The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pabitra Puppies[edit]

Pabitra Puppies (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 web series has a review in the Times of India which goes per point 1 of WP:NFO, but there is no other review made by nationally known critics. Neither of other 4 points of WP:NFO are satisfying. The major references are announcing the release of the web series, which is a part of any film distribution/promotion. No Major Film Awards either. Not saifisfyng WP:NF as a whole.Dixiku (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of TV-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This doesn't appear to be a film, so I am not sure WP:NFO or WP:NF applies. WP:TVSHOW might be the guidelines it should be judged as to see if notable or not. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldd23 since it was a one season web series, my initial thought was it may fall under NFILM. Per TVSHOW, it says It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. It also says that this local criteria is subordinate to the RS policy. There are not enough RS for this web series and it has a local target audience so not notable. Dixiku (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will be adding more PR and other staffs so then it will be more eligible.

• Delete there is a one news from indiatoday.in but apart from there is nothing else. I don't consider spotboye.com, pinkvilla.com Tellychakkar.com as WP:RS. I also searched with Bengali name but didn't find anything notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:TVSHOW. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable TV show fails GNG. (Noting that the Times of India isn't a particularly reliable source, and the remaining references are either passing mentions or reiterations of the press release.) ——Serial 12:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Tampa Bay Rays first-round draft picks. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 12:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ames[edit]

Jeff Ames (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 minor league player, tagged with notability concerns since 2018, fails WP:NBASE. SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Tampa Bay Rays first-round draft picks. Spanneraol (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Either delete or redirect. Don't keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 19 May 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.

Nomination withdrawn. The result was keep (non-admin closure) --Kemalcan (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Laupa[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Kemalcan (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:NTENNIS as a Fed Cup player, also found plenty of GNG-passing sources very quickly [1] [2] [3] [4]. Iffy★Chat -- 08:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I skipped that she was a Fed player. Sorry for the inconvenience. Nomination withdrawn. --Kemalcan (talk) 13:01, 17 May 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 G7 deleted by User:Fastily. Geschichte (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Milovanović[edit]

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

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

Milovanović fails WP:NTENNIS. Dewritech (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dewritech (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and recreate when more accomplishments are achieved. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, as the creator of this page, I am accepting of it's proposed deletion and support it being removed. I appreciate the page review, thank you for your time. mcburk (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Creator asked for deletion, no other significant contributors. Fences&Windows 14:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gislaine Corsi[edit]

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

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

Indistinguishable from a hoax. The same applies to several of the other articles the author has created about this supposed noble house. Can't find a single mention of this subject, not even in the sources cited [5]. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, probable hoax. Google searches return nothing relevant, bibliography seems to be composed of books on architecture (?) and sources are not easily verifiable. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 19:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hii @Þjarkur: this quote, specifically, from Rondoni's busts, was mentioned because it was in the possession of the family and was mentioned in the family history in another book. The disposition of the busts for sale can be accessed here and here. In all the books in the bibliography section, they are mentioned selling some object that belongs to the palaces, or that they briefly pass on to the family, so I put this pdf about Domenico's busts, as they report the moment of the sale. I recommend reading here, here, here, here and here, all of these books are for sale on the international amazon. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O Correto (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how that is relevant to the subject of this article – Thjarkur (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok!! What do you think needs to be introduced in addition to the biographical sources and the other sources? (O Correto (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete highly promotional l article on former nobility , emphasising reltionshiup with other non-notable former nobility. The referencess, as ((U|Þjarkur]] shows, are not directly eelevant to her at all. DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC) .[reply]

After hearing your opinion, I agree that the Article needs more sources! I'll put them together and then rewrite it, so I asked for the article to be deleted! Hugs! (O Correto (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Creator asked for deletion, no other significant contributors. Fences&Windows 14:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Corsi[edit]

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

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

There is something odd going on with this article. All of the sources that mention him are sponsored coverage. Half of the sources (the latter half) don't exist and have never existed. The reliable sources that are cited (related to him being linked to Da Vinci) do not mention him. He was not nominated for a literary prize, he registered his book for an incentive award list but did not win. He has no plays on Spotify and his most popular song on YouTube has 60,000 views. I can't find a single mention of him in a reliable newspaper. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the article seems to be half WP:HOAX, half WP:PROMO for a non-notable YouTuber. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Hii @Þjarkur:, I analyzed the problems pointed out and I noticed that some links are broken because they were translated by me. I can fix my mistake and adjust the links, sorry! About the news coming out on paid portals, I don't know about that, I just picked it up on google when I typed his name. There is a credible source who mentions him associated with Da Vinci through the Grupo Record portal here. About Youtube information, you can easily check it here, which counts his channel as having 6,327,126 views, this includes Youtube Music. Good night!! :) (O Correto (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

• Neither of these sources make the subject notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#YouTube.SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep i fixed the links problem here. I believe that the article has good coverage by sources, it only had broken links due to my own fault, but I have already fixed the problem, so I believe that the article should be kept. I'm taking this comment based on articles that still exist without any sources because of its relevance, like Ciccillo Matarazzo. Thank you! (O Correto (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete promotionalism for non-notable former nobility , emphasising his connection with various noble hosues. WP is not a directory. `` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 09:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• After hearing your opinion, I agree that the Article needs more sources! I'll put them together and then rewrite it, so I asked for the article to be deleted! Hugs! (O Correto (talk) 10:22, 17 May 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Jolie[edit]

Jade Jolie (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 article about Jade Jolie does not meet any of the three criteria listed WP:ENT. The performer's notability is only relevant in the context of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5), so a redirect could be an option too. Other events listed in the page fail WP:NOTGOSSIP. Underpaid Intern (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG. I've done enough sourcing review to determine Wikipedia could have a decent entry about the subject if expanded to full potential. I disagree with nominator's rationale and see more to their story than Drag Race. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nomination rationale of "The performer's notability is only relevant in the context of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5)" is simply not true. Jolie appeared on RPDR in 2013. In 2019, she appeared in Taylor Swift's "You Need to Calm Down" music video, as well as appearing with her at the VMAs. There's coverage for the music video, including standalone articles solely about Jolie from the Courier-Journal here and Fox19 here. There are dozens of articles from 2019 about how John Travolta (and Gigi Hadid) mistook Jolie for Taylor Swift at the VMAs (three of which are currently listed in the article, so I won't belabor that point). There's coverage from other events as well, including: a 2019 piece about a restaurant naming a drink after her here; a 2019 piece about her headlining a show here; a 2020 appearance in AJ and the Queen here; etc. There's ongoing coverage apart from her stint on RPDR over a number of years and events. I think the subject easily passes GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Per thorough rationale put forward by Kbabej. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kbabej. They did a very good job with showing how this individual has received coverage for events outside of RuPaul's Drag Race. Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Eat North" does not appear to be a reliable source. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Kettle[edit]

