farsi I see (at least based on machine translation) this, and particularly this article which seems to be all about them, this one too. The above highlight why standards like WP:MILUNIT are important, since formations of division-size and above are the size of reasonably-sized towns and very likely to have received significant coverage somewhere. FOARP (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete WP:MILUNIT only says units of this size are likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion based on the availability of reliable secondary sources. There's no guarantee about the size of the purported unit, either (just because it calls itself a division doesn't mean it has 20,000 personnel). I'd rather see more RS. Intothatdarkness 21:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness - most of the sources are in Farsi, but I see a large number from what appear to be WP:NEWSORGs. 1 2 3 4. Using machine translation it is clear that the unit existed, that it had battalions and brigades beneath it, that it was commanded by officers of Brigadier rank or above, and that it suffered significant casualties in the Iran-Iraq war. PS- for the avoidance of doubt, even if we discount WP:MILUNIT as a (highly useful) essay, the sources presented also make this a basic WP:GNG pass as they constitute multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV in WP:NEWSORG sources. FOARP (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per FOARP. Vaticidalprophet 20:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep on the basis that there is some coverage in sources. The idea being spouted above that we don't need sources to demonstrate notability is utterly stupid. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:32, 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir C. V. Raman Institute of Technology and Sciences[edit]

Sir C. V. Raman Institute of Technology and Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No RS with a BEFORE. Not to be confused with a similar named research institute. No inherent notability. Advertisement. Vikram Vincent 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: The keep !votes have not provided any RS or policy to support their assertion. VV 17:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete From what I can tell all the sources in the article are either primary or otherwise connected to the organization in a way that would make them non-usable for notability. There's was nothing in a BEFORE that isn't extremely trivial or would pass WP:NORG either. So, I'm going with delete. Unless someone can come up with three good sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a private institution hence there is no inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 13:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the other AfD where you responded the same exact way WP:NORG pretty clearly says "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." --Adamant1 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 06:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Accredited private institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- MRRaja001 ^(talk) 13:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 14:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MRRaja001 It would be good to read up WP:NSCHOOL. If you can identify WP:THREE sources that support notability I'll withdraw the AFD nomination. Best! Vikram Vincent 14:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - weak presumptions of notability are simply not enough. WP:NORG is extremely clear about what is required and this does not meet any aspect of it. We need sourcing that establishes notability not just bare-minimum database coverage that merely proves that the institution exists. I'll admit that I'm not from India so I wouldn't necessarily have access to all of the necessary sources but there is no significant coverage in any of the searches that I did attempt and I'm not convinced that we ought to assume that such coverage exists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Cadwallader[edit]

