Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:39, 2 April 2021

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 31	April 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this topic meets NPROF. As a point of order, the discussion could not be closed by nominator withdrawal because there are intervening significant "delete" votes, so therefore "speedy keep" does not apply. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Hanchard

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

The article has been tagged for notability which has been interfering with another editor's DYK nomination for a while now. I'm seeing if this professor is notable or not per WP:PROF to move things along either way. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep He does have a reasonable number of citations according to Scopus, but the article appears pretty dang promotional and he doesn't really meet the other qualifications at Prof clearly either- he's very very border line. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nightenbelle a "reasonable number" of citations is not the bar to clear, the bar to clear is the "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? (see WP:NPROF). --hroest 16:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:NPROF Which is why I felt, and still feel he is a tentative keep. Just because I read it and reached a different conclusion than you does not mean I did not read or understand the essay. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete this is a WP:TOOSOON scenario where the current citation count is rather low for his field (genetics) and it is as of yet unclear if he will pass WP:PROF#1 in the future, but he clearly does not now. --hroest 16:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Hanchard's recent publication in Nature "High-depth African genomes inform human migration and health" (which he is the senior author on) is among the most high-profile recent work in the field (featured on Nature's cover, described in a Nature editorial as "a milestone in genomics research," covered extensively in the media). This is clearly a contribution to genetics "widely considered to be significant" per WP:NPROF. Combined with his already strong publication record (substantial number of publications in top journals with significant citation rates), I think this makes him clearly notable. His service on the Board of Directors of the American Society of Human Genetics and on the advisory board of Cell Genomics provide additional evidence that he is a leader with significant impact in the field. Philepitta (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philepitta of course the journal itself will call things they publish "a milestone", they want to sell subscriptions and create buzz, whether it really is a milestone will be shown over time. So yes, that is why its WP:TOOSOON. Also, a single publication will not make the author notable, see WP:BLP1E. The inclusion criteria on WP:NPROF are more restrictive than this. Service on an advisory board by itself is also not an indication of notability but it can contribute, it is not part of WP:NPROF for good reason. In genomics, a "high" citation count is in the 100s of thousands or at least 10k or more, see Genomics on GS. Note how only PIs with 70k+ citations are in the top 100 of the field. This professor has 35x lower citation counts. So while accomplished, this person does not seem to be more than "average", see WP:NPROF "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?. --hroest 20:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just "of course the journal itself will call things they publish "a milestone," this is Nature! Having a senior-author article published on the cover of Nature and featured in an editorial clearly indicates that Hanchard has much more impact than an "average" genomics professor. And this is also not a case of notability by single publication because it is on top of a distinguished career with a solid publication record in top journals. The ASHG and Cell Genomics leadership positions are secondary factors also pointing towards notability. And as pointed out below citation counts are pretty irrelevant in genomics. I think it's pretty clear Hanchard easily passes the "Average Professor Test." Philepitta (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware what Nature is, this doesnt mean that they dont have (financial) incentives to promote the papers that they are publishing. Simply because he has one paper as a last author in Nature does not mean that he is extraordinary. As you say, he has a decent career with decent publications but nothing outstanding, this is what is expected of an average early career researcher (assistant professor/associate prof) in this field. See also the analysis from JoelleJay below that pretty much confirms this. --hroest 00:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. Ok, so I'm going to need y'all need to forget everything you think you know about what a "high citation count" is, because today we are in MEDICAL GENETICS, which is up there with particle physics in both insane numbers of coauthors per paper and, consequently, extremely inflated citations. This is a field where someone with an MS in genetic counseling can be a middle author on 60 papers and achieve an h-index of 22 without even having a profile on their institution's website (just a name listed with all the other techs). Dr. Hanchard has 2029 coauthors, which is 2029 people with a vested interest in citing themselves. With a paper cutoff count of 20, I looked at the 51 coauthors on his most recent 15 papers (excluding those with a million authors), and the 96 people he has written 24 or more papers with (147 coauthors total). Keep in mind these coauthors include techs, non-academic industry partners, and clinicians, so overall numbers will be substantially lower than if we were to compare him only to others holding professorships/senior researcher positions ("average professor test" for C1). Here are their Scopus metrics:

Total citations: average: 6229, median: 2187, Hanchard: 1880.

Total papers: avg: 111, med: 75, H: 94.

h-index: avg: 29, med: 23, H: 26.

Top 5 highest citations: 1st: avg: 716, med: 288, H: 192. 2nd: avg: 390, med: 180, H: 157. 3rd: avg: 306, med: 140, H: 92. 4th: avg: 250, med: 114, H: 69. 5th: avg: 217, med: 90, H: 67.

68/147 coauthors have 5 papers with more than 100 citations. This is an extremely high-citation field. His highest-cited first-author paper has 38 citations, and his highest-cited last-author paper has 15 citations. From the citation metrics alone I will say I do not see him clearly standing out above others in his field -- much less so if I was to evaluate only professors/senior scientists at research institutes. That doesn't mean he doesn't meet other criteria of NPROF, however, so I will wait to !vote after seeing what materials others bring up. JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right, pure citation count is not a good way to determine notability in genomics for many reasons -- as you point out an individual might have a minor contribution to many papers and end up with an extremely high citation count, but not be notable at all. It's also worth pointing out that genomics is a VERY broad field, and some types of papers within the field tend to be more cited than others. For example a computational tool that is widely used might rack up thousands of citations -- this doesn't say anything at all about the notability of a genomics paper on a focused biological question. It doesn't make sense to look at a paper and claim "oh, but it's a genomics paper, that means it's not important unless it has hundreds of citations." So rough citation metric analyses are mostly irrelevant here. Philepitta (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philepitta citation metrics are still relevant here because they compare like with like. They are not the only measure, but they pretty much confirm that Hanchard is "average" in the sense that his papers are cited about as much as an average researcher (postdoc/technician/professor) in the field. It is therefore pretty clear that he fails the "Average Professor Test". On top of that, his two most cited papers [1] and [2] have him very much in a middle author position as one of 54 or one of 243 authors, further diluting his claim on having a strong impact on the field. --hroest 00:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think hroest has the more reasonable takeaway from my data here. NPROF really depends on establishing significant impact, which is almost always ultimately based on citations (whether directly, or indirectly through professorships/editorships/awards). It sounds like he has made a promising discovery that merited very recent attention from Nature, but that still falls under BLP1E since it's unclear what the actual impact will be. Why not wait until that paper receives healthy citations and he gets a few more well-regarded papers? JoelleJay (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hroest JoelleJay So, citation metrics do have some relevance, but they need to be interpreted carefully. A couple of points:

(1) Strong people in a field tend to work with other strong people, so comparing someone's citation count with their co-authors is not a reasonable test of whether or not they are "average." An individual coming out of a strong training environment/working with high-profile collaborators may be well above average, yet have many co-authors with significantly higher citation rates.
(2) In particular, highly cited papers in genomics sometimes come out of large consortia where many of the authors work together repeatedly on high-impact papers -- someone who occasionally participates in consortium papers, or who recently joined a consortium effort, could well have a lower than average impact factor for participants on these papers. Again this doesn't say anything about the notability of their papers.
(3) The fact that someone is a middle author on their most cited genomics paper also doesn't relate to their notability at all -- just means that they made a minor contribution to an especially influential paper. The paper alone wouldn't make them notable, but the fact that their independent first/last author papers are less cited is completely normal and expected.
(4) I think that media coverage of scientific articles in reputable third-party sources should, in science as in other areas of Wikipedia, also be used as an indicator of the notability of individual papers, in addition to citation counts.
(5) While some types of genomics papers have extremely high citation rates, others do not. It doesn't make any sense to compare the citation rate of a strong paper from an individual lab with, say, the top cited paper on Daniel Levy's publication list (#2 prof for total citations in hroest's link above), "Heart disease and stroke statistics—2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association." (~33,000 citations). Obviously this sort of report will be highly cited -- this is not relevant at all to what sort of citation count we would expect from an individual lab. It's comparing apples and oranges.
(6) I think a more relevant metric for how many citations an "average" paper in the field would be is the impact factor of an average journal in the field. Here's a list of genetics journals--it doesn't include all journals in the field, but gives a rough idea: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1311. The metric here is SJR which is a weighted impact factor, but spot-checking for a few of the journals, this seems to be roughly equal to impact factor. Note that even the very top journal in the list (Nature Genetics) has an impact factor of only about 30, and BMC Genomics, not on this list but a totally reasonable journal that top labs will frequently publish papers in, has an impact factor of about 4. I think that a solidly above-average paper in the field would be published in a reputable journal and have on the order of roughly 10 or more citations. Philepitta (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philepitta I totally agree, as a scientist myself I concur that citations metrics are clearly not everything, can be biased and manipulated. What would be best if we would have a committee of experts that can independently judge the impact of a person in their field. This is generally hard to assemble even in a University, and much less so on Wikipedia.
I agree with your point (1) and that is clearly a bias in the analysis of JoelleJay, similarly it is easier to be "a big fish in a small pond", if you only choose to work with weak people you would comparatively appear strong.
I agree with (2) and (3) but that would speak for an analysis where we only look at first and last author papers since it will be hard/impossible for us to judge middle author contributions.
I dont agree with (4) because according to WP:BLP1E in that case we should actually write about that one paper or add the coverage to Human Heredity and Health in Africa and not to the author. Unless the coverage is specifically about Hanchard, his career, life etc and not about this one paper it would be WP:BLP1E. On another note, I dont think that coverage in main stream media of scientific results helps with WP:NPROF since these are not the people to evaluate criteria #1, but it may help with WP:GNG. Often these results are "strawberries cause cancer" type of reports that a press office hypes up and may have little scientific value in the long run. I am not saying that is the case here, but for WP:NPROF it is really long-term impact in the field and not short-term hype that counts.
I agree with (5) and again say that we can also simply look at his first/last author publications.
Regarding (6) I only partially agree. In my field I often see the most impactful publications in low-tier journals since they may be useful methods or other discoveries, so looking at the impact of individual journals and the long-term impact on the research field of a paper or a whole lab is often a better assessment than just looking where they publish. Publishing in high impact journals often also has something to do with working on topics that are currently "in fashion" and may actually not have any long term impact. Again, please note that WP:PROF#1 looks for people who have a very clearly above-average impact on their field.
In conclusion, we can try and ignore his contribution to large consortia papers where it is hard to judge if he only made minor contributions or had a major role (unlikely given his position in the paper, I have been on such papers myself). If you do that, then from JoelleJay's analysis we have "His highest-cited first-author paper has 38 citations, and his highest-cited last-author paper has 15 citations" which would put him clearly in the non-notable side of the bar and would follow from an analysis based on your points (2), (3) and (6). So overall, this looks like a pretty average (or somewhat below-average) scientist that recently had a single high-profile paper whose long-term impact in the field has not yet been fully established. Does that sound about right? So the argument against is that he fails WP:NPROF, the argument in favor is that we recently kept similarly weak cases. --hroest 03:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philepitta -- I largely agree with your and hroest's points. I recognize the bias in analyzing coauthors, particularly those involved in large consortia, which is why I looked at ~50 coauthors of his most recent non-consortium papers (addresses (1) and (2) to skew towards people he works with as senior author; if he's personally sought out for high-profile collaborations the metrics should be higher) as well the ~100 collaborators he's published 24 or more papers with (removes the bias you note in (5)). For (1), I do want to reiterate the fact that he has about two dozen coauthors (just among his most frequent collaborators) with h-indices above 10 (multiple above 20) who are clinical genetic counselors (h-index of 24, no Duke profile I could find), "research coordinators II" (with just a bachelor's this person has achieved an h-index of 13), or nurse practitioners (h-index of 23). This strongly suggests the field itself (or at least the Undiagnosed Disease Network) is saturated with high citations rather than high-impact research professors specifically seeking to publish with him. JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After thinking about this a lot, I'm convinced by Philepitta's arguments. I also think from a risk assessment perspective, there's much more of a down side to deleting this bio than not deleting it. Guettarda (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda just curious, what is the risk here in your "risk assessment"? --hroest 17:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he's Black means that, rightly or wrongly, people will perceive this as yet another instance where women and non-white people are subject to greater scrutiny. That perception would exists even if Hanchard there was little chance of Hanchard meeting our notability requirements. And if this whole discussion makes me feel uncomfortable as an experienced Wikipedia who knows how harsh AFDs can feel, it's a given that this discussion will be seen as "proof" of Wikipedia's anti-Black bias by our many observers. Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even more so when there's decent evidence that women and Black men are cited less often by white men than white men are cited by white men, suggesting that there's systemic bias in citation numbers. Guettarda (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that is true, but I feel a little uneasy about a US-based researcher being singled out for credit in a multi-author paper that is supposed to be boosting Africa-based researchers. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imperialism is a many-layered cake. Guettarda (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While Philepitta over eggs the pudding Hanchard meets WP:NACADEMIC on citation grounds, and lead author on a Nature cover story is significant. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan A Jones What are you basing the citation grounds on? Within his field he is below average across the board compared to other researchers (not even just professors). JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I went through the 147 coauthors I analyzed earlier and filtered out the genetic counselors, clinical research coordinators, techs, nurse coordinators, and instructors to get 78 people with professorships or senior research positions (the people he should be compared to for the average professor test). Here are the citation metrics now:

Total citations: avg: 10049, med: 4961, H: 1880.