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

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable only for having lived to be 102. To be fair, at the time this was created we did have a rule that reaching the age of 100 was "inherently" notable due to its relative rarity -- but that's long since been deprecated, and centenarians are no longer handed an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume and depth of reliable sourcing. But the only source here is a very short entry in a regional history encyclopedia, which is obviously a valid start but not enough all by itself if it's the only source he has, and I haven't been able to find anything else of value. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Newfoundland and Labrador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to the guidelines being a centenarian is not enough to have a stand alone article. There's not enough coverage on the subject. I have checked several articles this one can be merged with but failed to find a proper target. Less Unless (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep entry in an encyclopedia is enough for me to prove notability, however it is not enough for sourcing and needs further RS. Needs improvement, but not deletion. --hroest 13:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: centenarian is not enough to have an arcticle, fails WP:BIO CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Please ping me if anyone would find more sources. Currently, It does also not meet requirements for WP:GNG.--Kemalcan (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:42, 20 May 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. Missvain (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Karara[edit]

Amir Karara (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:NACTOR, only have minor roles in films and TV series CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is one of the best and most famous Egyptian actors at the moment alongside Ahmed Ezz & Karim Abdel Aziz. He starred in three films, becoming the highest-grossing movies in the history of Egyptian cinema [ar]!

1. Forced Escape (2017) - Original Title: Horoob Ettirari [ar].
2. No Surrender (2018) - Original Title: Harb Karmouz [ar] (Karmouz War) PS: This movie also stars English actor Scott Adkins.^[1]
3. Casablanca (2019) - Original Title: Kasablanka [ar].

He also starred a number of TV series that have achieved great success, such as Al-Ikhtiyar [ar] (The Choice).^[2]--TheEagle107 (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable actor that easily meets GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 21:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes BASIC. ——Serial 12:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tanmay Telang[edit]

Tanmay Telang (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 subject is a co-producer of some upcoming films which are not yet notable, and he does not meet WP:GNG. If we ignore the sponsored sources (The Hindustan Times article does not appear to be independent, and they are known for printing unmarked sponsored content) and press releases, we have one source that quotes him. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No independent coverage, does not meet GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think the Hindustan Times article may be okay, but it is hard to be sure. Even if it was, it doesn't amount to enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The rest of the sources are way too thin to justify an article about this person. Laplorfill (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreeing with Laplorfill. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed El-Kurd[edit]

Mohammed El-Kurd (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 Arabic page has been removed because he doesn't have any notability Aliaboomar (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject seems notable based on a quick search of sources. Article can be expanded. The editing decisions on another wiki have no bearing here. wp:otherstuffexists is not a strong argument for considering deletion. Ckoerner (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article is in poor shape but a Google search gives ample results for WP:GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the article needs work, it does meet the basic notability guideline for people according to WP:BASIC. Arabic article was nominated for speedy deletion without leaving space for discussion. Flycatchr 22:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of coverage in WP:RS. Looks as if there are some politics going on here. The nominator deleted references and referenced content from the article [6] after the keep !votes were added above. --John B123 (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep El-Kurd's ability to capture the public imagination through his direct, frank rhetoric has created a shift in the public discourse around the Palestine/Israel. The shift that he was able to create is in itself notable, and he's only 23 years old. Quotes from him are appearing on protest signs across the world (examples 1, 2). --Majdal.cc (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice I believe that the article (Muhammad al-Kurd) is a temporary phenomenon or fame when a person, thing, or event becomes the focus of attention and a very wide fame without introductions and becomes the talk of the hour, and it enjoys wide media coverage or large contributions on the level of social networks, but after a certain period of time has passed the fame diminishes This thing becomes forgotten and completely disappears. This phenomenon is like a bubble that grows until it reaches a certain extent and then pops and disappears after that, and that is why some call it a "media bang." We must take care of the issues, not the personal articles! If the article of Muhammad al-Kurd remains, then this indicates that the English Wikipedia is transforming from knowledge and societal and scientific facts into a platform for publishing the names of characters who did not achieve this momentum of knowledge, I hope to re-evaluate the status of the article and delete it. Osps7 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Osps7, the article includes references from reliable sources talking about work of the subject prior to the most recent "media bang". A better example, in my opinion, would be someone like Amanda Gorman. She was doing work well before being in the global spotlight (and had a Wikipedia article) and continues to do so. But that's neither here nor there. If you have a disagreement based around policy I would encourage you to make it. Ckoerner (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, pr all the above arguments; especially -Majdal.cc: I have found Mohammed El-Kurd's ability to sum up the situation to be ..... quite impressive, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG met. I would note that this article probably comes under Arbpia (although the formal notices are not present) so strictly speaking, the nominator, with 200 live edits, should not be participating in formal discussions (ditto Osps7, 285 live edits). It's a bit late now, but you know, just sayin.Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now added the Arbpia notices.Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Josifoska[edit]

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

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

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NTENNIS. Had been deleted through prod once before. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - has never played in the Billie Jean King Cup or any other tournament that would give a presumption of notability. Searches in Macedonian and English did not yield any significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 21 May 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. Anarchyte (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mauser C6[edit]

Mauser C6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article made by an SPA, no sources, and I'm unable to find anything to so much as verify its existence. While I'm not going to say with certainty that it's a hoax, I wouldn't discount the possibility. Considering the Mauser C96 was selling very well to begin with, and a magazine-fed variant with the same ammunition capacity would confer almost no benefit, I don't see why Mauser would choose to make it in the first place. Loafiewa (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching Google only gives me Wikipedia mirrors and articles about the real Mauser C96. A long-lasting hoax (since 2009) that needs to be gone. Wizzito (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 13:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Shahrian Nasl[edit]

Mohammad Shahrian Nasl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod removed without explanation or improvement. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKET. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 15:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 15:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Creator is blocked as a sock of User:Ashkan1399 (see SPI), so this is probably eligible for G5 (most other edits are DAB-assist/AWB etc.). --Blablubbs|talk 12:19, 17 May 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. czar 03:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. Griffith[edit]

B. Griffith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Noticed this because this was tagged for sports notability with only a first initial, which was a red flag, but my research shows that he was not the head coach, but rather the team captain and quarterback: [7]. A Griffith was the left end in 1890 as well [8].

