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 23:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Barksdale[edit]

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

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

A teacher and writer that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. He has written or contributed to a large number of textbooks and guide books, and while there is plenty of verification that these books exist, there is no actual coverage on him, as an individual, at all. Doing a WP:BEFORE search just turns up the listings of the various books he has contributed to, with no actual coverage that would allow him to pass WP:NBIO, or the more specific WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. As an amusing side note, as he is also a high school teacher, most of the edits to the article over the year appear to have been vandalism and in-jokes inserted by his various students. Rorshacma (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unless there are independent reviews of his books added to the article he looks non-notable per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. --hroest 13:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. More or less what hroest said: he may be a prolific author but these kinds of how-to books are not literary or scholarly works and do not tend to attract much attention in the form of published book reviews. Without that, we can't get WP:AUTHOR notability. And WP:PROF appears both out of reach and misapplied to someone who is mostly a high school teacher and tech book author. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater 11:35, 9 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 23:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Turketo[edit]

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

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

Possible autobio, non-notable volleyball player, a source search brought up no independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reference provided is a trivial mention. When I search Kane Turketo on Google News, it provides 3 more articles which are all also trivial mentions. Nexus000 (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The person who created the article is a user called Kanerayt, an account which appeared in 2017 solely to create the Kane Turketo page. There is a good chance this is an autobiography. Nexus000 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, mentioned in a few news articles in passing. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:45, 8 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 23:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ride the bus[edit]

Ride the bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An obscure drinking game. I do not see any reliable source coverage other than an article in a student newspaper which adds nothing to notability. The last AfD for this was a very long time ago and didn't present any arguments that I found convincing. Rusf10 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence this game is notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG Devokewater 11:36, 9 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 23:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Snyder[edit]

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

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

Minor soap opera character, does not meet WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Completely unsourced stub on a minor fictional character. Searching for sources turns up some hits in unreliable sources, such as fan wikis, but no actual coverage that would even come close to passing the WP:GNG. I wouldn't even recommend it being used as a redirect to List of As the World Turns characters, as that's not even the name he's listed as under there, and there is absolutely no sourced content to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Years of cleaning, and this kind of fancruft is still here. Shudder. Burn with vengeance (obvious fails of GNG, V, OR, you name it - it fails it). Sigh. PS. That said, the article was recently gutted by User:JohnmgKing, although I don't mean it in the wrong way - the removed content was just an unreferenced plot summary and therefore dif fail strictly interpreted WP:V --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC) PS. @JohnmgKing: wit a new sig, given the technical ECHO problems. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no evidence Snyder is a character with broad cultural impact. The article has been longer in the past but never seems to have had sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Topic lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. It does not appear any will be found at this time. TTN (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of As the World Turns characters#S. Not notable. – DarkGlow • 09:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable --Devokewater 11:37, 9 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) Ashleyyoursmile! 07:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Eisner[edit]

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No detailed media coverage. Club career spent in non-FPL league. Matches for national team are unofficial friendlies per [1] and [2]. BlameRuiner (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's not an insignificant early American football player, as seen in his participation in this match before 40,000 people at Yankee Stadium: [3], his enlisting in the Army for World War II was picked up as far away as Tennessee: [4], and the ASL was significantly covered in St Louis. I can't point to a dedicated article specifically on him, but coverage was different in those days, so there's a hint of WP:IAR here, but I don't think there's all that much of it. There's over 200 hits from his soccer career, mostly in New York papers, and mostly the normal match report coverage, but also some news of his enlisting and his organising a tour to play football in Israel. SportingFlyer T·C 10:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments There is only one official Israeli game in 1948 which is against USA Olympics team and that's a different date to the one on 11v11 according to rsssf.com So was his international cap official? There is some good parts of the article, but the sources all feel very weak. Something else would need to be added to convince me to support the article. It's all very borderline to me. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to pass GNG, and NFOOTY if he was actually capped internationally.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per SportingFlyer explainations and per all. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: As per sportingflyers' explanation. I am leaning towards WP:IAR. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striked edit; due to being blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi. Govvy (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not sure why this keeps being relisted with the clear evidence provided above of at least one 1948 cap for the United States men's national soccer team, easily meeting NFootball. Has User:GiantSnowman seen that, as he's provided the sole delete vote. I'm finding hundreds of articles in newspapers.com reporting appearances for the New York Americans of the American Soccer League, which wasn't quite fully-professional. I'm also seeing mentions in published books such as this. Nfitz (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: thank you for pinging me - nobody else bothered to despite the situation potentially changing. Regarding his international cap, the US Soccer History website you link to clearly says that the match he played in was "International Friendly (Not Official)", so he has 0 international caps as far as we are concerned. He therefore fails NFOOTBALL. The questions therefore is GNG - and I have yet to be convinced that the coverage is significant. Lots of match reports doesn't count - where is the significant coverage about him as an individual? If you link me here (and ping me again) I'll be happy to reconsider my !vote. GiantSnowman 21:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an unofficial friendly. During that era of soccer, there was only a single official match (friendly or not) in the USA between 1935 and 1953, and at the time of that match against Isreal there hadn't been an official match of any kind in a decade. This period of American soccer is woefully underrepresented in Wikipedia. The New York Americans article itself is very poor, with but a single reference (that I just added), despite winning the national cup (the National Challenge Cup, now known as the U.S. Open Cup) twice in that period. Sol Eisner was reportedly a star on that team, and played for them for many years. While I can't find User:GiantSnowman an extensive reference about Eisner, there's no end of coverage of him over the years - I'm surprised I can't find more, given his unique situation, playing with only one eye for much of his career. I've added some short references to the article, including a book by Harold U. Ribalow, but I haven't found a definitive all-encompassing source. Though perhaps that's not a surprise, given that he played on a Jewish team, and there doesn't seem to be many east-coast Jewish newspapers that are available online from that period. Perhaps there are systemic bias issues here too, and better references could be found in newspapers only available on microfilm. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that me saying "there must be coverage in newspapers from that time that aren't online!" at previous AFDs was laughed away/ignored (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Martin (footballer) for one example where that argument failed) - but I'd be a hypocrite if I ignored that point being raised here, so I have struck my delete !vote. GiantSnowman 08:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a big difference between Sol Eisner and Thomas Martin. It was hard to actually find any sources at all for Thomas Martin for his single match, despite good archives of local papers from that period, let alone in-depth sources, with some questioning his very existence. In the case of Eisner, we literally have hundreds of references from his matches in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, including international matches, tours, and US Open Cup matches.Nfitz (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - on this occasion, I do agree with the points raised by Nfitz and the article should be kept Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as an aside, I found genealogical records relating to Eisner, but can't really use, as they are entirely primary sources, and we aren't here to do original research. He only emigrated from Germany (Posen!) in 1937, along with his siblings, leaving his mother in Germany; one can only imagine what became of her, and the rest of his relatives. He went on to serve in the US Army during the war, losing the sight in his eye a training accident, yet continued his soccer career, toured Israel (and there's a story there, given the allusions made in one article about his being left behind there), and eventually dying in Florida at the age of 90. This is only the second time, I've really felt that I should be writing a movie script, not a Wikipedia article. Nfitz (talk) 18:41, 9 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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus (but leaning more towards keeping). I will undelete the underlying history in case there is additional usable content there. BD2412 T 01:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Agg[edit]

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

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

User:Dougal18's rationale in the previous AfD a few months ago, where there was clear consensus to delete, remains valid. Agg still does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. This FA article still appears to be the only independent, reliable source addressing Agg directly and in detail, as it was before.