Total papers: avg: 162, med: 115, H: 94.

h-index: avg: 40, med: 32, H: 26.

Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 1049, med: 541, H: 192. 2nd: avg: 575, med: 301, H: 157. 3rd: avg: 457, med: 252, H: 92. 4th: avg: 382, med: 201, H: 69. 5th: avg: 334, med: 170, H: 67. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criterion 1 of WP:NPROF. Schwede 66 01:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets criterion 1 of WP:NPROF. Close per WP:SNOW. SL93, you should consider withdrawing the nomination.4meter4 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 Do AFDs still last 7 days? I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to withdraw it when I nominated it to make clear if the article is notable or not for its DYK nomination. SL93 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is passed 7. I was merely pointing out that it's clear this article meets GNG and NPROF criteria 1, and that there is a clear policy based consensus to keep. You can feel free to let the conversation continue, and have an admin close it, but frankly there is no chance that this article will be deleted and its just a formality at this point. A withdrawal saves having to wait for an admin to close up the AFD, and lessens the burden on admins.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 The burden would have to be on someone, admin or non-admin, because I don't know how to close the discussion. I'm fine with the formality too and I feel that it might be needed for the reason I nominated it for. We will just have to agree to disagree. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the rules changed, I can't withdraw it anyway when there is one outstanding delete vote. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine. I could have closed it out on a withdrawal, but you are well within policy to wait for an admin to make a ruling. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 But does he clearly stand out as far above the average professor in his subfield? If based on citations, do you at least recognize the degree this metric is inflated in medical genetics? A discipline where a tech with a bachelor's and no institutional profile can get an h-index of 15 in 5 years certainly cannot be evaluated with the same benchmarks we use for other professions (unless we want to create 1000+ articles on genetic counselors...) JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Stein

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

Fails GNG, NAUTHOR Noah ^💬 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree- fails GNG, also a sadly under sourced BLP. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough news coverage to pass WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find at least one proper source that would satisfy SIGCOV and IRS. Fails WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, not enough coverage to be notable. Alex-h (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree- fails GNG, also a sadly under sourced BLP. Very sadly so. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, agree with what has been stated above, its just curious that there are no reviews of Stein's books (nothing found in a quick internet search) considering the reasonable library holdings of some titles (allbeit some e book editions?) ie. Essential Reiki over 300 libraries, The Goddess Celebrates, 130, plus others in 90+ libraries (The Women's Book of Healing, Healing Herbs, and The Natural Remedy Book for Cats and Dogs). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom--Devoke water 21:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Fortean Zoology

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

The Centre for Fortean Zoology is not a notable organization. It is run from Jonathan Downes backyard. Downes wrote this Wikipedia article himself as pure promotion and nearly all the sources on the article are primary sources from Downes himself. The article has struggled with reliable referencing for years. It's basically a promotion piece and lacks reliable in depth coverage from secondary sources. Jonathan Downes' article was recently deleted and I nominate that this article should be as well. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable fringe organization. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per noms reasoning. He iro 22:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom's reasoning.
Delete : Fails reliable sources. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 14:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I won't mince words: this organization peddles pseudoscientific nonsense, and I would prefer it not be given a platform. However, this organization's expertise in baseless hooey has been cited a surprisingly massive number of times by reliable sources. For example, BBC News ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), The Guardian ([1], [2 (authored by the organization's director)], [3], [4]), ABC News (Australia) ([1], [2], [3]), Swissinfo ([1]), IGN ([1 (after the organization partnered with Capcom of all things], [2]), The Times ([1], [2]), The Daily Telegraph ([1], [2], [3], [4]), CBC News [1], the National Post ([1]), Al.com ([1]), The Independent ([1]).
Essentially, while I hate that this organization is notable, they are clearly notable. If anything, I believe based on performing WP:BEFORE for this organization the article Jonathan Downes was wrongfully deleted. At the very least, however, as this discussion is currently heavily leaning Delete, this should be a redirect to the article 'Cryptozoology', as the article's 11,000+ page views over the last two years and the amount of reliable sources that cite them indicate this is a plausible search term.
Furthermore, the nominator's claim that "Downes authored this article himself" is misleading at best: Downes created the article back in 2005, but this was his only contribution, and critically, literally no aspect about our current article is the same. This is akin to saying that an IP editor wrote our article on Barack Obama. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through these, I note that nearly every one of these simply just briefly refers to Downes as the leader of the Centre and otherwise presents Downes and the group as experts rather than pseudoscience proponents. Of course, in reality, this is a fringe group (WP:Fringe, WP:Pseudoscience) that needs reliable and notable secondary coverage that describes them accurately. So far each one of these sources are simply promoting the organization (and so we have to keep WP:PROFRINGE in mind). Some of these items are blatantly promoting the organization, like this 2008 BBC report that links readers out to the Centre's site without comment. (Media uncritically parroting pseudoscientific claims from cryptozoology circles is nothing new—we even have a little section on it over at our cryptozoology article).)

Do you have any sources from academics or other reliable sources discussing the group's history and/or pseudoscientific and/or fringe context? The organization is by no means a reliable source about itself. The above sources, troublingly, simply parrot the group's presentation of itself as a group of experts. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BBC News are not reliable for paranormal claims nor are the Telegraph or other news outlets. They write sensationalist articles without critical coverage, they are not neutral or reliable sources. People are attracted to the unknown and they play on that. There seems to be no academic sources that mention this organization. I can assure you Downes did write this article himself I was not wrong about that. Downes was fooling around on sock-puppets for years. The mass content on the article was written by Lazarusx who has admitted on the talk-page to being Downes [3] "I am indeed Jon Downes". So Downes had two accounts Jondownes and Lazarusx. Downes had another sock BillPetrovic. Richard Freeman has also had about 4 Wikipedia accounts Doctor3uk, Tallowghast etc. It is all promotional editing that happened years ago and conflict of interest. It's quite clear to me the article should be flushed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are clearly multiple independent sources. We dont delete articles about organisations just because they peddle nonsense. Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got a reliable source discussing the history and sturcture of this fringe organization rather than the various blurbs promoting it above, I think we'd all like to see it. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially the bit about about lacking in depth coverage from reliable sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing, uncritical mentions aren't the same thing as in-depth coverage. Quoting somebody affiliated with the Centre isn't reporting on the history, organization and activities of the Centre; being the source for the token "the Yeti could still be out there" sound bite fails to meet WP:NORG. Add that to the COI/sockpuppet concerns, and it's pretty plain that we're better off without this article. XOR'easter (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the various mentions listed above are just that, mentions: mentions of the centre and their bizarre cryptid-related claims. I see no in-depth coverage of the organisation itself, which would lend itself to an encyclopedia article. Even putting WP:FRINGE aside, there's very little here to show notability, and I think our standards should be even higher for organisations that push pseudoscientific woo. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Fleetwood

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

Mayor of a small city with very little coverage outside of the immediate area, even in the larger newspapers of the same state. Only other notable position is county council, which isn't enough for WP:NPOL. Sounder Bruce 22:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 22:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 22:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Haven't dug in to make a determination but I note that Bellingham is not so small with a population of 92,000. We generally presume notability for mayors of cities with populations over 100,000. Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayor of the northernmost city with a population of more than 50,000 people in the contiguous United States is notable. KidAd • SPEAK 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't agree that the northernmost city with pop over 50k is enough to be notable, however- that, combined with the town not being that far under the 100k mark makes me pause. Technically I don't think he qualifies- but its close. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not appear his legal career would qualify him nor would his mayoral service.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bellingham WA is not a large or significant enough city to extend its mayors an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of a properly demonstrated pass of WP:NPOL #2, cities don't get special exemptions from NPOL just because their population cracks 50K or because of their geographical locations per se, and this relies mainly on primary sources rather than any significant volume of reliable source coverage for the purposes of getting him past NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited references do not go in-depth enough to qualify per WP:POLITICIAN. --Greysonsarch (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read the consensus is that mayors of cities of moderate size are not automatically notable, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. There's no standard policy for lawyers, but he would fail my own standards. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Devoke water 21:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMerit

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. Advertisement. scope_creep^Talk 22:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, while taking a first look, there are some reliable sources can be seen like The New York Times, Financial Times and Wall Street Journal but none of them talks indepth about this company. Just mentions hence fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Grailcombs (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company has had significant global coverage in outlets viewed as highly reliable including the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, AP, the Hindu and Forbes.It has a major social mission, pulling poor people, primarily women in India out of poverty by working within the world of AI. It is a notable company covered by recognized reliable Wikipedia sources.Miaminsurance (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with assessment of Miaminsurance. New York Times, the Wall Street Journal are major publications. Also having financial backers such as Pierre Omidyar and Michael Dell, should be worth some notability points. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 19:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with assessment of Miaminsurance and Expertwikiguy. Even if the mentions are not yet in depth, the publications that covered the entity are top-tier. In addition to having the notable financial backers that Expertwikiguy mentioned, they were able to raise significant funding in 2020, despite global economic issues. Their social mission is laudable as well, and combined with AI technology, makes for a notable endeavor. IrishChick2012 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: IrishChick2012 is a blocked UPE sockmaster, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IrishChick2012. --Blablubbs|talk 08:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a startup, with all-paid advertising. Lets examine the references:

New York times: Based in India, iMerit labels data for many of the biggest names in the technology and automobile industries. It declined to name these clients publicly, citing confidentiality agreements. But it recently revealed that its more than 2,000 workers in nine offices around the world are contributing to an online data-labeling service from Amazon called SageMaker Ground Truth. Previously, it listed Microsoft as a client. That is a paragraph inside and article. It is mention and fails WP:SIRS
Forbes 2012, former HP executive Radha Basu opened a center in Metiabruz to train young women in data analysis, cloud support and other digital services. Since then, her Palo Alto, Calif.-based social enterprise firm, iMerit, has hired more than 250 women in Metiabruz, who serve clients including Microsoft , eBay and Catholic Relief Services. They make up to 10 times what their families once earned. “They’re able to have some choice and independence but stay within the community, which means they’re developing it from within,” says Basu, who founded iMerit in 2012. That is mention as well as well and fais WP:ORIND vis-a-vis WP:SIRS
The Hindu IMerit to create jobs]. Its a press-release. Its fails WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH
Wall street Journal [4] iMerit (Asia) iMerit hires and trains economically challenged people so they can provide data services to customers around the world. Their team of trained, in-house data experts enriches and annotates the data that powers algorithms in machines learning, computer vision and other data-driven applications. To date, iMerit has provided data services to over 100 global enterprises. One paragraph listing as profile, as listing. That fails WP:SIRS. It is not-indepth, not independent. 1 of 17.
AP News And for 25-year-old Shamima Khatoon, her job annotating cars, lane markers and traffic lights at an all-female outpost of data-labeling company iMerit in Metiabruz, India, represents the only chance she has to work outside the home in her conservative Muslim community. A tiny paragraph. Fails WPCORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. Clearly non-independent either. AP News is the top journalistic outfit, anywere in the west, according to jounalists who look at these things. But poor reference.