While we tend to keep head coaching articles for passing WP:GNG, this article both fails WP:GNG and appears to be based on an incorrect premise that he was the head coach and not the team captain. My assumption is that these were effectively the same thing at the time, but I don't think this is eligible for a stand-alone article: I'd suggest merging and/or redirecting the information, probably to the list of Franklin & Marshall coaches in the template, or to the football program generally. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say first validate the information and then decide. If it can't be validated, we have our answer.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like our man here is Bruce Griffith (1867–1956). See https://www.newspapers.com/clip/76858279/evening-eagle/, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/76858279/evening-eagle/, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/76858230/obituary-for-bruce-griffith-aged-88/, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/23809993/bruce-griffith. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This makes sense! I found a Bruce Griffith in my search, but he was referenced in the context of a fraternity, not in a football sense, so I didn't list it here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In the sources given above, none so far that I can see make the connection between this B. Griffith and the Bruce Griffith from Findagrave and the Evening Eagle. Perhaps it's in the first page of the latter article, as that one isn't given above (by accident I suppose). Even so, it doesn't look as if he was a notable headcoach, just like many other head coaches from this period. Fram (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've started to expand there article. Found another 1931 feature article that solidifies the Bruce Griffith, postmaster of Wichita, as the member of the Franklin & Marshall football team circa 1890. Between Griffith's college football exploits, work as a clergyman, military service, and civil service, I think he passes GNG, much like his F&M teammate and predecessor as captain, William Mann Irvine. It's unclear exactly whether Griffith was head coach or just captain of the F&M team in 1891 and 1892. Current day records on the F&M website credit him as both captain in 1892 and coach in 1891 and 1892; see https://www.godiplomats.com/sports/m-footbl/Career_Stats/yearandcoach and https://www.godiplomats.com/sports/m-footbl/Career_Stats/captains. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This 1951 article sheds some light on F&M early captains doubling as coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but not as a coach. The historical record (including this, this, this, and this) does not IMO support the assertion that Griffith was a "head coach." To the contrary, it shows that he was a student, player, and team captain during the 1891 and 1892 seasons. Many colleges (even major ones) did not have head coaches in the early 1890s, and team captains were the de facto team leaders. But captaincy is not the same as "head coach." I have encountered this situation before where college sports information departments, reporters, and Wikipedia editors, operating many decades after the fact, retroactively try to fill vacant "head coach" slots by inserting the names of the team captains. While referring to him as a head coach is not IMO historically accurate, Griffith does pass the GNG bar based on the coverage cited above and in the article (see also here and here). Cbl62 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• May I ask what your search terms were? I only found a small number of results, and none directly listing him as "Bruce Griffith." I did only limit it to the years in which he played, though, thinking about it. Also, the article's been well improved and I no longer support deleting it, but it should be more football-orientated. SportingFlyer T·C 13:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I used griffith “Bruce griffith” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup/edit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian:, @CommanderWaterford:: this discussion should be closed as keep. User:Cbl62 and I made substantive keep arguments that were not "vague waves" at policy. Paul McDonald and Ortizesp tersely endorsed those arguments as there really wasn't much more to say. User talk:Fram's delete vote is based largely on two false premises: 1) the "connection" (or alleged lack there off), which has been clearly demonstrated by the sources and 2) the claim that "many other head coaches from this period" are not notable—it's rather rare that we've been have been unable to show notability for a college football head coach of any time period. User:SportingFlyer, who nominated this article for deletion, has stated that he no longer supports deleting it. SportingFlyer, perhaps, you'd like to withdraw the nomination? Jweiss11 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jweiss11: I don't understand the relist and hopefully someone will just close this as keep. My own personal preference would still be a redirect - I find WP:GNG marginal, I don't think he'd be notable if he hadn't captained F&M, which I'm not sure is notable regardless - but given the consensus, the improvement, and the fact my motivation for the AfD was being unable to clear the notability tag on my own, this should probably just be closed as keep already. My only request at this point is that we take care of the prose in the article stating he was the "head coach" as I've only seen him listed as captain, either by rewriting/explaining or citing a more contemporary article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer:: Griffith is listed as a head coach in this 1951 article and here on the Franklin & Marshall website. That being said, some investigation in the status of all of F&M's captains / head coaches prior to Alfred E. Bull in 1896 warrants some more investigation. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I actually like that 1951 source, I'll use it to clean up the article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG based on the sources found by Jweiss11 and Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN#News. czar 03:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magandang Umaga Po[edit]

Magandang Umaga Po (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 fails WP:GNG. ----Rdp060707|talk 01:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 01:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN Fails WP:TVSHOW per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN per SBKSPP. Missvain (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Atwater[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a newspaper publisher and restaurateur, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for businesspeople. The notability claims here are that he founded some alt-weekly newspapers, a music festival and a pizza restaurant -- but none of those things are instant notability freebies that automatically entitle a person to have a Wikipedia article just because he did stuff, and rather they require a WP:GNG-worthy volume of media coverage about the stuff he did to establish that it's been externally recognized as significant. But the only sources here are a brief namecheck of his existence in a non-notable and unreliable blog and a very short blurb in a specialist trade magazine, which is not enough coverage to get him over the bar. (I also had to strip one further footnote, which failed to mention Atwater or his pizza restaurant at all, and served only to tangentially verify that London has pizza restaurants.) Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably more and deeper coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I cannot find any secondary WP:RS that support notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Did my due diligence and this subject fails our WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Engineering College[edit]