Newly added sources are just either non-WP:RS such as Lady Arse Tumblr, LinkedIn, Daily Cannon and those that are RS are just brief transfer announcements or database profile pages, which do not confer notability. A WP:BEFORE did not come up with any further non-routine coverage since the previous discussion a few months ago indicating that she is still not notable enough for an article in a general encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT, still non-notable per consensus at last AFD. GiantSnowman 11:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agg still fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Dougal18 (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails NFOOTBALL and GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Coverage easily passes WP:GNG. She was in her local paper 11 years ago and was in the news again last week, when she discovered an Irish granny and was called up to train with the Ireland national team [5] (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). There are offline sources [6] (WP:DIVERSE) as well as things like [7], [8] which are WP:RSs which go into reasonable WP:DEPTH, in that they touch on her life and career outside football. There is a German wiki article and evidence of coverage in German sources from her stint as a "fully professional" in Frankfurt [9] (WP:GEOSCOPE). And then there's the wealth of coverage of transfers, new contracts etc. which are all in WP:RSs and well beyond WP:ROUTINE mentions: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] All in line with what you would expect to see for a notable footballer. I even remember Agg appearing on Newsnight a couple of years ago during the women's World Cup: [16] Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to WP:AGF about the She Kicks source. Aside from that, the only ones that might push this closer to GNG are BBC and Shoot. The question is whether that's enough along with the FA article linked in my nom and the sources already in the article. I would argue that transfer announcements and contract renewal announcements aren't generally SIGCOV unless the announcements themselves go into depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. If this was a Norwegian fisherman or gas engineer who played three games for Bodo Glimt in 1987 you'd be trying to make the opposite argument to the one you are here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this different to a PE teacher that played 3 times for Bristol in 2017? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. She's the primary subject of articles published in reliable sources such as the BBC. pburka (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BbDS, passes WP:GNG. My own search was a bit weaker but I also didn't find several of the sources presented above. SportingFlyer T·C 10:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. She's played in England and Germany's top leagues which are excluded from WP:NFOOTBALL. Who "manages" that guideline.... Hmlarson (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the totality of sources identified by BbDS above easily passes GNG. Seany91 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another non-notable sports figure. Star7924 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Relisting comment from Fenix down is a !vote in a re-listing comment. Another WP:UNINVOLVED editor will need to close. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 17 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Hoffmann. Hmlarson (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it's absolutely not. You should very urgently review your understanding of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, of which you appear to be wholly ignorant. If you actually read what I wrote it is quite clearly an assessment of the sources and comments provided to explain the rationale behind the Relisting. It is quite plainly explaining the judgement I am employing which is explicitly required by that guideline. All it states is why i believe there is no consensus. If you would find it more helpful for me to close AfDs in which you have been involved without the courtesy of an explanation, please let me know. I would appreciate confirmation that you have re read the guideline I have directed you to. Fenix down (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the hectoring twaddle - you've been pulled up for this several times already. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the project would be better served, if the last month was spent improving the article, rather than trying so hard to delete an article for a women footballer, when for reasons of WP:BIAS they are already grossly unrepresented in Wikiepdia. I was surprised there was no mention of her appearances for Cardiff Met. Ladies F.C. in the 2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League, so I added a couple of easy-to-find references. I'm having no problem finding many more references over the last decade. Article should be improved, not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - there is a section of football Wikipedia who want to 'apply' the rules to some articles and 'interpret' them for others! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From memory the first version of the article, which was wrongly deleted, was better than this one. I'd expect that if/when this is closed as keep or no consensus the original is restored and merged as necessary. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Seany91 (talk) 11:32, 8 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. Remember that consensus is based on policy-based arguments, not quantity. czar 07:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Matovsky[edit]

Roman Matovsky (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 person who is the founder of a website that may or may not be popular. (/s) no meaningful coverage in any language, big ol GNG fail. TAXIDICAE💰 16:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in Russian language, but I don't care to research for a vote. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per rationale by Praxidicae. Furthermore a google search doesn’t portray, nor substantiate any claim of notability. We need multiple in-depth significant coverage in reliable source independent of the subject to establish notability and unfortunately this isn’t the case here. Celestina007 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This falls under WP:1E. The author appears to be article subject.[17] IceWelder [✉] 10:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No proof of notability whatsoever and apparently a personal promotion. The sources currently on the page are poor/questionable. Search for his name in Russian also finds nothing. There is indeed a Russian language website about Taiwan, but who is author? He? I do not see him there: [18]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A lot of proofs about him and his projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:578:A6A8:F59E:3846:F010:54DA (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What proofs? My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Taiwanese I appreciate what is he doing. Especially now. Proofs really a lot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:46b:b860:841a:6a3f:c417:136f (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All what I read above (who want to delete article) is only bias and jeers. He is doing great with his project and introduce Taiwan as the country to almost 300 million Russian-speaking. In article more than enough proof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:57b:d2c6:2c7e:72c0:c229:bb (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC) / — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiealover (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article in three paragraphs and 11 References — “Not enough proof”. Is that joke? I don’t understand hatred to him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:57a:1417:582a:5716:6fd2:a23e (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A CheckUser should check these Keep posts for sockpuppetry, all written in an unsigned similar way and IPs (one of them switched to an account since). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I understood, he is Russian who lives in Taiwan almost 14 years. Creator of project to promote Taiwan among Russian-speaking, despite the fact that Moscow is very close with Beijing and consider Taiwan as a part of China. He already risks to be detained if will fly to China. In addition I found on his blog he made an app for Muslims, in spite on the fact that he is christian. I just want let you know, that is very difficult and requires examination of information, including Quran. I think, this kind of diverse guy with balls of steel should be on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayonnaiseocean (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• CU's note: Interestingly, Mayonnaiseocean not technically a sock. Could be meat though, given this is their only edit. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The website is in Russian only. Maybe, it makes sense translating this article to wiki:ru. What I definitely dislike is the reference to a LinkedIn skills quiz. That's fine for a CV, but not for a WP article. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google search brings out almost nothing.... Claim of notability is bogus. TheChronium (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Man doing his job. Not-notable and fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:11, 3 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. Missvain (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanitha Datla[edit]