The last reference is the Wall Street Journal and you must assume it is good, per Wikipedia consensus. However, going on through the these sources which are poor and past experience finding out that WSJ puts takes in a huge number of paid advertisements. Last, why is article even on Wikipedia. It is a clear brochure with no-redeeming features. It does say that they are all women, it is a sweat-shop company, so they have paid somebody to write on an article on here. There are millions of these companies. These companys have been known about in the web gaming world for more than 20 years, at least since about 2007-2010 for mainstream IT. I remeber my mate talking about them in 1999, whe big MMORPG, APB which failed, was being started to get built. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 17:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will abstain from voting here but the page is live because I am the one who approved it through AfC using the same standard as always ("more than likely to pass AfD discussion"). I can honestly say that I HATE approving articles such as these as I know it is likely only submitted to AfC because of someone wanting to promote the business. However, being that it met notability imho, I added the advert tag to the top because of the tone of the article. Other than that, I cannot believe we can dismiss the NYT article. They do publish advertisements but they are labeled as such. They felt the company notable enough to send a reporter to the location and do an in-depth article. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on keep arguments and AFC approver CNMall41's comments above, this company meets WP:GNG, specifically having an in-depth coverage in NYT and mention in WSJ are significant and I do not agree with the nominator that these kinds of publications can be bought. It's just absurd to say that! Just because an startup gets good coverage, you cant accuse them of having paid PR, unless you can prove it.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The more stringent WP:NCORP has not been addressed thoroughly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bad-faith undisclosed paid-for spam, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko. MER-C 12:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it is notable, which it is not clear that it is, independent editors will create it later. We shouldn't reward bad-faith UPE practice (socking, and possibly extortionism as well, I read). Also note that one of the keep !voters, IrishChick2012's comment, is their first edit in three years, and the first of only two edits they've made recently, the other one being to a similar AFD. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I nominated this a few weeks back but pulled the nomination after realizing the references weren't as bad as I thought. Having read that this was a byproduct of WP:UPE I say burn it down and let someone write it from scratch from a neutral point of view. nearlyevil 665 20:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It clearly fails WP:ORG, and is an advert by a now-blocked UPE. Java Hurricane 04:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization (Christian perspective)

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

Wikipedia is not a place to publish one's own analyses and theories. This article has 0 references and reads like someone's personal essay. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move, can be made better. Would assume the "Further reading" covers sources, so issue is "not inline" instead of nonexistent. Improve by moving to Globalization (Christianity) or perhaps Globalization (religion) and mix in Islam. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself does not seem to cite any sources for its statements, nor does it refer to any major religious leaders. The subject itself seems highly, well, subjective. It might make sense to have some mention, in the articles on Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church, or other major Christian religious organizations, if those organizations have any specific statements or positions related to "globalization", but even then it's such a vague term. Christianity is a major world religion with, what, 2 billion followers and multiple large mutually-exclusive denominations. I cannot see how one could write an article on this subject, there are simply too many potential perspectives. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperion35: Just noticed, you're right after me alphabetically. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced, WP:NOR and WP:NOTFORUM. Aasim (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is NOT unsourced, but the references are not in-line references. Instead they appear as "further reading": various books on the subject. This is certainly far from an ideal article, as different viewpoints will be possible within each of the denominational groups. However the lack of formal citations and lack of references to specific religious leaders is no reason to delete. Instead it is a case for tagging for improvement. No strong view as to whether to rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. This is an essay on a contentious religious topic. The references, such as they are, do not refer to anything specific in the article—and I have a very hard time seeing how the statements made in the body could be clearly supported by independent, secondary sources. Topic may well be notable, but best to start over on this one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a WP:POVFORK. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (TNT) – Agreed with AleatoryPonderings. The article is just a short college essay (cough MLA citations cough) haphazardly transplanted into a Wikipedia article. However, while I agree with them that it would be best to start over, I believe it would be best to start over with an article that attempts to include more religions than just Christianity, as I imagine it would make for a more comprehensive article. For example: "Perspectives of [major] religions on globalization", "Religious perspectives on globalization", or "Globalization (religious perspective)". Making it not inherently essay-like could be a challenge, but I think it could be done. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG as per all. Grailcombs (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Davis (English cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any coverage. Coverage may exist offline or locally though due to his significant minor counties career. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Another that should have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players as per Rugbyfan22. Grailcombs (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Suffolk County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Steel

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Suffolk County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A game, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Another that should have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Suffolk County Cricket Club List A players as per above. Grailcombs (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Suffolk County Cricket Club List A players - would be an uncontroversial redirect Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dean (cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any coverage. Sources may exists offline or locally about his minor counties career. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Another that should have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence the article meets GNG. Redirection could be option, although not sure that is warranted, could encourage re-creation? Eldumpo (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG. GNG is the minimum for anything to be included in Wikipedia as a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Banks (cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Sources may exist offline or locally on his minor counties career though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Another that should have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG. GNG is the minimum inclusion criteria for any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Williams (cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player who has played 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. I make that all 5 of todays listings that should have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect per Rugbyfan22 and per WP:ATD. Another pointless AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players as per all. Grailcombs (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a very long line of articles that do not meet GNG. GNG is the minimum requirement to have any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is yet another in a very long line of unhelpful Lambert contributions and should be given very little weight. Deus et lex (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Procedural close. The nominator has withdrawn, no outstanding 'delete' !votes. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Momints

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

Article has had no sources for 16 years, and consists mostly of original research. Does not meet criteria at WP:GNG; nothing beside trivial mentions. The only note-worthy article I could find is "Magic Momints". confectionerynews.com. 2003-06-16. I've read through the article again, and the references seem sufficient enough to establish notability. Nom retracted. Orcaguy (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mints. Herostratus (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep your jokes to yourself per WP:POINT and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine, Mr Crankypants. But the thing is, there are 35 articles in Category:Breath mints. Some of those are stronger than this article, but a lot aren't; and I suppose that this article could be strengthened if anyone wants to. So it doesn't really make sense to just kind of thrash around in the category and delete parts of it at random. We want to take a more holistic approach to curating this subject, I think. Either do a WP:BUNDLE nom and make the case that our readers shouldn't know about breath mints generally, or leave it be. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Herostratus, To which we have a simple reply: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - dead horse, etc. Bundle noms are a mess. Let's discuss Momints and see if we can rescue them - or not. After that discussion is finished, we can look at the next article from the series of 35. And so on and on. It's not like we need to hurry, and asking editors to look at 1 article at a time is better than asking them to look at few dozen which would scare most away. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose that's reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - But to the point that its a weak article that simply describes the entity, sure, but a whole honkin' lot of our articls are like that. Articles about mountains. About fungi species. About train stations. About villages. A lot of those just have proof-of-existence refs and are are two sentences long. The only reason for picking on this article and not those, is that they're about "serious" topics that you'd find in large general encyclopedia, and this article isn't. That not entirely indefensible, but kind of IMO, and I sure don't agree. We're not paper and we don't want to be snobs about curating what we cover. Herostratus (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article is a mess close to WP:TNT but this could be rescued if someone tried a rewrite. GBooks shows sources with some potential: Gearhart observed that Momints " captured chain - wide distribution at 7 - Eleven and for a short period of time they proved to be the number one mover in that particular piece of the category because of a lack of competition . I see few mentions in passing. Not enough for me to vote keep at this point, but enough to indicate this may not be a lost cause. Ping me if anyone finds better sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not any better, but here is a passing mention of the product's foundation and demise. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

here is a whole article in Packaging World. Quite a long and detailed article sufficient to support a fair amount of useful material. (The first time I went to the page it forced me to sign up, I in a bogus email address and it rejected it but then when I went to the page again it let me in.) Herostratus (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, I did some more digging. This reads like a press release so I am not counting it (as it likely fails the requirement for independent coverage). Here is an academic ref but it fails SIGCOV (mention in passing for a single sentence, referenced to a press release). Here's another mention in passing in a trade journal: [5]. Trade journal article, not sure how in-depth. Another niche article about related marketing campaign: [6]. I am going to withdraw my weak delete and abstain as I think this is very borderline. There is a decent amount of non-indepth coverage and hints that there may be a second in-depth source, just not easily available online. And the product is defunct, so no spam concerns here (anymore, at least). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY. The article is quite significantly improved now and no longer a very good candidate for deletion. Thank you User:Orcaguy and User:Piotrus for providing the incentive to improve this article. Herostratus (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Herostratus: While the article has sources now, I'd still say it's not notable enough for inclusion. The article relies heavily on one reference; see WP:3REFS. Thank you for improving the article, but as it stands, there is only one reference used in the article with significant coverage^[1], whereas the other one mentions the product in passing^[2], not enough to establish notability.

References

^ Jim George (January 31, 2005). "Liquid mints become 'jewels' in a tube". Packaging World. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
^ Lisa DeSisto (interviewer) (February 28, 2020). "Like a Boss: Read the interview with Tony Shurman, President and CEO of Jasper Wyman & Son". Portland [Maine] Press-Herald. Retrieved April 2, 2021. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

Someone else could possibly disagree with either of our judgements on this article's notability, so I'll keep this AfD up. Best regards, Orcaguy (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll keep this AfD up... well that's right generous of you, heh.

Alright... I understand that y'all are in delete mode, but at this point deleting the article would be simple wanton destruction. It's a perfectly acceptable article now. It possibly doesn't quite exactly meet the WP:GNG (a mere guideline), depending on how you squint. But there's plenty of sources there to make a decent size article. And I mean, it is a breath mint. A breath mint. You are not going to find citations for in the The Lancet or Science or Time magazine, probably. So? That's true of a lot of mints -- and other things.

Again: if you want our coverage of mints to be limited to Certs and couple others, say so, and make your case in a general RfC somewhere, maybe List of breath mints. I don't know why, as we're not running out of server space; my general ideology is expressed at User:Herostratus/Wikipedian's Meditation. But YMMD.

So anyway, let's see. Right now the article has ten references -- one full short article, five which have maybe a sentence or two if that, and three about other stuff entirely. The articles got about seven paragraph equivalents. I'm going to be adding some more (no more full articles though), but let's take it from here. So, because I like to do this, I'll now look at 20 random articles and see how they're reffed compared to this one (so far) and how their size compares (size doesn't exactly equal quality, but it's a data point). Here goes.

Claremont Road Cricket Ground. Less ref'd, shorter article.
Yogetor spiralis. Less ref'd, shorter article.
Gujba college massacre. Better ref'd, longer article.
Public observatory. No ref's, shorter article. (Could be improved tho)
Konakalla Narayana Rao. Less ref'd, longer article. (Tagged for tone)
2001 Davis Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group IV – Zone B. Worse ref'd (all just primary sources of scores), shorter article in terms of text (longer if you count table of game results).
New Jognasury- I. No refs, similar size.
Łuczynów, Kozienice County. Less ref'd, shorter size.
Thin layer extraction. Better ref'd, longer size.
Mindjedef. Similar level of ref'ing, shorter size.
Julie Vargas. Better ref'd, shorter article.
Nessa Feddis. Hard to tell on the refs; similar level I guess. longer article.
Walnut Grove, Sumner County, Tennessee. Worse refs, similar size article.
Calcium lactate gluconate. Just two refs, but one is extensive, so better ref'd I suppose. Shorter article.
Rugby union in Romania. Better ref'd I guess. Longer article.
Mount Nittany Medical Center. Similar level of refs at best. Shorter article.
Breuningiana pulchra. Worse ref'd. Shorter article.
List of city nicknames in Ohio. Better ref'd. Longer article, altho it's really just a long list.
Putah Creek State Wildlife Area. Worse ref'd, shorter article.`
Cultural depictions of Anne Boleyn. Worse ref'd. Longer article.

So I mean this article seems roughly in the middle. So there are three million articles worse than this one, three million better, maybe. So rather than just picking on random articles here and there, maybe you should start a general discussion and whether the Wikipedia is just too large and half the articles should be deleted. Who knows, maybe that'd be popular. Til thenm there's no reason to pick on this article particularly, and that approach just ends us with random holes here and there in our coverage. Herostratus (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, I already told you this is a dead horse (OTHERSTUFF etc.). This article may be salvageable, the system works, no need to rant about it. Orcaguy identified a weak, borderline article and started a discussion that may result in this being improved - the jury is still out, IMHO this is very borderline. We all helped here, one way or another, no need to complain about anything. The system works. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is a disussion on Momints, not the other articles; WP:OTHERSTUFF. I know other, possibly worse, articles exist on this website, but that is none of my concern. Their notability may or may not be challenged at some point, but that has no outcome on whether this article's topic is notable. Your personal philosophy on deletion is, of course, welcome, but hardly relevant to the discussion at hand. My comments may seem dismissive, but the guidelines exist for a reason. Arguing for or against them here is scarcely pertinent to whether or not this article gets deleted or not. To clarify, my previous reply is in regards to WP:CON, and I'd like to adhere to the guidelines on this website. Orcaguy (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, as long as the article doesn't get deleted. "It was a poor article, but with some work it got WP:HEY'd to be a decent article, good article really considering the subject, but let's delete it anyway because reasons" isn't great. Yeah I get what you all are saying but I don't agree. We have a whole honkin' lot or rules and guidelines, they are supposed to help not hinder making an encyclopedia... let's see, article's existed for 16 years, it has... shuffle shuffle... 7 views a day so... 16x365x7=40,000 readers have accessed this article...so just answer me this: "For the 7 people a day who are searching on the term "momints", instead of going to this article they get a 404, and this would improve their experience because ______________". What goes in the blank? Herostratus (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, borderline per Piotrus. I found some relatively decent coverage on a search like this or (maybe) this and it's reasonable to assume more exists offline or on a site like Newspapers.com (I do have a subscription there, but my search just brings up mis-OCR's of "moment" or "morning". Herostratus's OSE arguments are not convincing, but but their cleanup is rather legit and I'd err towards keeping borderline articles rather than deleting them, unless we can be sure all relevant coverage has been found. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current consensus is that notability of the subject is borderline, so the discussion would benefit more from additional participants.