Maharaja Engineering College (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 sources to establish notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral While this is a very poorly written article I thought that secondary and post-secondary education institutions were normally regarded as notable? That said, I'm not sure if there is anything worth saving here. The article is unreferenced and often speaks of the institution in the past tense, linking to a defunct version of its website, although it does seem to still exist and have a current website here. If kept, it should probably be reduced to a stub and built up from sourced information. If deleted, that should be without prejudice to somebody writing a better article about it in the future. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - I would ask what relation, if any Parala Maharaja Engineering College has to this page? If none, I vote delete. DoctorTexan (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorTexan, No relation with Parala Maharaja Engineering College. Powerful Karma (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Thanks for answering my question! DoctorTexan (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Going off the article this sounds like a private college. So it has to pass WP:NORG like any other private organization. Which it clearly doesn't considering the lack of references in the article and the fact that I could only find a single mention of it in a phone book. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as explained by Adamant1. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with Adamant1. Peter303x (talk) 02:17, 21 May 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 Maharaja's College, Ernakulam#College grounds. Missvain (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja's College Stadium[edit]

Maharaja's College Stadium (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 reliable sources to meet GNG. Better redirect to Maharaja's College, Ernakulam#College grounds Powerful Karma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Maharaja's College, Ernakulam#College grounds, where it is mentioned in passing - that section can be expanded. GiantSnowman 20:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maharaja's College, Ernakulam#College grounds, as a suitable WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maharaja's College, Ernakulam#College grounds, as alternative to deletion.--Hippeus (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maharaja's College, Ernakulam#College grounds, clearly not independently notable, but a viable redirect target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Womansplace Bookstore[edit]

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

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

Ephemeral local bookstore, utterly fails both the GNG and WP:CORP. Of the "sources" given in the article, three of them turn out to be small 1" and 2" cut-and-paste ads in obscure small-press publications, two others are short ad blurb in local APA newsletters, and the mention in the only published book listed is a namedrop. One can admire the article creator for the research skills needed to dredge up these half-century old obscure mimeoed sources, but meeting notability criteria they do not.

This is one in a string [9] of questionable article creations by the editor, a number of which have already been deleted, forcibly relocated to draftspace, or are up for AfD or prod. Ravenswing 12:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Love a great old school feminist bookstore, but, this one doesn't past muster for WP:GNG. I did my due diligence by also looking on Jstor and Google Books and found nothing. I also checked Newspapers.com (where I am a paid subscriber) and found nothing but a few passing mentions in advertisements. Perhaps there are offline sources or books about Arizona history that document the subject, but, I find that hard to believe given it's lack of even internet coverage. Often there are blogs or publications that cover these types of cultural subjects, and even those don't exist (not that they would contribute to GNG, but, it shows how insignificant this one bookstore was, IMHO). Missvain (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Missvain. We don't include contemporary bookstores with similar profiles, and shouldn't include this one. Advertisements are not coverage that helps meet GNG. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predrag Vranes[edit]

Predrag Vranes (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 with notability concerns for a decade, fails WP:GNG, only thing I could find on him was the source in the article (searched in Serbian.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NRU and a search doesn't bring up any results that will pass him for GNG. While I have not done a Serbian search myself I trust the noms search on the subject. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. However, a quick skim of Category:Serbian rugby union players shows that someone just dumped the squads of BRK Crvena Zvezda and Rugby Club Rad in the same substub format referenced only to the club website. Rugby union is barely a thing in Serbia, with about four active clubs, and it has hardly produced any notable players. Would someone please do the honors and nominate all players in the category? No such user (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Islamic Halal Organization[edit]

International Islamic Halal Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Virtually unreferenced promo piece on a non-notable organisation, fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. The only source cited isn't even about this organisation and only mentions it in passing, and a search finds nothing better. Granted, I can't search in Arabic, but the notability (and press release) tag has been there for almost 3 years with no improvements made, so I reckon that's fair warning given. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are quite a few hits from an Arabic search though nothing I’ve found so far that looks substantive or in depth - basic announcements of its existence etc. I’ve seen nothing to prompt me to say “keep” but I haven’t searched exhaustively. Mccapra (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its internet domain has expired and I can find nothing about it other than the Japan Olympics news story. Doesn't seem to merit its own article as it fails WP:ORG. It is mentioned once in Muslim World League, unsourced. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ORG. Powerful Karma (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US Microbics[edit]

US Microbics (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 is possible that this firm is notable, but the article is almost completely unsourced, written in a highly promotional manner, and makes claims for many firsts without any evidence whatsoever. I think it highly unlikely that a firm with a revenue of half a million dollars could have done any significant amount of what is claimed. The links to the various local newspapers go to the firm's website , not to the articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG, no coverage other than PR newswire stuff, listings, filings. Fails WP:NORG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just don't seem to be the sources to establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Victory Bass[edit]

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

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

Article lacks quality references. I haven't found significant coverage in any reliable sources Subject might be better dealt with as part of the Gibson article? The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unreferenced. Only produced as a four string guitar? A BASS? Wow. The Gibson Victory itself doesn't have an article, hard to see what from this article could even be arguably merged to Gibson. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added bunch of new citations, including some from books. It appears this was not a popular model, so there is not too much info about it, but I still feel the page should be kept to make Wikipedia a good research resource. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Maria Fox[edit]

Anna Maria Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another one of several pages concerning the now-deleted Fox family of Falmouth, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, and most of the sources are Fox genealogy references or Fox family journals. Fails WP:GNG. Penale52 (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain, please:

None of the references are genealogical sources. The two Journals of Caroline and Barclay Fox give an entertaining and informative picture of these influential people. Caroline has an ODNB article, as does her father. The initials AM in Barclay's journal usually mean an interesting tale of his elder sister.Vernon White ^{. . . Talk}