Vanitha Datla (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 businessperson. Fails WP:GNG. There is some news about her regional position with Confederation of Indian Industry but that's not sufficient to cross notability. The page seems to be written only to promote her and like a CV. Created by WP:SPA. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"regional position" is in fact position in Telangana State, not in some Apopa County. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep cleanup. Some awards are verifiable. Sifnificant independent covera e exist: [19] Lembit Staan (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, appears to be significant.--Hippeus (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not pass GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The position and awards are not significant. The above DC source is basically an interview, thus not an indepedent coverage. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: lacks WP:SIGCOV. As mentioned by Ab207 the positions and awards are not notable or significant. defcon5 (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep added good sources to meet WP:BIO, few more to be addedApplus2021 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are currently four sources. [20] - profile at WEF and not an independent source. [21] - trivial mention and hence not significant. I also think it is not independent and is taken from some press release. [22] - again a press release. Similar content available at [23] & [24]. Last [25] - while this one looks like it qualifies, it is not significant coverage of her. Her name is surely in the heading, but when we read, there isn't much about her except what she is saying. [26] This added by Lembit Staan is helpful according to me (despite Ab207 disregarding it completely because it is an interview); but we need multiple in-depth, independent and reliable sources. For now, it fails WP:GNG for me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment added few more reliable sources, need to add some more Applus2021 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The new source added [27] is again a PTI release and should not be considered independent. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. -KH-1 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A chancer. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:13, 3 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. Missvain (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madis Eek[edit]

Madis Eek (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. No indication of any significant contributions to his field. nearlyevil665 09:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 09:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. has an article (although minimally sourced) on Estonian Wikipedia. There may be significant non-English sources. Mukedits (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has many indepth articles from non-primary sources written about him in the Estonian press: in a cursory look I found a lengthy article in Äripäev (a daily Estonian financial newspaper), mentions in the largest daily newspaper in Estonia Postimees (here), another major newspaper Eesti Päevaleht (here and here), article about one of his buildings in Eesti Ekspress here, a lengthy article (here) for Eesti Rahvusringhääling (Estonian Public Broadcasting). He also has an entry at the Estonian Association of Architects (here). That was all from about 3 minutes of searching. Should always do a WP:BEFORE. ExRat (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Thank you for the research. As you have presented many sources I have gone forward and made a source assessment table to determine the merits of your keep vote. Based on the analysis, I still stand by my delete vote. Also, I don't believe there is consensus that an entry in the Union of Estonian Architects is a precursor to notability.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.aripaev.ee/uudised/2010/09/12/madis-eek-klaverihelide-saatel-arhitektiks	This is an interview piece	Reliable newspaper	Significant coverage, as this is an interview	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu	Independent coverage	Nothing to suggest it isn't reliable	This is an article covering the planned construction of a bus terminal and commercial building, with just a passing mention of the subject, mentioned in a single paragraph	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/70277321/klaasmunaga-konkursil	Major newspaper in Estonia	Nothing to suggest lack of reliability	Article is behind a paywall. Article title's translated reads "In a glass egg competition" and the first visible paragraph suggests nothing about significant coverage of the subject. Looks like an article covering an architect competition, rather than the subject.	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu	Major newspaper in Estonia	Nothing to suggest lack of reliability	The article is entirely about residents' protest against the construction of a cultural village. The subject is mentioned once in the article, as one of the authors of the planned project. Therefore, a trivial mention of the subject.	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu	Newspaper in Estonia	Nothing to suggest lack of reliability	The article is actually a review of one of the buildings co-designed by the subject. WP:NOTINHERITED. Only a passing mention of the subject, mentioned once in the article.	✘ No
https://www.err.ee/924038/pealtnagija-arhitektid-avastasid-riigihangete-e-lahenduses-tobeda-vea	English version of Estonia's Public Broadcaster	Reliable	Not significant. The article is dedicated to a failure in procurement and the subject was the one contracted to do it. It also includes bits of interviews from the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

• Comment. There is also a very indepth, three page article about Eek specifically in the September 2010 Oma Maja edition of Äripäev (pages 16–19, here). Also, disagree with a few of your assessments. The Eesti Päevaleht article: WP:NOTINHERITED can't be used, as the subject is the co-architect. The subject didn't "inherit" notabilty from someone else's sole abilities; the subject is the co-creator of the building. The Eesti Rahvusringhääling article: the article is indepth. The fact that it quotes the subject in small "bits of interviews"...well, it would be sort of remiss as a journalistic piece if it didn't. Not sure how that is a strike against it. Agree that several sources are passing mentions, but they are mostly about his work or buildings. ExRat (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An architect is not notable by the mere merit of having co-created a building which passes notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED. None of the sources covering those buildings cover the subject to a non-trivial degree. The three page article you mentioned is nearly entirely an interview piece, hence not an independent source, hence not a source for determining notability. nearlyevil665 15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The Äripäev article is absolutely not "nearly entirely an interview piece" whatsoever. It is a lengthy, featured profile of the subject, directly. He is quoted in the article. It is not merely some "interview" piece. This is an interview piece. This is not. You also still seem to not understand WP:NOTINHERITED: "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." A co-creator, equally in partnership with another person, is not "inheriting" the notabilty of their associate when the weight of an article is given to both equally (or, minimally, as you suggest). I also never claimed that the subject was "notable by the mere merit of having co-created a building." It is the totality of his work. ExRat (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Miscommunication here. WP:NOTINHERITED was used in reference to the articles covering his buildings. You linked several articles that have significant coverage of his buildings (look at my source assessment table) and my point was he is not notable just because buildings he designed have received coverage. And the Äripäev article is absolutely an interview piece. The entire article is 688 words long, with 472 words (68% of entire article) of direct citations by the subject. The remaining 32% of content is either regurgitation of said citations or a lead-up of what is to be said by the subject. This is, for all interests and purposes, a pure interview piece and not an independent article. nearlyevil665 05:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: For making further discussion easier I have expanded on my previous source assessment table to include both the references presented here as part of the keep vote as well as the original references present in the article:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.aripaev.ee/uudised/2010/09/12/madis-eek-klaverihelide-saatel-arhitektiks	This is an interview piece	Reliable newspaper	Significant coverage, as this is an interview	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu	Independent coverage	Nothing to suggest it isn't reliable	This is an article covering the planned construction of a bus terminal and commercial building, with just a passing mention of the subject, mentioned in a single paragraph	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/70277321/klaasmunaga-konkursil	Major newspaper in Estonia	Nothing to suggest lack of reliability	Article is behind a paywall. Article title's translated reads "In a glass egg competition" and the first visible paragraph suggests nothing about significant coverage of the subject. Looks like an article covering an architect competition, rather than the subject.	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu	Major newspaper in Estonia	Nothing to suggest lack of reliability	The article is entirely about residents' protest against the construction of a cultural village. The subject is mentioned once in the article, as one of the authors of the planned project. Therefore, a trivial mention of the subject.	✘ No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu	Newspaper in Estonia	Nothing to suggest lack of reliability	The article is actually a review of one of the buildings co-designed by the subject. WP:NOTINHERITED. Only a passing mention of the subject, mentioned once in the article.	✘ No
https://www.err.ee/924038/pealtnagija-arhitektid-avastasid-riigihangete-e-lahenduses-tobeda-vea	English version of Estonia's Public Broadcaster	Reliable	Not significant. The article is dedicated to a failure in procurement and the subject was the one contracted to do it. It also includes bits of interviews from the subject.	✘ No
http://www.arhliit.ee/koosseis/liikmed/liige/313/	Independent union	Reliable	Membership of said Union is not a precursor to notability. In fact I'd even question the notability of said Union.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110720124835/http://www.eekmutso.ee/est/cv_madis_est.html	? This is just a cv page	? This is just a cv page	This is just a cv page with about three sentences about the subject	✘ No
https://static-pdf.aripaev.ee/XjH653_dwk-5kyJoXM5aFjomTzU.pdf	This is an interview piece	Interview piece	The entire article is 688 words long, with 472 words (68% of entire article) of direct citations by the subject. The remaining 32% of content is either regurgitation of said citations or a lead-up of what is to be said by the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