Additionally, WP:NCORP can (not should, it can be ignored given such consensus exists) be applied to the subject.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the first read, I felt like the article was actually pretty interesting from a consumer product and marketing perspective. I could see this being useful for business students examining case studies for small products that are over-whelmed by large corporate competitors. When it comes to marketing, sources can be shoddy and self-promoting, but the sources here seemed to reasonably address this product- and good editing eliminated the industry jargon from said sources. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winpak

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

Non notable company - one of the refs is considered a scam site, another is dead and the final is an award. Nothing much comes up for a news search beside some trivial mentions Remagoxer (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most hits are for press releases, I get one hit from Yahoo Finance, the rest are from Wordpress sites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not satisfy notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above voters, not enough coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:MILL, and WP:SNOW. Totally run of the mill company. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP Devoke water 18:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources provided by Fram show gng where the tournament is discussed in a wider sense beyond routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trofeo Ciudad de Sevilla

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 20:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 20:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 22:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an important "friendly" tournament apparently fondly and widely remembered in Spain, for the general atmosphere and for the intense rivalry between the two Sevillean teams (Sevilla and Betis) which seems to be more fierce perhaps than that between Real and Atletico. If one sees that a tournament last held in 1995 is either the focus of or mentioned in more than 20 Spanish sources since 2009[7], including a few this year alone, then this is not some obscure trophy (note: some of these are about a skating trophy, but most are about the football one). This from last month is an article solely about the trophy, this is more like a column, but again completely about the trophy; this is a complete 2019 article from elDiario.es, about why the Trofeo disappeared. Contemporary articles must be more common, but are harder to find. Still, something like this complete article from El País shows that this garnered widespread attention during its heyday. Fram (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be a tournament of historical significance; coverage provided by Fram satisfies WP:GNG, multiple sources addressing the tournament in depth and indicating importance Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not all friendly tournaments are notable, but this clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Fram passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately, nobody wants to keep this. Sandstein 08:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Pier Cesare Baretti

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 22:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's at least some mention of this in Italian sources. The Italian Wikipedia page wasn't helpful here, can't find anything immediately, but there is at least some claim to notability in spite of the previous vague wave !votes. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the current drv for another similar AfD but SportingFlyer is hereby made aware that their comment carries no weight whatsoever without specifics. I'm extending as a courtesy but unless specific sources with explanations clearly indicating how they support gng are made then I will close this as delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, everything that's in a robust WP:BEFORE search is only Italian football fan pages, and brief mentions in articles about Coppa delle Alpi. I'm reasonably certain this would pass GNG if anyone has access to an Italian newspaper archive as the tournament was functionally pre-internet, but I can't offer any more help here, unlike the other articles. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the Italian language article no references or claims there that meet WP:GNG, I searched for references and did not find anything significant. Jeepday (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searched for sources since I saw the U.S. played in the tournament and found some sources: [8] I also found a bunch of potential mentions, but can't view most of these - the one I can view is the Guardian, which is just a link to the RSSSF, but let me see if there's not English language sources for Everton: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Also referred to as the "Torneo Baretti." SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like there is something in the way of sourcing, would be worthwhile extending to see if someone can highlight elements in the sources that may satisfy gng. Either way there isn't a clear consensus one way or the other here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Kiev International Tournament

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 22:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is only a friendly tournament and the presence of one (reliable) source listing the results does not mean it is notable. Eldumpo (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: summer association football friendly tournaments do not meet notability as advised in WP:FPL --Whiteguru (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Independencia de Bolivia

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 20:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 20:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything about this friendly tournament in my searches nor is there any assertion of notability within the article itself Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG, nothing found related to this event CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 22:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything to pass WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Friendly tournaments do not meet notability as given in WP:FPL --Whiteguru (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 09:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Following the astute reasoning of DGG. Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Nesenoff

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Spam target. scope_creep^Talk 19:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article looks notable to me. I do dare someone to go after Hendrik Sumendap and Raymond Cottrell these two men aren't notable, and never will be. Catfurball (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes him notable? scope_creep^Talk 22:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What makes him notable is the significant coverage he has received in independent, reliable sources. This New York Times article and also this Los Angeles Times article are the first two references I checked. He is clearly notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::That is a clear pattern. Close it. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 09:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)~~ scope_creep^Talk 17:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor filmaker, whose notability is ONEEVENT, related to Helen Thomas. Refs1-3 and 20 through 35 refer only to the encounter with Thomas. Refs 15-19 aretrvial coverage or non-third party sources. The only sources worth serious consideration is 14.LATimes and possibly 13 NYT. Refs 8,11 & 12 are the local edition of theNYT, an no more significant than any other local paper.If kept,. the material other than the filmmaking should be deleted or shortened, with a link to the article on Thomas. With respect to her, its a noteworthy even (though the article is overdetailed and citebombed), but not with respect to him. Some of the comments above are "other stuff exists". And, most of all, I cannot figure out the nefarious motivation in the "pattern". DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a clear case of one event notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E applies. Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, for the reasons given to keep this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Air Duct Cleaners Association

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

Fails GNG. Note one US Gov't source has been removed where the org is mentioned but not in any depth [14]; the source was used to substantiate a fraudulent claim that the USG preferred this org's members over others. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no meaningful sources here about the organization that would demonstrate notability, nor could I find anything else in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk)
Delete not enough news coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Black Cats (band). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hazhar Saleh

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

This BLP has been vigorously defended by its creator who has been removing tags and objecting to a redirect. After weeks of this the sourcing consists almost entirely of performance clips on YouTube. There’s an interview and the first reference appears to be valid, but there certainly isn’t enough here to support a BLP. I’d be happy with a redirect to his band as an outcome, otherwise there is no basis for keeping this. Mccapra (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 1 April 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}}.

Well, that's a deletion notice, so if you really do feel that the article is worth keeping, you should comment at the deletion discussion as to why you feel the article should be kept— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs)

Keep This article has solid references and has been edited many times by different Users and admins. I don't understand why this admin (Mccapra) is trying to delete the article while the artist is noticeable and famous! We are his fans, and we want to keep his page on Wikipedia. So please, instead of deleting the article, help us improve it and make it better. We are two young writers and of course we need your help to get better. But there is one thing that I really don't understand and that is when I'm explaining to you he is in Persian music market and if you do a quick research on Iran you'll learn there is no copyright law in Iran and that's the reason why the songs are not licensed! I'm very sure you know that and you are still searching on American music sources?! How does that work? Can you find any English songs in Iranian or middle eastern music sources? Please do a quick search on google then you'll see the most reliable source in Persian music market is Radio Javan.

Please have some respect for our artists.

Thank you. Brave.soul92 (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC) (the above contribution copied from the talk page on behalf of an inexperienced editor) Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — Brave.soul92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep As brave.soul9 mentioned, Hazhar Saleh is a Persian singer, and unfortunately, there is no copyright law in Iran. That’s why the most reliable source on the Persian music market is Radio Javan. Please do research, and you’ll see it’s true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs) 11:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The artist has been mentioned in native language news sources and TVs, which means he is notable, and he's been in the Kurdish music market ten years before he joined the black cats, that's why I think it's better to keep his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.109.61.80 (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — 109.109.61.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ As you can see, Hazhar Saleh is a Persian singer, and unfortunately, there is no copyright law in Iran. That’s why the most reliable source on the Persian music market is Radio Javan. Please do research, and you’ll see it’s true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs) 11:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC) duplicate vote struck. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know this artist since 2016 when He got invited to Bollywood.I'm Kurdish and I know for a fact he is an Amazing singer and songwriter. I think it's a good idea to not delete it but improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haz kurdson (talk • contribs) — Haz kurdson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete I have found these 2 small articles at dailymusicroll and one interview at thriveglobal, both of which are on Wikipedia black list. Looking at all the refbombing in the article it's still a WP:GNG fail. There is no significant coverage, there are no reliable references. What concerns me is that all the major contributors that are voting here to keep the article, could not provide enough reliable sources - in Kurdish or any other language. Moreover I believe the last voter has COI as his 8 edits since the registration revolve around the subject and his band. Also the name Haz kurdson is quite declarative on its own. Less Unless (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As an old Wikipedia user, I do not understand why people want to delete this article.

Evidence is evident. And quite valid On the other hand, slander is definitely not part of Wikipedia's policy. Users who call goodwill fake should be careful what they say. In any case, the article has the conditions to remain and in my opinion it is fully qualified Struck off duplicate vote by Aliasghar ghorbandokht Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 06:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep He has many interviews on TV shows, and many times we've watched him on many Kurdish and Persian TV. He is a member of the black cats band, which is the oldest Persian music band. Let's keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsan.S.M (talk • contribs) 22:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — Ehsan.S.M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ I feel so sorry for you genius Less Unless! First of all, I've already mentioned in my comment that I'm Kurdish and yes my name is also Hazhar, the question is how can you be so short-minded to think there is only one Hazhar in the whole Kurdistan! I think a person who thinks this way can't make any difference in the world. with all due respect. Haz kurdson (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Struck off duplicate vote Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 06:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Keep I know this artist, he is Black cats lead singer and has been really successful. I think it’s better to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryamehrad (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC) — Aryamehrad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment can those !voting ‘keep’ please share here three reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in depth? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you will receive any bona fide replies... they seem to be recruited from somewhere. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 06:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Delete no notability yet. But wow, what an energy for the article. Impressive.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability, basically everything that Less Unless said. QueerFilmNerd^talk 06:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet GNG. YouTube sources can, in some cases, be used to establish uncontroversial facts or to quote the subject, but they do not themselves establish notability. There appears to be no sustained and focused coverage of Saleh in any reliable source. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 06:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do not demonstrate how the artist qualifies for an article nor is any obvious notability asserted. While Commons is separate, the picture is up for deletion there, which is usually a symptom of problems here. Fiddle Faddle 08:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band on the simple basis that the band member has insifficient individual notabiity, so a redirect to the band is the correct thing to do per WP:BANDMEMBER. My apologies for not realising that before, and my thanks to doomsdayer520 for pointing it out. However, the redirection must be enforced. In view of the number of folk thinking this is a ballot may I suggest that the redirect be salted please? Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other editors' remarks. QuietHere (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Redirect per User:Doomsdayer520. QuietHere (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability criteria. --Semsûrî (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cant find any sources about this Singer. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Popcornfud (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. And the sockpuppets are so cringy. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*keep very famous he show in BBC TV and Avang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC) striking duplicate vote Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black Cats (band) and Protect against reversion. See WP:BANDMEMBER: redirecting band members to the band is standard procedure if they have not achieved notability outside that band, and this singer has not. In fact, almost all of his activity is with the band except for some solo releases that nobody seems to have noticed. Meanwhile, the "keep" votes above are glaringly obvious puppetry, and the "delete" votes seem to be punishment in reaction to the puppetry. Redirecting is a typical solution, but make it stick if such moves have been reverted before. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think DOOMSDAYER520 is right. Delete is not the solution, as WB:Speedy says, redirect Is a better choice than delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brave.soul92 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not add up to showing that this musician meets our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its reference very good and true article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alone ghpo (talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC) — Alone ghpo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I see only 1 ref. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~*keep~~ I think it would be better to help modify and add the source instead of deleting the article I believe that giving the article a chance can be a good solution.

And also very reliable sources have been added recently. Please remove Tag Thanks Admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

striking third attempted !vote by the same editor. Mccapra (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Venice

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

AfD in 2010 indicated that the content should be merged with another article and this was recreated 2011-09-08T05:19:14. ~~Redirect~~ Delete and salt as the album is not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What would be the best redirect target? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good questions. I'm not sure where it was merged to after the last AfD. May need to just be deleted. Changed rationale. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:GNG; salting is fine with me too Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comment above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as per above, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG; salting is fine with me also. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd June Azral Lalah

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

Badly sourced stub on a footballer that has never played in a league listed at WP:FPL; Sabah, Beverly and DYS were all playing outside the Super League when this footballer was playing for them; therefore, there is no claim to passing WP:NFOOTBALL. The article's one source is only a passing mention. Google searches and a Malaysian search do not come back with any relevant hits in WP:RS, therefore the subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG and should be considered for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom (reminds me of Groundhog Day), fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage about the subject, hence fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: as per above, no significant coverage about the subject, hence fails WP:GNG. How this got past New Page Patrol, I don't know. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article fails GNG which is the minimum guideline for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se#Soundtrack. There is consensus that the subject is not notable. The suggested redirect is a viable alternative to deletion as the target is a soundtrack listing the song. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se (Song)

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

Not going to A7 this because it was in a movie, possible hoax because this is listed as a Justin Bieber single, and the cover art is just an actress's face, either way, fails NSONG. Noah ^💬 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTINHERITED. I can't find any source outside of a discussion of the film that this song was notable. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se#Soundtrack: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khairul Azahar Eidros

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

This footballer has played 12 mins of professional football, which is a weak passing of WP:NFOOTBALL. Most of his career was played at regional level and he only had one season with a professional-level club.