• Possible keep -- As a founder of what seems to be a notable Cornish institution, attracting royal patronage in 1835. I think she is probably notable. I did not see the previous AFD which I might have objected to. The Fox family were also involved in Neath Abbey ironworks and a related foundry in Cornwall, both of which are certainly notable as producers of steam engines, principally for pumping out mines. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable figure in Cornish history; she also has an entry in the Cornwall Artists Index. Furius (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as seems to be a notable figure in Cornish women's history considering the coverage and events marking the 200th anniversary of her birth, passes WP:BASIC imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Fox[edit]

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

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

Another one of several pages concerning the now-deleted Fox family of Falmouth, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, and most of the sources are Fox genealogy references. Fails WP:GNG. Penale52 (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no indepth sources available. fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abol Hussein Tanhai[edit]

Abol Hussein Tanhai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nominating on behalf of 49.177.30.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), so I am neutral. They posted at the Teahouse: A few days ago I worked on a couple of random articles from the Task Center that needed more wikilinks. One, Abol Hussein Tanhai, is really just a CV - résumé. It has a multiple issues banner/hat, which says just that, too, among several other problems. The main problem that strikes me, is that it has no reliable sources, and never has, since it was created in 2012 - none at all. There's a "Sources" section which consists of four links to web pages that are the subject's own blogs, personal, work pages, etc. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPROF, which states " Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose." They appear to have attained 'Assistant Professor' and 'Visiting Professor' status, so I think they fail that criterion. There are insufficient sources to check from the article, but I could find nothing significant on Google or in Google Books about them. Cutting through all the uncited waffle (which I was sooo tempted to excise), they appear to have written numerous books and published papers - but many academics do that, and that doesn't confer notability, per se. Have they made a significant impact on their subject area to the point of meeting WP:NBIO? I struggle to find anything to help me one way or another - so I fall on the side of non-notability at this time. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Nick Moyes indicated above. I tried Google but failed to get anything lol. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 07:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhila Srinivasan[edit]

Akhila Srinivasan (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 corporate professional. Being listed in Forbes listed is not an indication of notability since Forbes publishes many such lists. Fails WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, including because I found and added two in-depth profiles of her to the article: The Indian Express (2014), Femina (2016), and multiple independent and reliable sources find the Forbes recognition, and the reasons for the recognition, notable, e.g. HuffPost "Forbes said in less than a decade Srinivasan has catapulted Shriram Life Insurance into one of the top five private players in its industry in India in terms of profitability," The Hindu (includes a brief overview of her education and career development), The Economic Times/PTI, ZEENews/IANS. Beccaynr (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC) I also found and added a 2010 Business Today profile. Beccaynr (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC) There is also an in-depth profile in this book, and information from it has been added to the article: Amarnath, Nischinta; Ghosh, Debashish (2005). The Voyage to Excellence The Ascent of 21 Women Leaders of India Inc. Delhi: Pustak Mahal. ISBN 9788122309041. Beccaynr (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing these sources Beccaynr. Definitely keep. VV, can you teach me how to speedy keep without admin closure on this like you did for that vice chancelor article? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG. Thanks Beccaynr for the sources. VV 03:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Holland (musician)[edit]

Michael Holland (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:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO - "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Zero independent coverage in RS, article created by a pair of SPAs, very much redolent of WP:UPE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article already has coverage in multiple reliable independent sources such as a review in Pop Matters here, Dallas Observer here and coverage in Indy Week here and here which has a full editorial staff as shown here so there is enough coverage for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Perhaps the bands he's in are more notable? I'm looking at this strictly about Holland himself. He's had his music reviewed in No Depression, PopMatters twice[10], and in the Dallas Observer. I can't find much else, maybe because a Broadway musician shares his name. Those do qualify him through general notability guidelines, but, reviews can only go so far. I don't consider anything else sourced in that article qualifying for GNG, only WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this article does remain, we need to crop his wife out of that picture. I also requested permissions via Commons. Missvain (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Harriet Walter's sourcing, passes WP:ANYBIO (esp. see multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability).. ——Serial 12:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahn Air Systems GmbH[edit]

Hahn Air Systems GmbH (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 be non-notable. EpicPupper (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The sources in the article are sketchy: one is promotional, one is a broken link (at least for me), and the other is a Wikipedia article. Some (useless) routine coverage is available, see [11], [12], [13], [14]. Looking to WP:GNG, these pieces ([15] and [16]) in industry publications could lift them over the bar. They are both independent, are written by staff writers, and rise to the level of secondary coverage by analysing the company's business model. Naturally, I've added them to the article. I'm not saying this is a case of obvious notability but I would have expected somewhat more source analysis from the nominator. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Jhawer[edit]

Poonam Jhawer (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 article is written like a CV beside that vowing support for any notable person doesn't makes anyone eligible enough to have an article, rest about her acting or singing career I found few articles but they seem promotional or are basically indicating importance of her co-star she has worked with rest are too promotional, A discussion is required in it. Thanks Suryabeej (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. VV 08:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Could have been speedy. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:05, 18 May 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 Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia (Pop Smoke song)[edit]

Paranoia (Pop Smoke 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)

I am nominating this article for deletion, as it was not released as a single, did not chart and received a lack of promotion in any form. They are some independent sources for the song, but they mostly focus on the leak which can easily be incorporated into the album article. K. Peake 07:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --K. Peake 07:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --K. Peake 07:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. The song itself only has one source commenting on it, "HotNewHipHop". The Times of idea source only draws attention to the audio and posts lyrics. The rest could be included in album page as the nominator said. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per comments above. LOVI33 12:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon -- If anything I'm surprised to learn there is a track on this album that did not chart anywhere. It is even less notable than the others that have been successfully nominated for deletion.--NØ 14:05, 16 May 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. Missvain (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dismukes[edit]