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. Missvain (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pune Institute of Business Management[edit]

Pune Institute of Business Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication this business school is sufficiently notable to warrant a discrete article (could perhaps be given a mention at its degree-awarding partner, Savitribai Phule Pune University). No significant independent coverage apparent. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Existing references are primary. It exists, but no claims in the article that meet WP:GNG nor did my search find references to support notability. Jeepday (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is a notable institute, popular with students and I can find google book refs and many English News articles also on searching on this institute, clearly passes WP:GNG - Jethwarp (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [28] and [29] - links for newspaper and books Jethwarp (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sure, there's a few articles out there about extremely trivial topics that mention the place in passing. There's nothing from what I can tell that addresses it directly and in-depth or isn't about other things that are only slightly related though. So, I'm not seeing the necessary sourcing needed to keep the article. Notability isn't just the number of Google News hits. I'm more then willing to change my vote to keep if someone can provide WP:THREE good sources though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:56, 9 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikel Kosich[edit]

Mikel Kosich (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 GNG. A non-notable college basketball coach whose Google search results only turn up coaching bio pages on schools' athletic websites. It also seems like it was created by the coach himself or someone very close to him. SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This coach works at a less-notable university and isn't even a head coach - he's an assistant coach. Fails GNG and should be deleted. No reliable secondary sources. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 20:08, 6 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 Gambling in the United States. Nothing substantive to merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling in Nevada[edit]

Gambling in Nevada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unclear if this standalone article serves any purpose when Gambling in the United States exists. nearlyevil665 19:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 19:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Gambling in the United States: per nom, no need for separate Article CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per CommanderWaterford. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would have expected that this topic could warrant a long, high-quality article, but this article is only four sentences long and has zero sources cited. If this article isn't brought up to acceptable quality soon, I would recommend redirecting either to Gambling in the United States or List of casinos in Nevada, as the latter might be closer to what people might expect under this title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of casinos in Nevada I honestly expected a 'what were you thinking' speedy keep when I clicked the article, but like M90, was surprised to see it so empty. I'm sure this is an expansion candidate as the gaming industry is basically what's driven Nevada's growth since Hoover Dam was built, but for now, a list-of redirect might be best to help the reader to the right place. Nate • (chatter) 22:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gambling in the United States: And add ((R with possibility)) as this could be a high quality article as mentioned. JavaHurricane 06:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A bold speedy redirect would have also done I suppose, but since we are here, let's go ahead with this. JavaHurricane 06:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak redirect: This is a troubling one. Gambling in Nevada is obviously and certainly a notable stand-alone topic. This article is obviously and certainly not of any imaginable use to readers in its current state. There are reasonable arguments for both proposed redirect targets; the question is which one inclines people to actually convert it to an article. "List of casinos" is probably more reader-friendly, which trumps that, but a theoretical non-terrible article on this is the actual reader-friendly outcome. Vaticidalprophet 20:26, 4 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 keep. The nominator has withdrawn and no opposition. (non-admin closure) Sun8908 _Talk 14:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahren Stringer[edit]

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

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

Guitarist with The Amity Affliction. Little notability outside band. Was redirected to band as per WP:BANDMEMBER, but redirect repeatedly removed. John B123 (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw - Page has now been reverted to redirect and protected --John B123 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 3 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Rosół[edit]

Piotr Rosół (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 indication subject meets WP:PROF. None of the sources appear to be WP:RS, and my own searching failed to come up with anything better. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As written, fails WP:NPROF and GNG. Reads like a CV. According to (dead) primary ref ([30]) in 2019 he was an an pl:Adiunkt, which is a very rough equivalent of an assistant professor. At best, WP:TOOSOON, even for the more inclusionist pl wiki (which requires habilitation for automatic notability - and he doesn't appear to have one yet). GScholar suggests pretty much zero impact: [31]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is very much TOOSOON for NACADEMIC, and no SIGCOV either.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete TOOSOON. Publications are not yet there for NPROF#1, editorial board is not sufficient for NPROF#8. --hroest 00:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of academic notability yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater 11:40, 9 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 23:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Kaczmarek[edit]

Olga Kaczmarek (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 indication subject meets WP:PROF. The single reference is a passing mention, and my own searching failed to find anything better. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I found a bio online for a workshop she gave [32] and it states that she is a " part-time lecturer at the Institute of Polish Culture, University of Warsaw, and director of international relations at Forum for Dialogue, the largest and oldest Polish non-profit dedicated to fostering Polish-Jewish dialogue." She definitely does not pass WP:PROF criteria, and I can't find anything that has written about her re: her position at the Forum for Dialog (their website shows her current position as General Director). It would be great if an editor fluent in Polish could see if there any reliable sources in that language. The only Google hits I found were for a speed skater with the same name. Netherzone (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Another case of WP:TOOSOON for WP:PROF (or NBIO in general). Gscholar shows next to zero impact: [33], at least internationally (it doesn't always index Polish journals well). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of academic notability, and with only one book listed, even if it had published reviews (not in evidence) it would probably not be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Jayarajah[edit]