A Malaysian search comes back with the usual bare minimum statistical database coverage and passing mentions like this Bharian article. There is a clear consensus within the Wikipedia community that WP:GNG takes priority in such cases and there is no clear evidence that Khairul passes GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage about the subject, hence fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwendolyn Göbel

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just linked this to Wikidata and its other-language versions. Feeling pretty ambiguous about notability, though – she's been in some (by German standards) fairly high-profile stuff, but seemingly always in minor roles or as an on-off-appearance. Probably WP:TOOSOON at the end of the day. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We absolutely cannot have an unsourced biography of a living person. This needs to be deleted immediately unless someone can place reliable sources in the article immediately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found, the German wiki article is about the same as this one with one source. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Participants are evenly divided, both numerically and from a strength-of-argument perspective, and a fourth relist is unlikely to change that. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yemane Niguse

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

Fails GNG. Might have been G5 eligible but not totally sure. Noah ^💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:-noah-: What does "G5 eligible" mean, please? BushelCandle (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eligible for G5 speedy deletion.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not making the exact extent of my ignorance clearer, Kieran207, but I think I understand the "eligible for speedy deletion part" - it's the G5 jargon that has me nonplussed: where can I find exactly this (presumed) G5 rule or whatever? (A link or URL would assist my education...) BushelCandle (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The full policy can be found at WP:G5.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 10:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your speedy response and for those great links, Kieran207. If I have understood those pages correctly, I have deduced that this article is NOT eligible for a G5 deletion because it it has substantial edits by others - specifically 12 others (including myself). --BushelCandle (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. The only sources which give any coverage about him are about his assassination, which would fall under WP:BIO1E.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage for WP:GNG needs to take into account the demographic bias of en.Wikipedia editors and sources. We have a mainstream Ethiopian media source, Borkena, that reports on Yemane and his leadership of a group opposed to the former dominating party in Ethiopia, the TPLF; this is not only about the assassination itself. We have a major Oromo media source, Kichuu, reporting on Yemane being sufficiently independent that several groups disliked his leadership of part of the Tigrayan opposition. Both mainstream sources state that Yemane was killed for his political activities. The mainstream sources are currently reasonably widely used in en.Wikipedia for Ethiopia-related topics, showing that many editors consider these reliable, even though nobody has created the sources' Wikipedia articles yet; the red linking is reasonably associated with the systematic demographic bias on en.Wikipedia. WP:BIO1E is only about the question of whether the article on a noticeable person/event should be rather on the person or rather on the event; it's not an argument to delete the overall topic. Keep in mind that since early November 2020 the Tigray War with a near-total blockade on most forms of communication has been in place. This is not the UK.Wikipedia or the US.Wikipedia; this is an English language encyclopedia aimed to cover information about the whole world. Boud (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he's so notable, then find the sources! This Isn't about bias, this is about an article that doesn't comply with WP:V, who's subject fails GNG.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Boud is spot-on in highlighting the demographic bias of en.Wikipedia editors and sources and the existence of coverage in mainstream Ethiopian media sources that have a limited web and English language presence. The suspicion of many in the region is that Yemane Niguse was notable enough to warrant assassination to prevent his influence growing further. BushelCandle (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further focus on sources brought up later during the discussion may help generate a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 15:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search turned up nothing outside of what was in the article already. Likely a non-notable activist that only received attention for dying. And before you talk about my bias, FIND THE SOURCES. If sources for him exist in a language I don't understand, then find them and add them to the article.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 01:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cocnur with Boud; claim that WP:BIO1E applies is incorrect, Niguse's role prior to his assassination is notable, evidenced by reporting of the Fenkil Movement. It's also reasonable in this case to take account of the censorship restrictions in place and the difficulty in finding multiple sourcing to overwhelmingly satisfy the GNG. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 19:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable enough. Doesn't comply with WP:Notability (politics). Ragmuffin-AGASTOPIA (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of these exceptionally difficult AfDs where it's nearly impossible to make a determination based on English sources and available non-English sources. Failing NPOL doesn't mean you can't otherwise be notable. Going only by the sources in the article, he probably does fail WP:BIO1E, but the sources aren't so bad that a neutral article can't be written about him. If there's anything else written on him, which wouldn't be in English, he's probably notable enough for an article. I don't find myself agreeing with the delete !voters, but can't defend a source-based keep !vote due to the difficulties in finding sources. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall, the discussion is on the fence leaning keep, but history has shown us that well established bands always end up with articles on their individual albums, and while the sourcing could be better, editors here have shown it does exist. It seems pointless to redirect when we all know that many sources will exist in a couple of weeks discussing the album, good or bad. That said, creating articles too soon can be problematic, as this proves. Where it is out of excitement or to get your name in the first edit slot, it generally isn't helpful and leads to AFDs like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blood in the Water (album)

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

Not notable yet, little more that a track listing. Noah ^💬 17:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 17:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Months before release sourcing already almost meets GNG, there's already enough there to add to the article, band is notable. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because this article has more than one reference doesn't mean the album itself is less "notable". It's somewhat *notable" for featuring a new bassist who had joined Flotsam and Jetsam (also categorized as "notable") several months ago. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, nothing more than a track listing. racecar d (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flotsam and Jetsam (band) until it is out. No evidence of this album being notable. 172.58.19.148 (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUMS. There are no WP:RS for the album itself. The two sources cited in the article are almost identical. The first says "hired a bassist, working on an album" followed by the band's press release, the second says "album's done" followed by the same press release; neither speaks to album per se. The article is WP:PROMO and should be deleted. A redirect to the band is a bad idea. A redirect should "help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read", but there's a disambiguation page for "Blood in the Water" and another album with the same title (and once a WP article; PRODed)~~, so Blood in the Water (album) should redirect to Blood in the Water~~; this album can be added to the DAB page once it's released. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't completely think that last bit through. What I should have said is, no redirect from Blood in the Water (album) at all and prevent another article with that name from being created. (Is that possible?) If this article survives AfD, move it to Blood in the Water (Flotsam and Jetsam album) Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yappy2bhere: That's actually a good idea. The moving this article to Blood in the Water (Flotsam and Jetsam album) part, I mean. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, album is as notable as all the others by the band, sources are there and there is definitely more to come soon.--Iconicos (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The previous two albums charted, satisfying WP:NALBUMS. The three preceding them didn't chart but were each reviewed two or three times, sneaking past the WP:GNG. The album before those merited just one brief review, failing WP:GNG but still more notable than this album about which nothing of substance has been said by a WP:RS. So no, not as notable as all the others. Two articles from a single website consisting of a paragraph lede followed by a press release is by no means "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Don't speculate, show us the sources. Yappy2bhere (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everything is accurate and confirmed (title, release date and track list) by Flotsam and Jetsam themselves, both on their official website and social media accounts, including Facebook and Twitter. 2600:1700:46B0:3CC0:9553:1F3:4ACF:E385 (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:46B0:3CC0:9553:1F3:4ACF:E385: I know that it's accurate, what I'm saying is it isn't actually notable. Noah ^💬 21:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Accurate and confirmed?" Until the album is actually released it's merely WP:CRYSTAL. Yappy2bhere (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flotsam and Jetsam (band) until the album is released, then, if it passes GNG, it can be recreated. As of right now, it doesn't meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per onel5969. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This album may not be "notable", but Flotsam and Jetsam is. It was Jason Newsted's band before he replaced Cliff Burton in Metallica as their bassist. 172.58.19.174 (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Blood in the Water (Flotsam and Jetsam album): It has received some coverage recently. Aside from Blabbermouth, I found a few reliable sources which confirm the album's release date and track listing: [15], [16] and [17]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:FUTUREALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. WP:FUTUREALBUM says "satisfy the WP:GNG, and not before "title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". The latter isn't a substitute for satisfying WP:GNG but rather an additional constraint. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yappy2bhere, I've done a WP:BEFORE. The sources indicated by an IP user are additional constraints, while the ones I indicated, including Blabbermouth, definitely comply with WP:GNG and WP:FUTUREALBUM. I should know. I read them before posting them here. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the subject meet WP:GNG? A detailed source analysis instead of an assertion of meeting or not meeting a notability guideline is likely needed here for a consensus to form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above. Sources presented are definitely reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per previous. Please focus discussion on whether the amount of source material available about this subject does or does not indicate that it would pass the GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per onel5969. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as there have been coverage about the album itself and its singles and music videos from several reputable metal sources, plus the two Blabbermouth cites currently in the article 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article's creator jumped the gun and it was not necessary to start the article so early, but if we delete it now it would be recreated in 5-6 weeks anyway. For the time being it has two non-trivial stories in Blabbermouth, among other outlets, and that counts as reliable coverage under WP:NALBUM #1. The article should certainly be expanded after the album is released, because it will probably receive some useful reviews thanks to the band's name recognition. No opinion on re-titling the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"it would be" and "will probably" is WP:CRYSTAL. The Blabbermouth coverage is trivial, as explained above--two press releases with a paragraph intro each. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concede to your point on the "crystal" standard for possible future reviews, but predicting that the article will be recreated is based on pure Wikipedia experience. I disagree with you on "trivial". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Ziade

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Note that it is a different person to the previous AFD however. The article creator has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was unable to find suitable coverage to establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF. --hroest 17:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scopus says he has an h-index of 5 and 77 total citations. Unless there's GNG somewhere he is far from notable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Still a long way from notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete As nom said, doesn't meet WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although this feels like piling on, simply does not meet WP:NPROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per above, fails WP:NPROF --Whiteguru (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a complete failure of our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:PROF. I don't think we've ever kept an article about an untenured, assistant professor. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurukkoli Moideen

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

A politician who is only a candidate in the upcoming Kerala election. Basically fails NPOL as the subject has been never elected into any legislative bodies in the past. There is also no significant coverage. Hence fails GNG also. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The subject is not notable according to GNG. Iflaq ^(talk) 17:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won, and this article does not suggest that he would pass any other notability criterion independently of having to pass NPOL. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is clear he has been elected to a lot of local service organisations and sanghas in Kerala. However, he has not been elected to any state or national body, so fails WP:NPOL --Whiteguru (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for office who have not been elected are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete He is Indian politician of Indian Union Muslim League

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/iuml-releases-list-of-candidates/article34053385.ece

He currently Editor-in-Chief 'Swathanthra Karshakan' Magazine https://find.uoc.ac.in/Record/ch.6734He currently serves as president of Swathanthra Karshaka Sangham Kerala State He is the selected UDF candidate to contest for the Member of Legislative Assembly seat from Tirur constituency

https://thehinduimages.com/details-page.php?id=144433764&highlights=SWATHANTHRA%2520KARSHAKA%2520SANGHAM

Don't delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3917:607D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a candidate to contest an MLA seat is not a reason why a person gets a Wikipedia article — politicians get articles on here when they win election to, and thereby actually hold, a notable political office, not just because they ran as a candidate. Being a magazine editor is not a reason why a person gets a Wikipedia article — magazine editors get articles when they've been the subject of critical analysis about the significance of their work as magazine editors, not just because you show a photograph of them doing their job. And new comments in AFD discussions go at the bottom of the page, not the top. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midas Interactive Entertainment