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. All RS relate specifically to his 2020 hiring as a supporting cast member on the U.S. television serial "Saturday Night Live" and are BLP 1E. Other references like earnthenecklace.com and capcitycomedy.com are not RS. He was a group nominee for an Emmy; while being nominated for an Emmy might infer notability, being part of a group of 82 people nominated (and not winning) one does not. A WP:BEFORE on newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR returns many results but entirely in non-RS or in RS offering only fleeting mentions such as episode credits during his handful of SNL appearances. May be WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure BLP1E applies to someone on a recurring TV show, which is not a single event. It's not clear to me whether Dismukes meets WP:ENTERTAINER but I do think we're likely to see more coverage of him after tonight's show, e.g. [1]. I did reach out to them to see if we could get a photo donated after they pointed it out on tonight's show so I don't plan on casting a vote. Legoktm (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I know he writes and performs on SNL, an iconic sketch comedy show, but is this nomination a joke??! The very night he complains on his national television show that his article doesn't have a photo, suddenly that article gets nominated for deletion?! Obviously, someone was watching. Or is this just an attempt to get the article mentioned on national television again next week?!! Seriously, even a cursory Google search of his name under the News, lists articles featuring his name (within the last hour at the time of this writing alone), in Paste Magazine, USA Today, Entertainment Weekly and Deadline; and within the last week on MarketWatch, Consequence, New York Post, IndieWire, Vanity Fair, Daily Mail, The Globe and Mail and OK Magazine. Others recently include Yahoo News and US Weekly. That alone passes WP:BASIC and is indeed WP:GNG. Another commenter already correctly noted that WP:BLP1E applies to a single event, not a recurring tv show. Curiously, even the nominator notes that he was nominated for a Primetime Emmy. However, he was actually nominated for 2 Primetime Emmys: in both 2018 and 2019; as well as 2 Writers Guild Award nominations in 2019 and 2020. He also won a Special Jury Award at the Florida Film Festival for the short film "Call Me Brother" in 2018. Those honors certainly qualify under WP:ANYBIO and easily pass WP:ARTIST and WP:NACTOR, as does the fact that his article had to be semi-protected immediately following his televised comments. Subject has been a writer on SNL since 2018 and been a cast member in over two dozen episodes since 2020. He also continues to perform as an actor and stand-up comic in his own right. I could go on, but in the history of AfD's this one is easily the biggest no-brainer yet. Comedy itself is harder than this! Who are we trying to cancel next, Liz Cheney?! X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "certainly qualify under WP:ANYBIO and easily pass WP:ARTIST and WP:NACTOR" I'm sure the Florida Film Festival is a fun event, but I hardly think winning an award at it constitutes a "significant cultural monument" as prescribed by the inherent notability standards you cited. Chetsford (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: This article needs cleanup, not deletion. And the fact that he has been nominated for four awards (two Emmys, two Writers Guild) shows that he is clearly notable. Additionally, I don’t think one can consider his casting on SNL as a single event since it is a recurring show watched by millions. It’s not like he was hired for a one-off comedy special nor is it like he only made one appearance on the show. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "And the fact that he has been nominated for four awards (two Emmys, two Writers Guild) shows that he is clearly notable." At the risk of sounding redundant, this - like many of the arguments here - is not an argument based in our policy as it exists today. (Aside from the fact that saying he was "nominated for an Emmy" when he was part of an 82-person group nomination is a little disingenuous.) Chetsford (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep He's a cast member and writer on SNL, and he's been nominated for various awards, including two Emmys. It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. Modern184 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "He's a cast member and writer on SNL" We don't currently have a policy that says cast members of SNL get Wikipedia articles for no other reason than they're a cast member on SNL. Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep easily passes WP:GNG. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. While all of those are about him joining the cast, he continues to get coverage for being a cast member, particularly because he wasn't thrilled about the Elon Musk thing. Not the best nom. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the articles you cited are from the same month and are coverage of his hiring, therefore, are covered by WP:BLP1E in the absence of any other in-depth coverage. I keep hearing that he's continuing to get coverage but, thus far, have seen no examples of said coverage beyond fleeting mentions in cast lists and episode summaries. When I ask for examples of all this in-depth coverage I'm met with an exasperated declaration "but he's a cast member of SNL!" Notability must be demonstrated, not simply decreed. Not the best !vote. Chetsford (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Every episode gets media coverage, so he gets discussed whenever he appears. See recaps like [22]. WP:BLP1E also has three elements, of which the second is: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Clearly not the case here. Also, if showing GNG is a bad vote, then I'm happy if all my !votes are bad. SportingFlyer T·C 17:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Saturday Night Live is the crown jewel of American comedy. Any cast member becomes notable just for being a member of that elite show. I therefore think that any person chosen to be a cast member on SNL satisfies criteria #3 of WP:ENTERTAINER (a unique contribution to a field of entertainment). Banana Republic (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Saturday Night Live is the crown jewel of American comedy. Any cast member becomes notable just for being a member of that elite show." This is not an argument based in our policy. As said repeatedly, we don't currently have a policy that says cast members of SNL get Wikipedia articles for no other reason than they're a cast member on SNL. Chetsford (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attempt at cherrypicking. Read the entire !vote. It is the basis for why I think he satisfies criteria #3 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Banana Republic (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #3 is that the entertainer "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Do you have an RS to support the idea that an actor who has appeared in a handful of minor roles on SNL in the last two months has, therefore, "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment?" Even the inherent notability criteria require demonstration in RS, not merely declaration as a matter of personal approval of the BLP's performing ability. Chetsford (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep for all above reasons. Sure, the article looks like a stub at first sight, but deleting it isn't the answer, active upkeep of the article is. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 13:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to Closer: If the !voting were to end right now I would call this no consensus on the basis that no reasonable policy-based arguments to Keep have been advanced. For now, to avoid WP:DEADHORSEing this AfD, I'm going to unwatchlist it and stop replying as it doesn't seem likely any arguments other than "he's a cast member of SNL" or "he was part of a group that was nominated for an Emmy" are going to be proffered or are even possible. But please imagine I'm still in this AfD and am responding "this is not a policy based reason to Keep" to all subsequent iterations of this argument. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I reject the notion that "no reasonable policy-based arguments to Keep have been advanced". Just because you don't agree with those arguments does not mean that they were not presented. Banana Republic (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep There's no way you're to get a delete or redirect result on this...the subject is obviously notable as a cast member and writer on a very popular TV series and a deletion review re-open wasn't needed. No amount of 'but this (WP:)!' is going to change anyone's mind at this point. Nate • (chatter) 19:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Dismukes is notable because he's a cast member on this venerable American show. There is no reasonable argument for Dismukes not being notable. He's a cast member and a writer on this sketch show, the amount of time he does or does not spend on screen has nothing to do with his notability. Jessamyn (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK I'll bite, these are RS that I think support his notability. Stubs have been written about people with less. Jessamyn (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paste Magazine - establishes that he's been a writer on SNL for "a few years" and also goes on about his talent in the most recent show.