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

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

Player fails WP:CRIN - has not played at a suitable level to meet the inclusion criteria and so is a non-notable cricketer that ultimately fails WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails CRIN and I'm only seeing match reports from non-notable matches, nothing like enough to pass GNG. No suitable redirect as he hasn't played for any major teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Played for national team while minor matches but has played for the Marylebone CC here, so has played for a major team and has newspaper articles on him in Italian here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eelhardiniero (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eelhardiniero: Please provide explicit links to sources that provide significant coverage; from a Google News search, I'm only seeing one trivial passing mention in Il Messaggero, and a press release type article for "Italian Cricket TV" (mentioning him as the CEO) on Daily Muslim. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails WP:CRIN, let alone WP:GNG. Player hasn't played any international or domestic match at highest level. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 07:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• An articile here on him for his birthday on italyonthisday.com here a few articles in the archive of La Gazzetta dello Sport (italy's main sport newspaper) here and some more from the Italian Olympic Committee on him can be found here Eelhardiniero (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eelhardiniero:, A cricketer first of all has to meet WP:NCRIC. Then comes WP:GNG or significant coverage. But the cricketer hasn't played any first-class/List A/T20 or T20I matches and thus he can't be notable or be significant in coverage. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 07:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @A.A Prinon: Please note, that if GNG is met (which it isn't in this case), then NCRIC becomes irrelevant. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eelhardiniero: Thanks, but IotD is probably not a WP:RS (and attests more to the notability of Jayarajah's father, Alfonso, than him), the Gazzetta is just routine reporting with nothing substantial (verifies his captaincy of Roma Capannelle, but nothing else), and the regional CONI committee is again limited to mostly trivial passing mentions, and not independent anyway so cannot be used for notability purposes. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:50, 7 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. Missvain (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Soccer Association[edit]

Skyline Soccer Association (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:NORG and WP:ROUTINE. All routine coverage, every city and town has youth soccer leagues. Rogermx (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NORG as a youth soccer league. SportingFlyer T·C 10:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - passing mentions and brief quotes from members of the organisation do not constitute WP:ORGDEPTH; subject therefore fails WP:NORG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:31, 6 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 Bomb Factory (band). Typical WP:ATD for albums ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Day, Another Life[edit]

Another Day, Another Life (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 recording fails WP:NALBUMS- there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, no reviews in published sources. The album did not chart on any country's national music charts, or receive any certifications, or major accolades. I cannot see any reason for a standalone article since there is no evidence of notability and there is not enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Ashleyyoursmile! 16:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashleyyoursmile! 16:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashleyyoursmile! 16:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find any sources regarding this album. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bomb Factory (band): Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 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 nomination withdrawn as somebody substantially Heymanned the article and its sourcing in response. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francie Swift[edit]

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

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of an actress, making no discernible notability claim whatsoever besides the fact that she exists. As always, the notability test for actors and actresses is not automatically passed just because the article contains a list of acting roles -- it requires concrete evidence that some of her roles were significant ones, such as reliable source coverage about her and her performances, and/or evidence that she received one or more major award nominations at some point in her career. But this literally just replicates an IMDb profile without contextualizing any significance to it, which is not how you make an actress notable enough for Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Article has been updated and deserves another look. I'd be interested in knowing the reassessment by the nominator as it is not completely unsourced now. --ARoseWolf 14:57, 3 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) 22:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Pat Green[edit]

Mary-Pat Green (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 an actress, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors and actresses are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because it's technically possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test is not just listing roles, but demonstrating the significance of some portion of her roles via award nominations or evidence of reliable source coverage about her. But the only notability claim in evidence here is that roles were had, and there are absolutely no sources in the article whatsoever to support her notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was able to find multiple non-trivial newspaper articles from her home town of Kansas City, MO (1, 2, 3) and the third ref notes there was 3 page story on her in the October 9th, 1989 issue of TheaterWeek magazine, so I believe she meets the GNG. I think she also might meet NACTOR for some of her theater roles and her recurring role on Any Day Now. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GoldenAgeFan1 and my research which shows she was a notable actress. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Veteran actress, versatile work in film and theatre, numerous roles in various TV shows: "The grouchy Carla, played by veteran character actor Mary-Pat Green, was one of the more memorable guest characters from this season. Her and the hippie-ish Deeks sniping back and forth was great. She only got a couple of scenes, but she sure stole them." - from ^[1]. Played Mrs. Grimmm in Fantastic Four^[2] Theater roles are sourced, too^[3][4]

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 The 1975. Missvain (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Healy[edit]

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

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

This page was deleted before, there is no indication that the subject is of note outside of the band. Karst (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Karst (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An article was redirected before; the editor who replaced the redirect with a stub[34] is an administrator. Most of the current article is about the band, but enough coverage can be found. The 2016 AFD was the correct decision at the time; there was not much participation at the 2020 AFD and no indication of an attempt to find sources, and the non-standard title and lack of sources in the article influenced the outcome. Peter James (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect all possible derivations to The 1975 and make it stick once and for all. This needs to stop, as certain editors cannot accept the fact that Healy does not qualify for his own Wikipedia article, and keep creating new ones under different derivations of his name. See the previous AfDs, and the associated histories of reverted redirects. He had no independent notability as "Matthew Healy" nor as "Matthew Healy of The 1975", and that has not changed just because someone created yet another article calling him "Matty Healy". He has done nothing notable outside of The 1975, and this article (like its predecessors) repeats the band's history with a few sentences about his personal life. The previous voter said "enough coverage can be found" but provided no examples; they probably meant totally unreliable chatter from social media and gossip rags about his famous girlfriend. His old high school bands have only ever been mentioned in softball interviews and are even less notable. Get over it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete and salt or redirect to The 1975 and add some high level of protection to the redirect, per all the previous AFDs. Agree with Doomsdayer520 above, this needs to stop. Still not independently notable from the band. Sro23 (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would require WP:Superprotect, which was removed. No other level of protection would have made a difference here. Peter James (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • One would not expect an admin to recreate a salted page without discussion, or edit war over a gold lock, in which case it would have made a difference here. — Bilorv (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The administrator was aware of the previous decision to redirect and still created it. An administrator would look at the reason for the redirect and any discussion that led to it whether there's a "gold lock" or not, and decide whether discussion is necessary. Or more likely it will be created as a draft and a history merge will be required. The relevant policies and guidelines (including WP:GNG) are already met, and there will be a separate article soon, so no point in redirecting or deleting now. Peter James (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The majority of this article isn't a biography, it's an article about The 1975 masquerading as an article about Matt Healy. For example see Matty Healy#Career. The entire first paragraph doesn't even mention Healy at all. FDW777 (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect: A person who is solely notable to the band should not have their own article. I'm okay with deleting it as well. aeschyIus (talk) 12:49, 12 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srishti Institute of Art Design and Technology[edit]

Srishti Institute of Art Design and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the references in the article meet the criteria for establishing notability. They are either routine announcements or they rely entirely on information provided by a connected person or the organization. No doubt the company exists, just the references don't show that it is notable. Fails WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep a casual looks at Google news, google scholar shows several sources which both individually or combined shows notability via WP:NSCHOOLS. VV 03:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources evaluation table:

Source	Evaluation
Bengaluru's Srishti design school now part of Manipal Group, campus to be relocated	Press release; institution info
"What should Courts look like?" Vidhi, Srishti Institute of Design, bring out report on "Re-imagining Consumer Forums"	Independent and significant; The project carried out by the institution is of significant importance to the legal justice system in India
Students, parents fume as Bengaluru's Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology orders oral exams	Independent; significant
Bengaluru’s Srishti institute campus tense after Modi graffiti offends BJP MLA, supporters	Independent; significant
Students of the premier institute are too afraid to speak on record after MLA and his supporters pay a visit to their campus	Independent; significant
BJP MLA accuses Bengaluru college students of painting anti-Modi graffiti, threatens staff	Independent; significant
[https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/day-after-graffiti-fracas-students-asked-to-follow-dress-code-not-walk-in-big-groups-restrict-their-activities/articleshow/73281671.cms Day after graffiti fracas, students asked to follow dress co	Independent; Significant
Students turn Metro stations into art installations	Independent; Significant; Project that the students have put up which impacts public
Urban Legend: The art guru’s designs on tech ed	Independent; Significant; Interview of the institution founder that explains the growth of the institution
Games Metro riders play	Independent; Significant; About a project the students did in a public space

Will update this table with more sources. VV 13:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this VV, I'll take a closer look at those references. Just on the one from Bar & Bench, I am unable to access the full article (paywall). Can you confirm whether this article publishes the actual report or whether it is commenting on the report? In either case, notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source, which is an accepted RS for legal news, linked to the full report on their own website and also writes about the report. This is one of the few institutions which actually has good coverage in RS. VV 04:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think WP:BEFORE was correctly followed in this case. Dhawangupta (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This institute would only have to pass WP:NCORP, rather than the alternative WP:GNG, if it was a for-profit institute. That seems very unlikely since it is owned by a trust. Remember that most private schools and higher education establishments are not for-profit, such as, for example, all of the American Ivy League universities. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The assumption I made in nominating this organization was that it was a for-profit organization. I was unable to find anything to suggest it was non-profit - ownership by a trust does not automatically mean it is non-profit. If it is non-profit, I'll withdraw the nomination. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • HighKing It is a for-profit institution and either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS is relevant here. VV 12:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This source, published by Ars Electronica, says that this is non-profit. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • HighKing, Looking for offline data, the institution is not-for-profit. Even the newly acquiring institution(MAHE) falls under this category. Best! VV 03:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Found some decent sources on doing a WP:Before which makes it pass NORG. Just showing an important one from Indian express [35]here. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 11:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That reference is based entirely on an announcement by the Vice Chancellor of MAHE Manipal, a connected organization. The journalist does not add any independent analysis/opinion/etc therefore the reference contains no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • HighKing You are correct. That is based on a press release. However, there is several references via a google news and scholar search that if combined gives SIGCOV. VV 12:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This needs to be listed on Art, design, technology, and schools del sort. VV 13:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Nomination Please consider this nomination withdrawn. Based on confirmation that this is a non-profit organization. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 5 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. Nomination, one weak keep, no other comments in 21 days (despite two relistings). (non-admin closure) jp×g 07:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Fornara[edit]

Tim Fornara (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 found no significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as several reputable sources have covered him as being executive producers for series airing on high-profile networks. Not the most substantial thing in the world, but far better than nothing. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2021 London mayoral election#Other parties and candidates. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Omilana[edit]

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

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNGs. Most sources listed in the article at present are either a) not independent (the subject's YouTube, Twitter or Instagram account) or b) not from reliable sources (e.g. OtakuKart). While there is some routine coverage (of the sort you'd expect from anyone running for Mayor of London), most of these are not intellectually independent, covering either the announcement of the subject's intention to stand—and even then, the subject is only mentioned on a list of candidates with at most one or two sentences, not WP:SIGCOV—or centre around the results of one outlier poll (in which the subject polled at 5%). Per Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability, 65% of YouTubers in this subscriber range have their pages deleted, so I don't believe the subject meets WP:ENT's "significant "cult" following" criteria. A notability tag was previously added to the page, but was removed by an editor. I'd support a redirect being setup to 2021 London mayoral election#Other candidates, which already contains coverage of the poll, a full list of candidates, a brief description of the subject and their political positions. Domeditrix (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Domeditrix (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Domeditrix (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep A very popular YouTuber among the present generation and a truly inspirational individual. He deserves to keep his panel as he has massed over 3 million subscribers and over 300 million views on YouTube. No need to delete it to be honest.

[[User:NZDF1985|NZDF1985] (talk) 8:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep While this is correct, Nikolas has played a major role in British YouTube. He is most notable for his "Ringside" pranks, and avoiding security.

It would be unfortunate to remove his wikipedia,as his fans would generally add more to his wikipedia,as he does more videos. Sources are reliable. TheBlitzTankster (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability as a YouTuber cannot be established by sourcing his YouTuber status to YouTube. It requires media coverage about his significance as a YouTuber. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article is based far too heavily on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own self-published Twitter, Instagram and YouTube profiles and/or directory entries — but the just six sources that are actually independent of him at all are not building a strong case that he would get over WP:GNG: three of those six are still not reliable source media outlets at all, two just include his name in listicles and thus aren't substantive coverage of him, and the one that is actually both reliable and about him in any non-trivial way is still just the routine campaign coverage that every mayoral candidate in every city always gets. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: A google search brought up coverage in a few reliable sources like [36] [37] [38] [39] This should be enough to just pass GNG. ColinBear (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dexerto isn't a reliable source at all, and just because a person can show a couple of hits of campaign coverage in the context of being an as yet unelected candidate for political office does not get them over GNG in lieu of having to pass the defined inclusion criteria for politicians. As I said above, every mayoral candidate in every city can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so just showing a couple of hits of campaign coverage is not enough to exempt a non-winning candidate from NPOL per se. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unquestionably meets GNG per indy100, BBC and BuzzFeed News coverage. SK2242 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed isn't a notability-making source at all, and the only BBC citations here are glancing namechecks of his existence in listicles that namecheck every candidate in the election he's running in, and thus fail to make Niko Omilana more special than any of his opponents. GNG is not just "how many web pages can be found that happen to have his name in them". Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed News is reliable per RSP and can be used to establish notability. SK2242 (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my earlier comment per Bondegezou, but Draftify should be the outcome of this AfD as there is a good chance Omilana will have coverage outside of his mayoral candidacy. SK2242 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I am on the fence about this, and I cannot ignore his vast coverage, but as per Bearcat, every mayoral candidate has automatically gotten coverage form significant sources like the BBC, and the article also cites several self-published sources and sources which are otherwise largely unreliable (i.e. OtakuKart). I would also like to add - since some commenters have noted this - that his subscriber count does not necessarily make him notable enough for his own article. The vast majority of coverage are as a result of his mayoral campaign only (like BuzzFeed and Indy100), so a redirect to 2021 London mayoral election#Other candidates as per Domeditrix would make sense. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability guidelines. I notice that polling day is next week, so maybe the results will decide for us whether the article should remain or not. doktorb _words^deeds 19:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete RS coverage is of his mayoral candidacy. As per WP:NPOL, people who are only candidates and whose RS coverage is for their candidacy are better dealt with under the election article and are not independently notable. Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much like the recent case of Max Fosh: a bunch of routine election candidate coverage which WP:NPOL tells us isn't helpful determining notability as a politician. I don't think there's evidence he meets WP:NYOUTUBE's recommendation to meet both WP:ENT and the WP:GNG, or either in isolation. Ralbegen (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omilana isn't really the same as Fosh, after performing nearly an order of magnitude better than him in the election. It still doesn't make him a notable politician, but it is quite good for an independent and suggests he has the large fan base or a significant "cult" following from WP:ENT. User:GKFX^talk 18:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any coverage of him that counts as "significant" for the purposes of the various notability guidelines. Mayoral candidates in London will always get basic run-of-the-mill coverage, even those unaffiliated with the major political parties - that does not make all of them notable. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is not the first time he has received national coverage for political stunts, he has received significant coverage for this and in the past. I also think its important as part of a wave of youtubers using elections as content. Could be historically significant User talk:Jalexlb Jalexlb also did a cleanup btw. — Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalexlb: can you provide a reliable source showing significant coverage of Omilana unrelated to this candidacy? SK2242 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SK2242:: Comment The Sun and Daily Mirror provided coverage of Omilana’s pranks