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

Zero sourcing found, only 100 results for the name on Google. Parent company is a redlink. Most of the video games listed are not notable or only have stub articles, suggesting a possible WP:WALLED Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looking around, the company is only ever mentioned in connection with one or another game it published (mostly in old mags from the Internet Archive). This is the only reliable source I found that gives a bit more than two words on the topic, but even here it is discussed in WP:PASSING by what is already a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL article. Whether all of the games it published are unnotable, I cannot say yet, but given that Midas mostly deals/dealt with budget games, this can probably be assumed. IceWelder [✉] 18:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Despite not being named like one, this is basically a list. As a list, I think it just scrapes by the (somewhat ill-defined) list notability guidelines: It's a meaningful and useful category with at least some notable members whose membership can be reliably sourced. ApLundell (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero sourcing found" is just as much as a problem for list articles as it is any other article, so I'm not quite sure I follow your rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's not *literally* zero sources available. The published games themselves constitute first-party sources that would justify inclusion in a list or category. (I realize that without third-party sources discussing the importance of the category overall, this argument depends on the vagueness of the LISTN guidelines, so I certainly don't insist on it. It's just how I would look at it, if it were up to me.) ApLundell (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that the GNG would still apply here regardless. Your comment seemed to suggest otherwise. It also seemed to suggest WP:USEFUL was a reason to keep an article too. I'm just letting you know neither are. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like there's far from a clear consensus that USEFUL applies to lists. The list notability guidelines say "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", and that matches my observations about how deletion discussions about lists go. That is the context for my original comment that this might scrape through the LISTN guidelines since they're pretty wide open to interpretation. ApLundell (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit of a reach, especially considering it's not actually even a list article, in title or structure. Nor do I think that's a plausible conversion, as it's rare to have a "List of games published by X" article when "X" doesn't have their own separate company article. We're moving into dangerous territory where we allow the scenario of "Well the subject doesn't meet the GNG but there's a useful list in the middle of the article so let's keep it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find the sourcing to satisfy the WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sergecross' comments. Namcokid 47 18:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of all the things I can find on Google on this company, most are online retailers or databases, with the only other ones being their official website and a user-contributed wiki about Dingo Pictures, so it fails WP:GNG. Dominicmgm (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons cited above. Northern Escapee (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be a near-complete lack of third-party sources, and it seems to lack notoriety. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There simply aren't reliable sources to support this, as others have pointed out, so it's got to go! DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Najeeb Kanthapuram

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

A politician who fails NPOL as he has been never elected into any legislative bodies. Also does not have any sigcov thus failing GNG also Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won, and this article does not suggest that he would pass any other notability criterion independently of having to pass NPOL. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and does not have enough coverage outside of his campaign to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can be renamed if desired. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gillman

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

Fails WP:GNG not finding any in-depth coverage of him. Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:NAUTHOR as the author of quite a few important books about mountaineering history, especially the Eiger and Mount Everest. His biography of George Mallory, reviewed by Publisher's Weekly, was made into a documentary film by the National Geographic Society. The article needs work, but he is a notable author. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a review of the film based on one of his books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a review by Publisher's Weekly of his biography of David Bowie. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DGG, who removed the PROD for this article back in 2011 and seems to already be familiar with this matter. Personally, I vote Weak keep, as the subject seems to be just notable enough under WP:AUTHOR. To add marginally to what Cullen328 noted, Gillman's work on Bowie has been cited by The Times and The Telegraph as well. Comment for those performing WP:BEFORE: this Peter Gillman not to be confused with Peter Gilman (single 'l'), who was also an author. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as cleanup of the article itself goes, I think the only major cleanup this article needs is to be made less reliant on primary sources as opposed to a typical WP:TNT situation with undisclosed autobiographies. Furthermore, the subject seems to be WP:HERE. It's true that they have been prompted at least twice – once on their talk page and once on the Teahouse – to add a COI disclosure to their page, and they really need to read and abide by Wikipedia:Verifiability, but their editing history to me is unmistakably one of wanting to contribute what they know to the project, not of using it as a means of promotion. Therefore, I believe with proper guidance, they could chip in as well. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question for more experienced editors: would it be reasonable to move this article to Peter and Leni Gillman? Based on the sources Cullen and I are using, Leni seems almost precisely as notable as Peter and for the exact same reasons, and it feels like creating a separate article for Leni would be a borderline WP:REDUNDANTFORK given what sources we have about them. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly a possibility, TheTechnician27, since his wife has been his co-author for many years. But my subjective opinion is that his most important book was "Eiger Direct: The Epic Battle on the North Face" which he co-authored with famed mountaineer Dougal Haston in 1966. That book has been issued with title variations in different countries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has written significant books, and that's wenough to meet WP:AUTHOR. There does not seem to be any promotionalism in hte present version of the article. I think it would beenough to have a redirect for Leni, using the same argument as Cullen328-- she is not acoauthoro f his most important book. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Went ahead and made the redirect at Leni Gillman. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to Peter and Leni Gillman, as they appear to generally write as a team. pburka (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Not seeing strong arguments for keeping or deleting based on notability grounds and it seems like further discussion will not happen. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balut (game)

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

Seems like this game exists, but unsure if it has notability. Needs additional references, perhaps in Danish? Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep I guess? Sources seem to show it's a significant game. Sources are a bit odd (one comes from what seems like a country club hosted on a weird host for such a thing) but seem legit. It looks like Yahtzee, but it has an interesting history and appears to have a serious following in Singapore among other places. As games go, I give it a 2/10, but that's not the measure here. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely documented, and there might well be enough independent sourcing for a biography of Eddie Woolbright, which I have left dangling, too. The original Danish content is somewhat misleading. Look to the Philippines.
- Oaminal, Clarence Paul (2015-07-08). "Woolbright Drive, Beverly Hills, Cebu City". The Freeman.
Uncle G (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, partly because it seems well-enough sourced, but more because the Eddie Woolbright article would be an orphan without it until someone starts an article on Beverly Hills Cebu or Annie Corrales. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 23:05, 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 keep. Sandstein 07:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veena Sood

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. This was deleted by PROD in 2018 for lacking WP:GNG-worthy sources and then recreated in 2020, but the sources present now aren't an improvement: out of six footnotes, three are IMDb-style film directories that aren't support for notability at all, two are podcasts and the only one that actually comes from a real media outlet just briefly namechecks her existence in an article about her cousin Ashwin's divorce from Sarah McLachlan, and thus isn't about Veena for the purposes of establishing Veena's notability. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have articles just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test requires evidence of third-party media coverage about her to establish the significance of her performances, not just film directories and interviews where she's talking about herself in the first person on podcasts. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she is an award winning[18] (UBCP/ACTRA’s Sam Payne Award in 2014, the Lorena Gale Woman of Distinction Award in 2017, a 2018 Leo Award nomination for Best Performance in a Music, Comedy, or Variety Program or Series, and a 2019 recipient of The North Shore Fund Award and The Sam Payne Award for her accomplishments as an actress, and contributions to the creative community) and internationally recognized actress, who was given 131 credits for her TV show appearances in about 20 years and appeared in 27 movies. She was named among 100 most influential people in BC. [19]. Everytime she is mentioned in a piece of new she is referred as an award winning actress. [20]. I think the sum of all of the above easily let her pass WP:ANYBIO in my books. Kolma8 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not every award that exists is always an automatic "notable because award-winning" freebie. In order to be an award that makes its winners notable for winning it, that award has to be a top-level award that gets broad media coverage — Oscar, Emmy, BAFTA, Canadian Screen Award, that sort of thing — and ANYBIO does not just indiscriminately keep everybody who's ever won just any award that exists. All of the awards you named in your rationale would be perfectly fine to mention in an article that was well-sourced, but exactly zero of them are "inherently" notable enough to exempt Veena Sood from having to pass WP:GNG on her sourceability just because the body text has the word "award" in it.

And when it comes to "notable because she's had roles", even that still requires reliable source coverage about her and her performances, and is not automatically passed just because any particular number of roles can be listed. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Seems to be a notable actress but sources may not be reliable , add more related sources. Georgeart01 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources you've added haven't changed anything. We're not just looking for sources that glancingly verify the fact that she's had roles, by briefly mentioning her name in a film's cast list but failing to contain any substantive content about her performance — we're looking for sources that single her out for special attention that goes well above and beyond just having her name mentioned in them: news articles about her, film reviews that zero in on her performance being a standout part of the film, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to me like a borderline case for meeting GNG, but just on the right side. Some sources I found:

Calgary's own comedy: 40 years of hilarity with Loose Moose; Newspaper; August 18, 2017 | StarMetro Calgary (Alberta, Canada); Author: Aaron Chatha. (Article is about Loose Moose - includes some paragraphs about Sood.)
Performing Asian Canadian in Vancouver; Yhap, Beverly.Canadian Theatre Review Iss. 85, (Winter 1995): 5-8. (Sood was one of four people interviewed for the article, again some paragraphs specifically relating to her.)
FEELING MINNEAPOLIS - CANDIDATE CO-STAR HAS PRINCELY TIE; July 26, 2004; Calgary Sun, The (Alberta, Canada); Author: LOUIS B. HOBSON, CALGARY SUN. (Around 350 words specifically about Sood)
There are also some brief commentaries on her performances in periodicals like The Village Voice and Variety, which wouldn't be enough to meet GNG on their own.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Saul

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

Non-notable or not-yet-notable journalist. After discussions with the page’s creator, who has done extensive research, we were unable to identify significant coverage in secondary RS beyond a single source (Yahoo). This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON; for now the entry relies almost entirely on primary sources and does not meet wiki notability threshold. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The discussion of sources can be found at Talk:Isaac Saul. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough coverage actually about Saul to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnpacklambert: since I'm still not a very experienced editor, and this was my first major article, do you mind explaining why this is? I thought that in particular three of the sources that I included justified this for publication:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/voter-fraud-debunking-journalist-isaac-saul-talks-about-his-viral-election-thread-and-why-the-conspiracy-theories-put-poll-workers-in-danger/ar-BB1bewmv
https://www.yahoo.com/news/16-people-who-shaped-the-2016-election-isaac-saul-175336283.html
https://www.forbes.com/next1000/

And then, there are the sources for his career in Ultimate on top of that. Do you mind explaining why you don't think it's ready? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Establishing notability for journalists is fundamentally difficult because news organizations don't want them to be the story. It looks like we have two qualifying sources ([21] (this WP:INTERVIEW has a substantial introduction), [22]). ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically the notability requirement is for secondary sources tho no? (I’m speaking just of what I understand consensus to be—and actually that’s what that essay says—but I guess I’d have to think over what I think the ideal policy would be on primary sources of this type.) Innisfree987 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Innisfree987, Per WP:INTERVIEW: commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material ~Kvng (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - - My apologies, I thought you meant the interview itself was a substantial introduction (to Saul). I take it you were talking about what prefaces it. Agree for sure about regarding that as secondary but have to disagree that it’s substantial—it’s just a few sentences. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that he's notable (yet, perhaps?) The Yahoo piece is pretty minor and afaict, has no byline and the interview isn't enough to satisfy independence of the source, nor coverage of him. TAXIDICAE💰 18:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did want to add that I found a new source covering the election fraud Twitter thread that does not include an interview: https://www.freepressjournal.in/world/us-elections-2020-journalists-mega-thread-debunking-trump-campaigns-fraud-claim-is-viral-read-here. Also, here's another interview that I found (I know that these aren't considered high-quality sources on their own, but there are a lot of him, and every one of them includes a blurb before the interview itself): https://braverangels.org/tangle-reimagining-political-news-isaac-saul-with-ciaran-oconnortangle-reimagining-political-news-isaac-saul-with-ciaran-oconnor/. Does this help at all? Also, isn't the Forbes source stronger than the Yahoo one anyway? Thank you! Kokopelli7309 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough secondary coverage independent from him either in this AfD or in the article to sustain an article on WP:GNG grounds, for instance the sources include his writings for Huffpost, personal interviews, and a Forbes piece (which doesn't contribute to notability due to the consensus on Forbes and self-publication.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looks borderline after 2 relists, hoping for more people to take a look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kokopelli7309, I see no one has replied about those additional sources, so my two cents: despite the header, the Free Press source is really about Trump and only has a passing mention of Saul. Prose before interviews can be helpful as Kvng was saying, but for AfD purposes we’re looking for material that’s gone through an editorial process, fact-checking, etc. and to me it’s not clear the podcast blurbs fit the bill. So for me these don’t change much, as far as giving us more to go on that’s not Saul’s own writing/commentary, but I appreciate your looking for more sources! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:05, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Kuligowski

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable fotographer, meeting GNG. 1, 2, 3. Described as “was one of the most astonishing photographers of the 70s and 80s. He had been one of the four photographers with Bernard Descamps, Bernard Plossu and Bruno Requillart to be exhibited by Jean-Claude Lemagny at the Bibliotheque Nationale in 1975. The following year, he won the Niepce Prize.” SportsOlympic (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Eddie Kuligowski was a well-known mid-century photographer. The French Wikipedia says he’s in these four collections (which would be an easy WP:NARTIST pass): Bibliothèque nationale de France; Musée Nicéphore-Niépce; Musée Réattu; Musée Cantini. I found that he has numerous photos in the collection of the Biblioteque Nationale de France: [23] ~~But the three museums either don’t have a searchable database for their collections or couldn’t be verified.~~ However, I did find that his work is in the Centre Pompidou:[24] There are at least three monographs on his work. All of the above combined with the Prix Niépce, I’d have to say he’s notable. There are a lot of hits on Google Books, for example Claude Nori’s 1979 book, “French Photography, from Its Origins to the Present”; a few things on Newspapers.com; and a journal article in the March 1978 edition of French Review on JSTOR stating that he was one of a small group of photographers who represented France as a cultural ambassador to the U.S. So also meets WP:GNG The article should be retained and improved but not deleted from the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC) - All five collections (4 of which are museum collections) now have citations. Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:NARTIST.--- Possibly (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NARTIST with collections in Bibliothèque nationale de France; Musée Nicéphore-Niépce; Musée Réattu; Musée Cantini. Ut sic, Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Here, the keeping arguments have not properly addressed the deletion arguments fully, so comparatively the deletion arguments weigh more. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draw My Life

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Draw My Life

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

Does not warrant its own article per WP:GNG. None of the sources discuss the subject in question directly. Not enough significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Relies mostly on primary sources. Throast (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have a lot of coverage. The BBC:

Draw My Life: Lindsey Russell | Blue Peter presenter - CBBC - BBC www.bbc.co.uk › cbbc › watch › bp-draw-my-life-lindsey It's Lindsey's turn to take a stroll down memory lane in her very own Draw My Life. See her life unfold in this unique animation that captures her amazingly!
Draw my life | Blue Peter presenter | Richie Driss - CBBC - BBC www.bbc.co.uk › cbbc › watch › bp-richie-draw-my-life Richie gets his very own Draw My Life where you can find put about all the amazing things he's done! From his adorable pet cow Lucky, to his adventures across ...
https://www.hollywoodinsider.com/conan-gray-music-youtube-tiktok/ explains Draw My Life was a social media trend that creatives participated in where they’d tell their life story in whiteboard illustrations. Google news search show a very large number of results, this just a common thing people do, and the media comments on.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/199388-watch-hermione-grangers-life-story-through-drawings-in-this-incredible-video
https://filmmakermagazine.com/108931-sitting-in-front-of-that-whiteboard-for-two-days-joe-came-up-with-some-hilarious-and-strange-drawings-eugene-kotlyarenko-spree/#.YGZduzxOmM8 states how effective they are to help understand a character and the film they were making.