Emmy nomination - sure he's one of 30-ish writers but that's the nature of this show.

Texas Monthly - establishes more facts about Dismukes

Austin Statesman - numerous mentions about what he was up to in college

NBC.com - more facts about him

Fort Worth Star Telegram - short Texas-local article about when he was hired

• Snow keep. Is this a joke? Ample coverage exists for GNG. This looks like we are punishing him for mentioning that he didn't have a photo on his article on SNL. gobonobo ^{+ c} 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to take this ill advised AfD nomination out of its misery, but was severely chastised for it, even though the reviewers did not necessarily approve of the wisdom of this nomination. This disruptive AfD will therefore have to stay open for an entire week.

Ironically, Wikipedia claims to not be a bureaucracy. As my experience shows, this is obviously just a motto, not reality.

Banana Republic (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This seems silly. There is only one SNL cast member in the history of the show who doesn't have their own page, and that is featured player Dan Vitale, who was on the show for only three episodes in 1985. Dismukes has been a writer for several seasons, during which the show was nominated for an Emmy, and is now a featured player who has already been in more than three episodes. Yes, I'm partially making an argument from "What about article x?", which is not entirely professional, but the fact that a deletion page was created for this article the morning after Dismukes mentioned his Wikipedia article on Weekend Update has made the whole discussion unprofessional. JaneOstensible (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep almost every SNL actor has a Wikipedia article, especially ones who also write on the show for 3 seasons. Clearly notable. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I was so astonished that this page is marked for deletion that I went to the trouble to figure out how to add my comments here. Sorry if I did it wrong, but of course he deserves an article. I know the rules say to assume the person who flagged this article for deletion acted in good faith, but I'm finding it difficult to extend the benefit of the doubt here. I believe this person either is a troll or doesn't know much about U.S. television. A quick Google search turns up plenty of media coverage, for example, the article I've cited here.

[23]2601:244:8400:8640:3016:8D5B:1B8D:EF1A (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is actually a system admin on Wikipedia. Banana Republic (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep are per everybody else. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:48, 19 May 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. Closing early based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enytially[edit]

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

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

Fail of WP:GNG. As per WP:LISTED there is no consensus that being listed on a stock exchange automatically denotes notability. nearlyevil665 06:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 06:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 06:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. GermanKity (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources available in a Google search. Doesn't meet WP:ORG. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree doesn't meet WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being listed is not a qualifier for notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A constituent of BSE SENSEX and NIFTY 50 would be notable, but I couldn't verify it, or find a listing on either of the exchanges. Peter James (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Pun Magar[edit]

Deepak Pun Magar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsuccessful political candidate so fails WP:NPOL. I can't find any evidence of passing WP:GNG in a search of his Nepali name and none of the references in the article show significant coverage other than the ones from non-independent or self-published sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. fails WP:POLITICIAN. GermanKity (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete couldn't find any RS for this, all social media. Fails GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - most of the source are primary. One mention in tv news can be counted as a coverage, however there is no multiple sources to verify it. At such situation, draftifying would be the right thing to do. nirmal (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What improvement could possibly take place in Draft to an article that so clearly fails WP:NPOL? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: -Good observation. I agree, draftifying seldom improves the article unless the major contributor actively takes part in the deletion discussion. In this particular case, as I mentioned earlier, among the references, 1 and 2 indicates he has some coverage in media. Obviously it needs to be translated from Nepali to english, so anyone can understand those documents. Draftifying will give the major editors some time to improve the references, possibly a chance to add English references too. Regards! nirmal (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 10:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify according to refs indicate he is a politician of Nepal. All the refs are in the Nepali language, however, there are multiple problems in article writing Like unmanaged refs list, bio in one paragraph. Draftifying is the right place to improve refs listing and article writing. Parbat Katwal (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the references actually show significant coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails both WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Draftification is for topics with potential merit. No amount of editing can make a non-notable topic notable. So, draftification is out of question for this topic. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Solomon (rabbi)[edit]

Norman Solomon (rabbi) (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 NPROF. His Scopus has little citations. Not found an RS elsewhere. Mottezen (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His Google Scholar profile looks respectable enough for the field, and it's easy to find discussions of his books, both the popular introductions and the more scholarly works. There's also a profile of him in Algemeiner Journal at [24]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable: has a UK Who's Who entry [25]https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U35616 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, significant Rabbi.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 09:03, 23 May 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. czar 20:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Berkowitz[edit]

Miriam Berkowitz (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 rabbi. BLP with no RS. Mentioned in passing in one of the external links, the two others are primary sources. Not found anything else relevant online. Mottezen (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee her inclusion in Wikipedia just because pieces of her own writing about other things can be found to verify that she exists — the notability test does not hinge on the ability to verify that she's been the author of content about other things so much as it does the ability to verify that she's been the subject of media coverage written by other people. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric G. Kirsch[edit]

Eric G. Kirsch (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 military officer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO; a WP:BEFORE search yields no substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear failure of GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary for WP:GNG. Created by an SPA. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Vezina[edit]