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tommy-robinson-left-red-faced-13133450/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13131642/youtubers-chaos-fake-mcdonalds/

WP:RSP says The Sun is not reliable and there is no consensus on whether the Mirror is. Bondegezou (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sold on this being usable to establish notability. The subject of the article (for the Mirror, we can ignore The Sun) is clearly Tommy Robinson. That article may be used to establish the notability of Tommy Robinson, but not of Niko Omilana - otherwise we'd have thousands of articles of dogs covered in WP:DOGBITESMAN stories. Domeditrix (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has over 3 million subs and almost 300 million views. Marko8726 (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep JamesVilla44 (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While running for mayor is certainly something interesting, unless he wins it isn't a great basis for notability (no significant coverage beyond namechecks is available). Excluding his candidacy, nothing else about him suggests notability. Remagoxer (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SK2242:: Comment It is more coverage by the BBC and guardian and the fact his high polling might deny Sadiq a majority in the first round. ^{[5] [6] [7] [8]}User talk:Jalexlb

WP:NPOL is clear that election campaign coverage should be covered in the relevant election article and is not, by itself, sufficient to establish notability for an individual. You are welcome to add content to 2021 London mayoral election. Bondegezou (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About half the results are in for the Mayoral election and Omilana is currently fifth on 2%. He will not have denied Sadiq a majority in the first round: Khan is more than 2% off that feat. Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2021 London mayoral election#Other parties and candidates, where he is listed. YouTube stats are not notability. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. In the results of the election, he's apparently come 4th, the best of all the 'minor' candidates. His notabiity was marginal before, but that result is likely to lead to some additional coverage over the coming days. Robofish (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5th, winning 2% of the vote. He failed to win even half the votes of any of the candidates from parties with London Assembly members. Domeditrix (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and losing his deposit. He warrants some coverage under 2021 London mayoral election, which he has. That isn't evidence he warrants his own article. Coming fifth does not demonstrate notability under WP:NPOL or, indeed, WP:COMMONSENSE. Bondegezou (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2% is substantial for a less-serious candidate. He did better than Laurence Fox despite Fox having a significant public profile already. I would agree with waiting a bit. User:GKFX^talk 10:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. non-notable in any way - mention in 2021 London mayoral election is sufficient.--Smerus (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- minor Internet personality, but scrapes in in terms of WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2021 London mayoral election as he's well documented enough there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 11 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. I'm going to also salt this. Missvain (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nithya Mammen Singer[edit]

Nithya Mammen Singer (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 indication of notability. resources provided are not reliable and independent of the subject. fails WP:GNG, WP:NSINGER Randfiskin (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randfiskin (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Randfiskin (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randfiskin (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Note that "Singer" is not her surname, so the article is titled incorrectly. Anyway, she has some documented movie appearances but not enough significant and reliable coverage to qualify for a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See comments below. It turns out that I voted to delete the previous article for this singer, and (unsurprisingly) this version suffers from the exact same problems. Recreating such an article with a different title is a common tactic for someone who is unaware of a previous deletion or refuses to accept it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - "weak" because I'm not totally clear how the notability criteria work for singers who have primarily worked in movies - she clearly has been responsible for the soundtracks of multiple notable films. Her song Alaare Neeyenile has been covered in The Hindu [40], Times of India [41] and [42] . Long interview with her, dubbing her "the voice of Malayalam" here. The Malayalam version of her name is നിത്യ മേനോൻ , but a google search for that name mostly gives coverage of Nithya Menen the film actress. Furius (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nithya Mammen where User:MurielMary, User:VocalIndia, User:Usernamekiran, User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, and User:BJackJS voted delete 6 months ago.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.217.212 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)— 42.106.217.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment To help avoid an appearance of WP:CANVASS, also pinging the other participants in the prior AfD: doomsdayer520, Jehowahyereh. Beccaynr (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT. This article has been deleted multiple times before, and the only reason 'singer' was added to the article title is to get around that. --Kbabej (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted article. jp×g 07:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That earlier deletion discussion doesn't seem to have involved any detailed discussion at all and it has been six months since it happened (also I don't think people who are "unaware of previous deletions" have tactics). User:Furius 08:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per WP:BASIC - I am not aware of what the previous article(s) looked like, but I revised this one, and added sources, and there appears to be some significant coverage of her, as well as reviews of some of her work, and news about additional work since the previous deletion. Did the previous article include her actual place of birth and career as an architect? My work on this article has been slow because I am reliant on Google Translate, but it appears that non-English coverage also exists. Beccaynr (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt a non-notable musician who failed to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. GSS ^💬 02:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since they meet neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. And due to its history, salt. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Onel5969 and GSS: Doesn't she meet condition 10 of WP:MUSICBIO - "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film"? (I see that there is a proviso that just one example would "probably" lead to a redirect, but she's done multiple films) Furius (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep India's top news platforms like times of India and the Hindu covered significant coverage of herKrish jagarlamudi (talk) 20:23, 11 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. Missvain (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MSI Cjay[edit]

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

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

Previously speedily deleted, non-notable music artist; earlier moved to draft space with a message to creator that sourcing is required. Returned to mainspace without adding references. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:BLP. Also contains a section on a music label which was also deleted earlier (under the name Road To Riches Records) as a standalone entry, as unsourced, promotional and lacking notabilty. Possible COI issues also; questions raised at the creator's talk page do not appear to have been answered. Eagleash (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eagleash (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non notable musician. A Google search provides zero coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC. -Xclusivzik (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. In addition, the same article (with slight variations of the title) has been deleted four times for the same reasoning. (See logs for M.S.I Cjay and M$I CJay) I'm assuming they also have a COI because of this and the fact that the filename "PicsArt 11-29-10.20.31.jpg" somewhat implies the uploader took the photo themselves and edited it with PicsArt. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 20:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:13, 7 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 East Pakistan first-class cricketers. ✗plicit 11:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazhar-ul-Islam[edit]