So I believe this proves it is a real thing, with ample coverage in the media to deserve its own article. Dream Focus 00:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 00:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree for the reasons stated above. The article needs to be improved by incorporating those better sources, but they do exist. The notability disclaimers currently on there have that covered for the time being. Internetronic (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with sources indicated above. It's a typical topic done by several YouTubers. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Max Hechtman

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFILMMAKER. The article was deleted in the past, but re-created. Really, there is not enough for a BLP for this filmmaker, one nomination for his short, some student work, that short, that is even by itself not that notable. Kolma8 (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article was recreated by HM2021, who was essentially a sole editor of the article in question. The same user also is heavily extending Max's associated articles, such as Abigail_(2019_short_film), which by itself probably needs to be evaluated on meeting WP:NFILM. Thanks Kolma8 (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since the prior AfD still doesn't meet WP:NFILMMAKER. All the issues from the prior AfD still apply, and nothing they have done since 2017 contributes to notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Dratify Until filmmaker reaches notability, dratify it so we don't lose the information and sources presented in the article.HM2021 7:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment' @HM2021: as a general rule a BLP article of a non-notable person must be deleted. See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE in WP:NOT. By the way, are you related to the subject of the article? Kolma8 (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for filmmakers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jared L. Valanzola

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

WP:BLP of a county councillor and local radio host, not adequately referenced as passing our notability standards for politicians or broadcasters. As always, neither serving on a county council nor hosting a local radio program in a single media market are "automatic" notability freebies that guarantee the right to an article in and of themselves, but the article is not referenced well enough to make him notable for those things -- two of the four footnotes here are primary sources (his staff profiles on the self-published websites of the county council and the radio station) that are not support for notability at all, while the two that come from media just namecheck his existence within coverage of the county council election as a whole, and thus aren't evidence that he's somehow more notable than all the other county councillors and/or candidates whose names also appear in those two articles. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than just technical verification that he exists as a person who has jobs. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, Valanzola is a county commissioner, not a county councilor. This is not the same job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverArmour (talk • contribs) 15:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The job title that a county government uses for its members makes absolutely zero difference to our notability criteria for politicians, because regardless of whether the county government is called a "council" or a "commission", it's still a county government, which is still a local office where people do not get an automatic presumption of notability just for holding it. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In some places the county commission has both legislative and executive power, so yes they are not the same. But this is Massachusetts, where very little power at all is in the county, so having legislative and executive power at that level still amounts to next to nothing. In the US terms county council, county commissioner, county judge, and county legilstor are all used. County Judges are almost all executives, but there are often multiple ones, in Utah County, Utah with roughly 300,000 people, maybe more, they have 3 county comissioners, so this is clearly an executive and legislative function, it is like how Bull Connor was one of the city comissioners in Birmingham, Alabama, he was part of a three member executive authority. However in Macomb County, Michigan before we got a county executive we had I think an 18 member county commission, for reasons I understand even less we made it smaller when we got county executive. However the county commission in Macomb County had less than full executive power, since the sheriff (over police operations on the county level and the jail system), the prosecutor (Michigan has county prosecutors instead of state district attorneys, which means the counties are the local level of crime enforcement for prosecution, the Wayne County Prosecutor, Kym Worthy is without question notable, some states divide prosecutorial districts in ways that ignore county lines, thus lessening county power), the clerk and the tresurerer, and I think even the assessor are all directly elected. I really thought the new charter should have made less of these postions directly elected and if anything increased the number of comissioners. I think Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties should rename their comissioners councilors. In Utah, Salt Lake County, which has a county mayor, also has a county council, so if you compare that to neighboring Utah county you see they are using the words with their historic meanings, in Macomb County the county seat, Mount Clemens, Michigan, is run by a commission, Warren, Michigan has a mayor/council set up, while Sterling Heights and Eastpointe have a council/city manager set up, although in Sterling Heights the mayor is directly elected to that position, but he is just the chair of the city council with any extra function fully ceremonial. The fact the other 6 members of the council are elected at large, while the mayor is elected in a one person election and the mayorial term and the council terms are the same length means that at times mayors run unopposed, because it is easier to get elected if you run for the council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Our consensus has long been that county politicians are not presumed to be notable, and a Google news search brings up nothing except election results. Plymouth isn't even a particularly large county. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails all the relevant notability criteria, and that's even before taking into consideration that county office is not deemed presumptively notable, that even with that county government in New England is quite weak compared to the rest of the US, and that county government in Massachusetts in particular is vestigial: in most of the state the counties have been abolished as anything other than geographical references. Plymouth County's one of about three exceptions, and even there the county commissioners don't do much more than oversee the county lockup. Whoop-de-doo. Ravenswing 22:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pburka.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: County councillors or commissioners (i.e., local government) do not inherit notability from WP:POLITICIAN --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where in the US are county commissioners default notable, in Massachusetts they are pretty much default not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Best of Luck Nikki. Consensus was that the article fails WP:V and WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murtuza Kutianawala

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

Unsourced Biography of Living Person and the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Iflaq ^(talk) 12:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iflaq ^(talk) 12:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore redirect to Best of Luck Nikki, which is the only semi-significant role by this actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is a biogrpahy of a living person with no sources, we need to remove it with all possible haste.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore redirect to Best of Luck Nikki as per above. Citterz (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Edinger

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, mostly primary sources. Sources cover him but not in a substantial way. Throast (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I can see, this page passes Wikipedia's general inclusion threshold. From reading through the 18 sources listed, one is on the BBC radio interviewing him directly about his life as a YouTube star and another by the SWLondoner interviews him about his his worklife which lends to the notability which is in question. That BBC report as well as the 2 inclusions on the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire Show fulfill verifyability. Further references in Mashable and other online publications definitely seem to aid in the notability requirement, so I do not think this page suits the criteria required for deletion as stated. It could definitely use a cleanup though. For instance, possibly by replacing the primary source listed for his hometown with one of the large number of secondary sources found upon a cursory search, but a lot of those sites appear to be content aggregators so I wouldn't class them as too reliable. But as far as I can tell, most info on this page seems to be cited by the aforementioned reliable secondary sources.TwinTelepathy (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion on whether specific sources count towards WP:SIGCOV can help develop a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search resulted in several meaningful coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources such as a review on his digital content by New Media Rockstars at [[25]], a review on Favorite Evan Edinger moments by Ten Eighty Magazine at [[26]], and a story of his career by American Expat Finance at [[27]]. Believe subject satisfies WP:SIGCOV which states "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, subject is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roulisegee (talk • contribs) 2021-04-09T18:30:44 (UTC)
Keep per TwinTelepathy, the other editor (who left their comment unsigned), and the prior AfD. See Yash!'s comment. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 09:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbagetown Group Softball League

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

Article about a neighbourhood amateur sports league, not referenced to any evidence of reliable source coverage about it for the purposes of establishing its notability under our inclusion standards for sports organizations. The only sources here are its own self-published website about itself and an archival fonds of its own internal organizational papers (reaggregated on two different websites, but the same fonds). But the existence of an archival fonds is not a notability criterion in and of itself -- for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, the notability test is a question of the extent to which the organization has or hasn't been the subject of journalistic coverage in media, of which none has been shown and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to show any. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this meets GNG, and all of the sources ultimately seem to derive from the league. Eldumpo (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nominated. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and certainly not WP:NBASEBALL. PK T(alk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaghosham

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: On doing WP:Before in both Malayalam and English, I found nothing. May be its due to the age of this film. Sources may exist somewhere else in any format. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing to support an article on WP. Kolma8 (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If a redirect is desired, one can be created (and perhaps contested) separately. Sandstein 07:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween (Dreamworld)

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

Lacks notability. Sources to press releases repeated by sources of dubious importance/reliability, and to primary sources. Every theme park has these theme weeks, months, events, and they all announce them as something special. That doesn't mean that they actually get significant attention (i.e. beyond sources repeating or rehashing these press releases). Fram (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful and sourced to Dreamworld (Australia) per WP:ATD. Deus et lex (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: the current article lacks sources needed to establish notability, and there's no reason to assume that more/better sources exist. Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what about WP:ATD - why is a merge or redirect not inappropriate? Deus et lex (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No objection, but this seems an unlikely search term. Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The search term will probably be "Happy Halloween" so could be included on a disambig page or at the top of another main article. Deus et lex (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to a lack of participation. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Courte

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

Biography of a journalist and activist, not adequately referenced as passing our inclusion standards for journalists or activists. The only references here are the biographical sketches attached to an archival fonds and a portrait -- but neither having his personal papers preserved as an archival fonds nor the existence of a portrait are notability claims in and of themselves, and none of the work summarized in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have been the subject of actual reliable source coverage by journalists in media outlets or books. And even on a WP:BEFORE search for other sources, all I can find is a couple of glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things, with no evidence of any sources that are actually about him for the purposes of establishing his notability. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has a lengthy entry here in Who's who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History: From World War II to the Present Day by Robert Aldrich and was an Honor Roll Inductee in 1998 for his work with AIDS for the Ontario AIDS Network (link here). His papers/fonds are held in The ArQuives and they have a biography on him here. He has additional fonds at the Quebec Gay Archives (link here), and they also have a biography on him here. The ArQuives states "Everyone who worked in the gay and lesbian community in the 1980s remembers Bernard Courte, journalist for Le Berdache... He was also one of the founding members and then Editor-in-Chief of the magazine Sortie... He was one of the first in Montréal to truly understand the importance of AIDS and its impact upon gay people." (link here). When Gary Kinsman interviewed Ross Higgins, Higgins called Courte a "crucial figure" and "very instrumental in the francophone community in Toronto" (link here). --Kbabej (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being inducted into an organization's own proprietary "honour roll" is not an automatic notability freebie in itself, especially if you have to rely on the organization's own self-published website to source the claim because journalistic coverage about it is non-existent — in order for any award or honour to make its winners notable for winning it, it has to be an award that gets media coverage to establish its notability, so you have to be able to source the claim to journalism in media, where somebody wrote a news article about the presentation of that award, before it counts as a notability claim.

Having his papers held by archives is not a notability claim per se, and the biographical sketches attached to those archives' collections of his papers are not notability-making sources — because by virtue of directly holding a collection of his personal papers, the archives are not fully independent of him.

Transcripts of Q&A interviews, held in PDF form in the private website of an organization and not published in real media, are not notability-supporting sources, and being editor-in-chief of a magazine is not an "inherently" notable job that guarantees a Wikipedia article in the absence of any WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about him.

Notability is not a question of simply being able to show primary sources, like interview transcripts or the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, as technical verification that he did stuff — it lives or dies on the amount of third party journalism that has or hasn't been published about him and the things he's done in media. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I don't agree with your assessment completely, but that's neither here nor there, as I've located additional sources (below) that are standalone news articles in a notable publication. Those, combined with his entry in Who's who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History: From World War II to the Present Day, meet GNG in my opinion. --Kbabej (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found two newspaper articles on newspapers.com. There's an in-depth article on his views on AIDS by Heather Hill of the Montreal Gazette called "AIDS plague spawns epidemic of defeat" (August 13, 1983) (paywalled); there's another in the Montreal Gazette on if the Gazette had been biased in their coverage of a gay story when Courte complained in the article "No bias found in homosexual story: council" (June 10, 1986) (again, paywalled). --Kbabej (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see in my nomination statement, where I said "all I can find is a couple of glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things"? Congratulations, you just found the exact same two articles I was talking about.