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

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

Rolling the dice and taking my chances... Hugely promotional piece of peacockery (written by a paid editor, and it shows!) on a person of at best borderline notability. There are sources, yes, but lest we forget, even solid sources (and I'm not saying these are necessarily solid, even if they are many) only raise the presumption of notability; they don't guarantee it. Given that AfD is not cleanup, I did first think of cutting out all the promo fluff and trimming this down to its essence only, but TBH I'm not sure quite what if anything would remain. Fails WP:BIO, and in my view fails also WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with impunity. I'd never heard of him before, but many of the things mentioned in the article are local and familiar. He's a successful local businessman with some local newspaper coverage. There's nothing notable here by our standards. The accomplishments are nothing spectacular. The puffery, on the other hand is spectacular. I think the very highest standard of notability has to be applied here, as he's a former PR professional, presumably with access to people who publish sources. All coverage seems to be either local or not independent, and all quite banal. --- Possibly (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tagged this for notability having read it three times to try and identify what exactly would make the subject notable. I’m still not clear. The article looks like PR based on sources which are also based on PR. The subject has a successful career in pr and event management but there’s really nothing here to warrant a bio article. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete that's a roll of a six-sided set of sixes, right there. Fails GNG, may even pass G11. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. The person's accomplishments do not make him notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• discussion Is it absolutely necessary to be so unpleasant ? I have copy-pasted here this traduction of the French article thinking that the admissibility was similar (at least 2 national centered sources on at least 2 differents years). La Presse and The Gazette are considered as national sources on the French Wikipedia.
  I understand that each Wikipedia have their own rules and I'll accept your jugement here, but there's pillars and I am especting that you'll respect the fourth one. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone being unpleasant above. Perhaps you're viewing their comments on the subject and article through the lens of your COI? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding me? Hugely promotional piece of peacockery (written by a paid editor, and it shows!), The accomplishments are nothing spectacular. The puffery, on the other hand is spectacular. , G11. Don't need COI glasses to smell all the contempt here, even with my bad English. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, when you embark upon writing, for money, promo pieces on people of questionable notability, you really ought to expect some fairly robust pushback; don't you think? Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

promo pieces on people of questionable notability that is your PoV.
As I said, I think that there's a lot of good sources about this person. If you can't assume good faith and just want to see that I'm a paid editor writing a piece of promo, even if I have created thousands of bio and I've been paid for about 5 of them, it is your choice. Personnaly, I think that it is you who have anti-paid-editing glasses, that you can't make the difference between a promo and a bio where all informations are no more and no less than facts sourced by independant sources. Yes, it didn't put in light the failures of the personnality, but if someone want to add them with independant sources, nobody will fight it. But this is also a PoV.
The problem here is your denigration of my work. It don't respect one of the pillars of the project. It create a straw man of my work and me and divert the discussion on feelings and not on facts. We can't juge an article with things like "I've never heard of him before".
I think that the mains questions are : "do there's good sources about this person and do the article use them correctly". Simon Villeneuve (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would kindly ask that you do not start with personal attacks. Despite what you seem to think, the comments so far have been aimed at the article subject or the way it has been written; you are now starting to attack other editors (while pleading civility yourself), which is not acceptable.

Secondly, your assessment of the quality of the sources cited clearly differs from those of the majority here. Perhaps instead of accusing me and/or others of POV, it might help to take a look in the mirror and ask why that is?

Thirdly, whether you have written 'thousands' of bios isn't what is being considered (not yet, at least); we are discussing this particular bio. To say that you have visited a bank branch thousands of times without incident doesn't really ameliorate the fact on one of your recent visits you decided to rob the place. And for someone to point that out isn't the offence here, so appealing to one of the 'pillars' is unlikely to suffice as defence.

PS: Incidentally, you say you have been paid for five bios. I have previously asked you on your talk page to disclose any COI, and Possibly expressly asked if you have been paid for any other articles than this. I note that you have not responded to either question. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Puff piece on non-notable figure Dexxtrall (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Firstly, GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number", so he isn't automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because the article has the words "La Presse" and "Montreal Gazette" in it — we also test the sources for things like (a) the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him and (b) the context of what they're covering him for, and not every possible source is of equal GNG-building value. Glancing namechecks of his existence in sources whose core subject is something else do not help to establish his notability; "social notes" columns do not help to establish his notability; local coverage of him in local interest contexts, such as organizing local events or winning minor local awards, does not secure his notability; and on and so forth.
  Secondly, please read WP:WAX if you think "it's a straight translation of an article that already exists on the French Wikipedia" is a reason why the article needs to be kept — especially since the maker of that argument was also the creator of the article on the French Wikipedia, and even the French Wikipedia's inclusion standards, while not completely identical to the English Wikipedia's inclusion standards across the board, are still much, much stricter than "anybody who's gotten their name into any newspaper twice", so the article may not necessarily have genuinely passed their inclusion standards either.
  Nothing stated in the article passes any of our subject-specific inclusion criteria, and even just basic GNG is considerably more complex, and takes a lot more factors into account, than just "article has 17 footnotes in it". Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Where did I say that GNG is to count footnotes ? That enwiki criteria are the same than frwiki ? That the article is on French Wikipedia and must be keept here because of that?
  I didn't say that all the article sources are centered on him, just that there's at least 2 national sources centered on him on 2 differents years (Petrowski and the one of Campbell about BBCM) and that this is a general criteria of notability on French Wikipedia for bio. I have thought it was similar here and it seems I was wrong.
  This will be my last post. I know too much that kind of discussion. Your idea is made and anything I'll say wouldn't change it. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) versacespaceleave a message! 11:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Amoaa[edit]

Elizabeth Amoaa (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 the sourcing has improved quite a lot since last year and so this isn't quite a speedily deletable repost, I am however not convinced that WP:BIO is met here (we have her medical condition plus some recognition for her activism, but I couldn't even verify her education). Would like to hear more opinions, so sending to AFD. —Kusma (t·c) 19:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 19:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 19:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 19:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Norm. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @JaredDaEconomist: I'm not certain that this should be deleted, so could you elaborate why you think this should be deleted? —Kusma (t·c) 17:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why wouldn't Pulse Ghana, Ghana news, and Modern Ghana count as Reliable sources? Furius (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Furius: I'm assuming they are reliable in absence of evidence to the contrary (I'm hoping that editors with more knowledge of Ghana will comment). But being mentioned in reliable sources isn't the same as notability. —Kusma (t·c) 18:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  She is quite notable here in Ghana. Iamknightrae (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep From the sourcing, the subject fits the notability guideline and is considered a celebrity. Mellowdeaous (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This person is a very notable person here in Ghana. She has been on talk shows and national television with her mission. Iamknightrae (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the references, the subject fits the notability guidelines. However, the article needs to be written better.Applehead1000 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while I am not an expert about Ghana related topics, but some sigcov were found about the subject like [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Among these, at least Vanguard, health.com, thecitizen.co.tz are reliable. Chirota (talk) 02:27, 17 May 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.