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

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

Cadwallader does not appear to meet any of the notability guidelines for acadmics from 2-8 on the list. An argument might be made for the first one - that he's had significant impact on the discipline, but frankly, I just don't think he hits that bar either. Not every textbook author or editor is notable. He certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG. PianoDan (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to new article per WP:BIO1E. His coauthored textbook, Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach, appears to be notable, so if anyone wants to make an article on that, we can redirect there. I found seven published reviews of it (including a minor academic spat between two different reviewers in the same journal); see the article for links. He is coauthor of another textbook Harmony and Voice Leading but I think he was only added as a coauthor to its fourth edition and I can't find reviews that mention his contribution to it. I don't think that's enough for academic or other notability for Cadwallader himself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete even for a low citation field, this person is not notable with a total of 34 citations over a full career of 40 years. --hroest 13:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Edit: I retract my !vote since Russ has found additional evidence and I am not familiar enough with the field to make a reasonable decision. --hroest 20:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you doing this search? Google scholar searches for author:allen-cadwallader show me citations of 633 and 301 for the two textbooks, then 34, 23, 22, 16, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Eppstein I used Microsoft Academic for this since there was no profile on GS and that was my link here: [30] since there is no aggregate number of citations in GS. But I agree, maybe MA is not the best here since it does not seem to pick up citations from books. But even if you add together all the GS citations I dont think you can get enough to pass NPROF. --hroest 21:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think to understand that his book (with David Gagné) Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach, mentioned above, is one of the most often used books for Schenkerian teaching in the US, with four editions on OUP. I fail to understand how a book could be considered notable without its author being considered notable as well. Cadwallader, in addition, is the author, coauthor or editor of several other books, e.g. Trends in Schenkerian Research, 1990, or the Acts of several of the Mannes College International Schenker Symposiums. It is true that this all may not make him extremely notable, but he is mentioned in several other WP articles, so that deleting his article might be problematic. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As David Eppstein pointed out above - being the author of a notable textbook falls under WP:BIO1E. His links from other WP articles are almost entirely in the form of an author's name in a reference list. Such a link is not at all problematic to remove, and does not confer notability. The way to establish notability would be to directly address the criteria in WP:PROF, preferably with direct references to sources that verify that he meets one of those criteria. PianoDan (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. While I hear the WP:BLP1E concerns clearly, I've added the edited volume to the article mentioned above by Hucbald.SaintAmand -- it does have several reviews on JSTOR [31][32][33]. I also found a review of the 5th ed. of the textbook in a reliable-looking-through-not-great-source [34] (there's a review of the 4th ed. on the same site). While an edited volume doesn't contribute much to notability, I think that (with the solid citations and textbook) it's enough to save it from WP:BLP1E world. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity: Cadwallader is listed as co-author on two textbooks, Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach,, and Harmony and Voice Leading. The SECOND one is far more notable, but Cadwallader was only added as co-author after the death of one of the principal authors. It is still universally referred to as "Aldwell and Schachter" in the theory community, which raises doubts about whether it helps make Cadwallader himself notable. Analysis of Tonal Music IS directly associated with Cadwallader, and so relates more to the question at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎PianoDan (talk • contribs)
    • Yes, thank you. I'd pass over the fact that Analysis of Tonal Music is also a textbook. So, to sum up, my weak keep case is that Analysis of Tonal Music is clearly notable, and clearly significantly tied to the subject. By itself it would be a BLP1E. The multiple reviews of Trends in Schenkerian Research (though an edited volume), and the well-known Harmony and Voice Leading (on which the subject replaced Aldwell for two editions after their death) both contribute to notability. I don't think either one would be enough by itself, but together I see them as overcoming BLP1E, hence the weak keep !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Page is mostly just ISBN stuff. —ÐW^(T·C) 20:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:17, 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 redirect to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jakanari reserve forest[edit]

Jakanari reserve forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Ok, I know I may be doing this too much, but there are no sources here! JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 20:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to Nom RE: "there are no sources here!" lack of sources on the article is not a criteria for deletion. I am sure you have read WP:BEFORE assuming you have searched for references, in the future call out in your nomination that you searched and could not find references. Jeepday (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My search does not find anything to meet WP:GNG, there are no reference on the article or claims of notability. Jeepday (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. It's maintained by the forestry institute of that university [35], or at least that's the closest connection I could figure out. Agree there is not enough material to show separate notability - all sources are excerpts from either the linked page, or an unsourced teaching materials page that lists "important Indian forests". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Elmidae. I did some looking and didn't come up with anything other than someone caught a viper nearby once and brought it to the university that Elmidae linked to above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

College of Science & Engineering, Jhansi[edit]

College of Science & Engineering, Jhansi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Written like an ad. Refs have paid ads. No RS available. Not inherently notable. Creator is a SPA. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I think we are up to like 8 or 9 of these being deleted and like 1 (or 0) being kept despite your claim that consensus is to keep them. At some point for the sake of accuracy Etc. Etc. you should strike your keep vote comments about it out. Since they are clearly wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Private institutions don't have any inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 14:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Peer WP:NORG, along with similar AfDs that resulted in the articles being deleted, an article about a private college has to pass the notability guidelines the same way any other organization does. By having enough adequate sources to make it notable. This college doesn't have the required sourcing for it to be notable though. So, there's no guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 06:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found even less than I usually do on these kinds of colleges. No link back to shit flow diagrams, wasn't used to lock up migrants during the pandemic and no one was hit by a car in front of it leading to protests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing even close to the depth of coverage required to pass WP:NORG, therefore, there is simply no alternative but to delete Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ivory Coast–United States relations. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cote d'Ivoire in Washington, D.C.[edit]