Mazhar-ul-Islam (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 cricketer, fails WP:GNG and nothing significant in coverage. There are not enough reliable sources. Reliable sources in significant coverage have to show that GNG actually is met. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of East Pakistan first-class cricketers Does pass CRIN with 4 FC appearances, but as usual with domestic cricketers playing in Pakistan we struggle for sources. If they were to exist they'd be offline or in Pakistani language sources. His career wasn't standout though so redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Do we have anymore info on this piece of text: "During the 1970s Mazhar was heavily involved with building the cricketing structure of the new country of Bangladesh"? StickyWicket (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of East Pakistan first-class cricketers per RugbyFan22.4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, per Rugbyfan. JoelleJay (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe the reference confers notability, and he passes notability criteria for cricket.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ortizesp: Meeting WP:NCRIC is not enough. Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. There is nothing significant in coverage about the cricketer. There are many informative content in the article but none is supported by independent and reliable sources. There are only one source in the article which is even of a stats website. There might be any sources that the page creator may found, but he/she has to cite those. The article says that the player was selected to play for different clubs in different times. But which sources shows his selection or call to different teams. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 10:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have rewritten this article, removing all the original research, inaccurate/nonsensical statements, editorial puffery and unsupported claims. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:33, 4 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) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracie D. Hall[edit]

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

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

This person does not meet WP:NOTABILITY standards. Her predecessor at the same organization likewise had her page deleted. ABT021 (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ABT021, do you have a link to the deletion discussion for Hall's predecessor? Furius (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furius I don’t have that link but her predecessor was named in the article with a discontinued Mary Ghikas link, indicating that she at one time had her own Wikipedia page. Neither she nor Tracie Hall are notable by Wikipedia standards. ABT021 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see that an article for Mary Ghikas was deleted. One has never been created. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What, exactly, is the rationale by which the executive director of the oldest and largest library association in the world non-notable? I do understand that notability is not inherited, but I would think that the executive director of an organization dedicated to collecting and documenting sources would, by the very definition, be someone for whom there were many documented sources. She has published multiple articles in American Libraries magazine, which is associated with the organization she heads, but also she has published articles there going back prior to her appointment as Executive Director.

  UC Santa Barbara's library did an interview with her. So did Publisher's Weekly. Google Scholar has a losting of 6 published scholarly articles. I find this AfD puzzling as there is no rationale given and no indication that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator's rationale is vague, but Hall satisfies WP:GNG. For example, she's the subject (and title!) of chapter 9 in Real Role Models: Successful African Americans Beyond Pop Culture (University of Texas Press; 2013). Her predecessor, Mary Ghikas, is probably notable, too, but nobody's started a page for her, yet. pburka (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The interviews and book chapter linked above, and PW article about her hiring, give enough in-depth coverage for WP:GNG for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep. GNG is weak as there is only two RS, the Role Models piece and PW, the other one is a promo piece by her alma mater, and publishing in a magazine does not make one notable (otherwise all academics would be notable). But as the head of American Library Association I would say she is notable
• Keep. Tracie Hall is the executive director of an organization that has 55,000 members.^[9] Skvader (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as in my opinion as a library worker any head of the American Library Association is notable for that reason alone. It's not only a large organization but it has clout beyond its membership.--Dan Carkner (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tracie Hall is leads a massive organization made up of professional workers and is often in the news ^[10] Brimwats (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons described above. Hall is executive director of a prominent national association and has received substantial independent coverage in the press and professional literature. I was also able to incorporate several reliable secondary sources into the article, further demonstrating the subject's notability. Topshelver (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Folks above have done a great job of outlining multiple reasons (independent articles, leadership of a national org, etc.) that Hall's page should remain. Enthusiasticsquirrel (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Never, ever mess with the bookpeople. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:31, 4 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 00:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wigton Davy[edit]

Wigton Davy (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 indication of satisfying WP:GNG. References do not mention the subject. David.moreno72 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wigton Davy should remain at least as a stub for the time being, if it is added to with suitably referenced material in line with WP:BIO in an appropriate time frame, the speedy deletion request should be removed. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete the sources do not, indeed, mention the subject, leaving the article as pure OR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the sources cited unfortunately don't seem to mention Wigton Davey at all. Also, at User talk:Gilburrifahy the page creator on 23 April said "Thx dave ill delete it not ready I apologise", and the article has not changed much since then. Needs to go back to draft space for more work. Meticulo (talk) 17:18, 8 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 Junior MasterChef Australia (series 2). Missvain (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greta Yaxley[edit]

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

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

Won a reality show, nothing else beyond that for notability, at most this should be a redirect to the cooking show. User talk:Bilal.Choudary2 (talk) 15:15, 25 April 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 April 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for redirect. The cooking appearances to me are not notable. While I am a big believer in having good references in an article, just because something can be quoted on the web does not make it notable. If she has gone into the restaurant industry now and made a name for herself for it, then maybe she might deserve her own article.Reader781 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Junior MasterChef Australia (series 2). Merge could be condensed to something like, "...won by Greta Yaxley from Claremont, Western Australia, who has since held cooking demonstrations in Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam and around Australia". Current list of appearances is excessive and not in keeping with WP:PROMO. Meticulo (talk) 17:33, 8 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) 22:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical and horizontal market[edit]

Vertical and horizontal market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Dictionary definition sourced only to other dictionary definitions White 720 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a notable marketing concept, there are plenty of sources that can be found through Google Books. I have added two to the article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you User:SailingInABathTub for making these improvements! White 720 (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Defines a concept, not just a term. There's scope for expansion. --Michig (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the concept is used in multiple books on Google Books searches. A search on Google Scholar also turns up multiple results, all which is related to the term. SunDawn (talk) 17:21, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Vulgate[edit]

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

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

For more than 12 years, this article has been without a single source. I cannot find any mention of this expression "Greek Vulgate" on the internet outside of a wiki which very likely copied this Wikipedia page. Other sources given on the talk page of the article either contradict what the article says (libertyparkusafd.org, Ernest Cadman Colwell, E.C.Colwell) or are not precise enough (Migne).
Please keep in mind that "Vulgate" also simply means "commonly used" and can be used in various contexts; therefore, academics could have used the term "Vulgate" in relationship to Greek texts without making a reference to a standard, fixed referent. Veverve (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must note that the page has been completely changed by @Jonathan de Boyne Pollard: after this nomination. Veverve (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HEY Keep in that I think the pre-nomination version wasn't worth keeping, but the current, improved-post-AfD-nom version seems to be a worthwhile and sourced stub. Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep following the improvements made and sources added.Mccapra (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article has been extensively improved and reliable sources added to support the statements. --Ashleyyoursmile! 15:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Efforts made by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard is great, this article is worth keeping. It is a stub, but well-sourced and well-referenced. SunDawn (talk) 03:33, 3 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grassroots Films[edit]

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

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

A non notable film production company. Before isn't showing any RS. The refs in the article are dead or don't indicate notability. Their own website is 404 and they appear to use Facebook instead. Tagged advert since 2014. Desertarun (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]