Embassy of Cote d'Ivoire in Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was the subject of a previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Cote d'Ivoire in Washington, D.C.) in 2013, the result was redirect/merge to Ivory Coast–United States relations. In 2017 the article was recreated but it still doesn't address the issues for which it was originally deleted, which is that embassies are not inherently notable. Fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:NORG / WP:GEOFEAT. Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge to Ivory Coast–United States relations. Dan arndt (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Related discussions: 2013-03 Embassy of Cote d'Ivoire in Washington, D.C. merge to Ivory Coast–United States relations

Hrm... ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge per above Reywas92^Talk 00:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A search does not find enough to meet WP:GNG, existing policy does grant inherent notable, at this time the only possible choice is delete. If there is a successful push to grant inherent notable to embassies, the article can be recovered. Jeepday (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively and redirect (soft) as I've advocated in similar situations. The building itself is not so notable to have its own article, and the target article could be beefed up. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fetish Con[edit]

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

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

Looks to fail NEVENT. Created by a promotional SPA. Only -local- coverage, no evidence of wider significance, or, really any significance. WP is not a directory of conventions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Even if you 100% discount local coverage, there's some nontrivial stuff in Rolling Stone and, according to the Chicago Tribune, a trade-published book America Unzipped: In Search of Sex and Satisfaction where it features heavily. Also seeing some Business Insider stuff, although obviously that's not quite so unimpeachable. Meanwhile, the local coverage is extensive and provides material for a much bigger and better article than the current one when coupled with the broader sourcing online and in print. Vaticidalprophet 20:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I second Vaticidalprophet, there is (admittedly limited) wider coverage and a wealth of local coverage with which the article could be improved. Jthekid15 (talk) 11:01, 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 no consensus. The quality of the sources appears to be borderline with an equal split of opinions on either side. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Slam[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only coverage I could find in a somewhat reliable source is this. There are some other reviews in places like metal-archives.com, but I don't believe those are reliable enough to establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, metal-archives is user-generated and not a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a shame because the name Uncle Slam with the album cover art is pretty rad. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Caroline and Restless are notable labels. They're reviewed in the Chicago Tribune. Reviewed in Blabbermouth and Decibel; don't know much about those sources, but they're listed as reliable. Caro7200 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Caro7200 listed some facts that establish notability, so I think he meant "Weak Keep", not "Weak Delete". Coupled with the things he said, some of the members are also part of Suicidal Tendencies, which is a notable band, so I think multiple aspects of notability are met. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A band doesn't become notable because members of the band are notable themselves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not know that is the norm here, as I am mainly active on huwiki, where that is an indication of notability. The "notability for music" essay or guideline was imported to huwiki from here, so I guessed we have inherited your rules. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the band had multiple notable individuals, it would be a consideration. Members being in multiple bands is not a consideration for the band. Also, if there is no way to source any content, how many notable members there are in the band is irrelevant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These statements by S.F.Radish and Walter are not necessarily true. See criterion #6 at WP:NBAND. However, for the band under discussion here, it is worth wondering whether all those blue-linked members really are notable, and the "loop" mentioned in the guideline might be relevant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This statement by Doomsdayer520 is not necessarily true. See the preamble of NBAND where it states the subject "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). It does not state that it is immediately notable. There has to be significant coverage related to the item, not just a passing mention. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I'm sure this vote won't help with consensus but I gotta be honest. Above, Caro7200 mentioned some reviews in reliable sources. The band got lucky with an album review in the Chicago Tribune, but read it here: [36]. It is one paragraph long, only mentions one song, and uses platitudes like "combination of anger and persistence" that could be said about anyone. Reliable source, but not significant. On the other hand, reviews at Blabbermouth [37] and Decibel [38] are quite robust. That helps with criterion #1 at WP:NBAND, and being signed to two notable labels helps with criterion #5. Having several members that are notable for other endeavors helps with criterion #6 (though this is admittedly a stretch and the notability of some of those people is suspect). Some good news and some bad news in this analysis, but the good manages to squeak past the bad. In any case the article needs to be cleaned up up pretty badly. And their name is brilliant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:NBAND with the sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete there seems to be some coverage for this band but it still remains rather limited. If none of their works have charted on Billboard, then notability would still remain a doubt. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A group doesn't need to chart on Billboard in order to be considered notable. The article needs cleaning up and references to be added, but as per Doomsdayer520 I believe they are notable enough to be kept. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But none of the members are themselves notable. I checked their bios and they all fail GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. release on Caroline and Restless are good for wp:music#5. Online coverage scrapes in for #1. Likely to have been covered in magazines of the day. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What online coverage? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll notice that the subjects with articles were not actually notable and have undergone their own AfDs (or PRODs) and so the argument that this band had multiple notable members is no longer valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parya Vatankhah[edit]

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

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

Tagged since April 2018 for more citations and notability. Attempted to find citations but not able to find much in terms of WP:RS. Jooojay (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jooojay (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fork with no meaningful history to merge. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political views of Tucker Carlson[edit]

Political views of Tucker Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Here we have an article full of opinions of a well-known pundit, who generates plenty of news coverage--but we already have a biography, and the question here is whether every opinion of his that is noted in the press needs to be gathered into a big heap that acquires encyclopedic notability only by virtue of weight. My opinion is no, this is not what we are supposed to do; it's not unlike the series of Person X on Twitter, where the community decided in the end that, and I paraphrase, not everything that is verified acquires stand-alone notability. I don't like the slippery slope argument very much, but it applies here: if this goes, then it goes for just about every single person who gets on TV or on social media, and there is no encyclopedic benefit to it. Take the important ones (secondary sources and editorial judgment should suffice), stick them (back) in his biography, and be done with it. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Most of the article was copied from Tucker_Carlson. — Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete duplicative of Tucker Carlson#Commentary so I fail to see why a separate redundant page is needed. Reywas92^Talk 22:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Note that this doesn't need to be merged, the content copied over from Tucker Carlson was never removed in the first place. Tucker Carlson is a political commentator, it's fine for his biography to have a bulky section dedicated to his political views, having political views is quite literally his job, this is what he's notable for. I don't see the need to split the section off into another article, it's perfectly fine as it is at Tucker Carlson. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I LOLed reading this. Very good point. What next Religious views of Pope Francis or Religious vies of Russell M. Nelson, or maybe Doctrinal views of Russell M. Nelson. Such articles do not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no reason for this fork to exist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The political views of America's most popular news/talk show host are worthy of a lot of coverage here, but this could all be condensed onto his own page, which is clearly preferable.SatoshiSoul (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete: This fact can be added to the main Carlson article; otherwise it is entirely duplicative. Llll5032 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is absolutely no reason to have this at all seperate from the article on Tucker Carlson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete As mentioned, almost all of this article is already mentioned on Tucker Carlson's page. No reason for his 'political views' to have their own page. Redoryxx (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:POVFORK (ironically). If Carlson's ideas or views were unusual or all over the place, a separate article would be useful. Rather, his views tend strongly to be consistent, run of the mill for today's Republicans, and to the right of center. So it fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Digital Agency[edit]

Creative Digital Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:NCORP. A before search linked me to unreliable sources such as this, this & this Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only news coverage I can find is from press release republishers. Nothing I can find to establish real notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I disagree with the nominator because two of the bad links cited by her do not belong to the subject.

With the above, the subject meets the WP:NCORP and also the GNG as well. Thanks PizNNo (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hermesawards.com is certainly not reliable or independent. The Techcrunch article merely says that they conducted a poll. Thedrum is a website for marketers about marketing. Mobilemarketingmagazine is a non-notable award, digiday is a nomination for a non-notable award. MMA Global is another non-notable award. Greensolver isn't even a source, they're just trying to sell services. Crunchbase is a listing of companies and professionals and does not establish notability. Basically none of this adds anything towards WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PizNNo, all the sources you listed do not establish notability for the organization. I could do a source analysis table for you but @ScottishFinnishRadish, already did justice to them above. Celestina007 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScottishFinnishRadish and User:Celestina007, Thanks for the insight. However, the point I am making in one of my claims is that the "Greensolver" and "Crunchbase" links which Celestina pointed to doesn't belong to the subject. Both belong to a different firm that goes by the same name. You can see that they weren't used in the content. PizNNo (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is a reliable source that establishes notability. One is Crunchbase is just a list of companies that you can pay to search and get information on and the Greensolver link is just selling a wordpress theme that doesn't even appear related to the company. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - obvious undisclosed paid-for spam. I have blocked the creator, PizNNo, for spamming. MER-C 14:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unambiguously promotional page. MarioGom (talk) 16:35, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]