They don't change anything, though. "AIDS plague spawns epidemic of defeat" just briefly quotes him as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is the HIV virus, and "No bias found in homosexual story" just mentions his name as the plaintiff in a press council complaint about the tenor of other news reportage in the Montreal Gazette. Neither of them are about him for the purposes of helping to make him notable — we're not looking for how many sources we can find that happen to glancingly namecheck his existence, we're looking for how many sources we can find that have him as their subject: news articles about him winning notable distinctions, critical analysis about the significance of his work, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Additional sources: Xtra reported Courte was one of the inductees in Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archive’s National Portrait Gallery in 2003 (link here). The same organization also holds a shirt with Courte's likeness on it; the same shirt is listed in the Wearing Gay History project (link here). --Kbabej (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which are article-clinching notability claims in the absence of GNG-worthy coverage about him. (The Xtra piece, frex, just glancingly mentions his name in the process of being about Denis Leblanc, and thus is not building Bernard Courte's notability as he is not the subject being written about.) Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely adds toward notability, as the subject is important enough to be added to the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archive’s National Portrait Gallery in 2003. It seems obvious you’re embedded in your position no matter what sources are presented, so I won’t go back and forth any more about this. —Kbabej (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia notability criterion in which "a portrait of him is held in an archive's proprietary commissioned collection" confers an automatic notability freebie that would exempt a person from having to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG. I'm not "embedded in my position no matter what sources are presented", you're failing to show any sources that are about Bernard Courte doing anything that meets a Wikipedia notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 20 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 Withdrawn It appears that the article FC Dinamo Sukhum was redirected too FC Dinamo Sukhumi and more extensive history was there. (non-admin closure) Govvy (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FC Dinamo Sukhum

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

Appears to be an amateur team as far as I can see, I don't see enough for WP:FOOTYN. Sources are very weak. I also feel this AfD is testing the waters a bit as I don't really know football in Abkhazia, Georgia. But as far as I can see, Georgia has top four levels, and this team appears to play below that level and is regional. However there seems to be indication that football in Abkhazia region maybe being played independently of the main state of Georgia. Govvy (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, team with very limited coverage playing in regional league. Giant Snowman 15:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep Of all the Abkhazian teams you could have picked to AfD, this one is the most confusing since they could easily be confused with Dinamo Sukhumi, which is an Abkhazian team which plays in the Georgian league system. A "Dinamo Sukhumi" also played in the Soviet second division in 1991 and I cannot figure out if this team is new, related, or recreated to play in Abkhazia while the other team went off to play in Georgia. The Abkhazian system I believe is completely separate from the Georgian football system so they play in a quasi-top-flight league. Receives local coverage [28] (youth tournament, the first one I found - I don't think Sputnik is considered reliable, but I don't see why this would be unreliable) and have won local honours. I also searched for Naft Sukhum in Russian and found coverage of the league, so my assumption is that WP:GNG would be met, but this is not straightforward due to language and political difficulties. SportingFlyer T·C 15:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baháʼí Faith in Chad

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

Entire article is based on Baha'i sources. There are only a very few secondary sources that mentions the subject in a trivial fashion. Fails WP:SIGCOV Serv181920 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Graham Hassall, Moojan Momen, and Peter Smith are professional scholars who have published a number of materials in various professional journals as have others such as those cited. Statistics from demographic encyclopedias (Religious Intelligence, ARDA, Adherents.com) as well as the US State Department show notable population.Smkolins (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with Christianity in Chad which is almost completely from a single source from the US State department and two demographic encyclopedias and Islam in Chad which depends on two US Federal sources, one academic and one semi-demographic encyclopedia.Smkolins (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fine, but this article is almost totally dependent on Baha'i sources only. Adherants.com and Religiousintelligence are both dead websites since years. Not sure how reliable they are? Google search, Google books, Google scholar have nothing on this subject.Serv181920 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Fine" it is. The *notability* of an article is from such as the above. The *development* of the article is developed with such reliable sources as are available.Smkolins (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is absolutely a Baha'i article, supported with Baha'i sources that could be "reliable" for the Baha'is. No secondary sources, in any language have anything on this subject. WP:SIGCOV states : "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.... "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." And none of your sources are "Independent of the subject".Serv181920 (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not true:

* Religious Intelligence

* The Association of Religion Data Archives

* U.S. State Department (3 different times)

* Religion professional journal

* The Edmonton Journal newspaper

* Adherents.com

are independent sources. Period. Smkolins (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not important enough according to google search.Wasraw (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this subject can be evaluated based on a Google search in English. One of the main criticisms of Wikipedia is its consistent bias coming from young white anglophone male, technically-inclined editors. Chad is one of the least developed countries in the world, not an anglophone country, and lacks a system of universities and publishing that give notability to obscure topics like Mary Ellis grave and Bristol stool scale. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure why this was nominated. I have a copy of World Christian Encyclopedia (2001) and for Baha'is in Chad it estimates 80,000 in 2000 and says: "Rapid expansion to 50 local spiritual assemblies by 1973, with 3,500 active members and a school at Gassi. Thereafter, however, growth became explosive, rising by 1996 to 437 organized LSAs." Coverage from Baha'i scholars with academic credentials and independent publishers seems significant. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any country with a reasonably large representation of a worldwide religion should be susceptible to supporting an article on that religion in that country. This example does not seem at all out of bounds. If there are concerns about the quality or independence of sources, tag them for better sources being needed. BD2412 T 16:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV says : "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.... "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." And none of the sources used in the article are "Independent of the subject".Serv181920 (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not true:

* Religious Intelligence

* The Association of Religion Data Archives

* U.S. State Department (3 different times)

* Religion professional journal

* The Edmonton Journal newspaper

* Adherents.com

are independent sources. Period. Smkolins (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All the independent sources have mentioned Baha'is in a trivial manner only. Smith and Momen do not mention Chad, and Hassall gives one sentence in a non-scholarly online source. World Christian Encyclopedia (WCE) says the number of Baha'is in Chad is 80,300 (2000) and 96,845 (2005). However, as noted at Baháʼí Faith by country, Margit Warburg, perhaps the foremost expert on Baha'is, writes that WCE's Baha'i numbers are unreliable and exaggerated. Religious Intelligence (2007) mentions that there are 80,335 Baha'is, though it doesn't appear to be a scholarly source. Given that WCE and Religious Intelligence are not reliable sources and they tend to be vastly higher than census figures of Baha'is reported by the UN Statistics Division (see Baháʼí Faith by country#Adherents by country), we should not assume there is a major Baha'i population in Chad without a better source. The US State Department says nothing except that there is a "small" Baha'i community. Then another non-academic source includes this: "Baha’i weekly prayer meetings in French are held on Saturday afternoons at the Baha’i Center, as are regular meetings." Adherents.com is dead and not peer-reviewed.

With all that said, perhaps the page should be kept but trimmed down, on the basis that it is a world religion represented in Chad. No opinion on the final decision. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - on the point of "Smith and Momen do not mention Chad" - the uses of the article are two:

"The community of Chad avoided being banned as part of a sweep across several Sub-Saharan countries."

Note that Niger *is* listed and is immediately to the west of Chad.

"The religion entered a new phase of activity when a message of the Universal House of Justice dated 20 October 1983 was released."

This is a scholarly source for a point which is then expanded upon in the following section about activities of the type.

As for "Hassall gives one sentence in a non-scholarly online source" I'm confused - he's used twice. There are two mentions of Chad in the same source. It's not just one sentence. See under

https://bahai-library.com/hassall_bahai_communities_country#15

and

https://bahai-library.com/hassall_bahai_communities_country#22

As for if this is a "non-scholarly" I think that's debatable. Looks scholarly to me - has sources for the summary he published.

Smkolins (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with pretty much everyone. Yes, only bahaï sources are cited and yes, in and of itself, the subject is notable. However, this looks to me like a case of WP:TNT. It is very unlikely at this stage that anyone will put in the effort to thoroughly clean the article and remove all the non-notable, non-NPOV, non-RS content. We better start over. JBchrch (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New sources are always to be considered to improve the article. There is no objection to Baha'i or non-Baha'i sources. Certainly none were ignored attempting to write the article using non-Baha'i and Baha'i sources that were properly published. I hope new sources are included. Please note some sources refer to the generality of Africa or sub-Saharan or Arab-African countries and were limited to brief mentions in those regards. Obviously "only baha'i sources" is incorrect. Everyone has agreed non-Baha'i sources are used. Let's find ways to improve the article and there's nothing wrong with using sources in responsible ways. As for WCE please note the scholarly review of their information from other sources which actually counter Wargit's pov in that they over-estimate Christians and thus under-report other groups as a general rule in the section immediately above the commentary about the Baha'is - by all means look up the papers. World_Christian_Encyclopedia#Reception Smkolins (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and to be explicit, "only bahaï sources are cited" is incorrect. A list of independent sources used in the article are listed above and expanded on below available for further work.Smkolins (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - further to independent sources:
"Graber, Geraldine Louise". The Province. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 24 Mar 2011. p. 86.
"Chadian Faith Leaders welcome Chargé Davis Ba". Africanews.com. Sep 12, 2019.
Gala M. Pierce (13 Jan 2002). "Aurora college student to talk about his adventure in Africa". Daily Herald (DuPage ed.). Arlington Heights, IL. p. 3. When Ian Blood of Aurora took a 10-month Baha'i youth service trip to the African nation of Chad last year, he missed luxuries such as electricity, air conditioning and running water. Blood contacted other Baha'is in Chad to see if he could be of use. He said there are thousands who practice the Baha'i faith in Chad. "It was the second private radio station (in Chad) to receive a license," Blood said. "Freedom of the press is really a new thing in Chad." Smkolins (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS Serv181920 (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree. Some are brief, more or less, but they are not trivial. Service of people in Chad and some projects of what they did and also of the indigenous Baha'is and what they did. Smkolins (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha Paul Janes

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

It does not seem to pass GNG. I found some passing mentions in the press ([29]) but nothing that indicates enough notability. MarioGom (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: Absolutely no evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Megtetg34 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sourcing is unreliable in the extreme. Building a bunch of homes is not enough to justify having an encyclopedia article on someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. This is not a bar against recreation if their is increased coverage in the lead-up/during/after the election they are involved in. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Green Voice

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. See Patriotic Socialist Party, Miss Great Britain Party and Scottish Family Party for precedents for the wider Wikipedia community agreeing that not all political parties are notable, and notability does not attach itself to political parties as of right. This article has sources, but no evidence of GNG, ORG and general achievement. Content of article has issues of tone, content, and sourcing. Political party has no evidence of achievement or notability prior to, or following, elections, and party has no evidence of notable coverage for campaigns expected of a political party. doktorb _words^deeds 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another step on the nominator's campaign to have every article on a small political party removed from Wikipedia. In the interest of balance, please list also the AfDs you have proposed that were declined. Emeraude (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until after the May elections. Notability seems to be borderline at the minute, but I think it is in the interest of democracy that the article is kept during the election period, especially as they are standing candidates on most of the Scottish Parliament's regional lists. We can then take into account the party's results and media coverage in the election when deciding whether or not they are notable. If the article is deemed non-notable, I would suggest redirecting to List of political parties in the United Kingdom to preserve the page's history. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 10:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am swayed by some of the opinions below. It is unlikely that this party will garner any significant coverage before the election, seeing as the campaign has been ongoing for two weeks already and there is nothing so far. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is appropriate that this article be deleted. It is my view that, if the decision was taken on the other List parties mentioned by Doktorbuk, then this party certainly does not pass the threshold - there is no evidence at all that it has any remote presence on the political scene. The individual named as the sole member of the party may, himself, justify a page about his own political activity, but it is not appropriate for a whole wikipedia page to cover this party. There are hundreds of other list parties with bigger followings that do not make the cut. I disagree that the issue should be kicked until after 6 May 2021.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.100.98 (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO - I do not think it is correct that this party are standing candidates in multiple lists, my understanding was that the individual himself was contesting one Glasgow seat. It is not a party with members and individuals elected to stand on the list. My understanding is that the Party is the man himself.

I have checked all of the statements of persons nominated and they say that the party is standing on six out of the eight regional lists. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that is correct I missed it when I looked because I did not check each list (82.2.100.98). It is not a one-man party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.100.98 (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a complicated one. For a party standing in an in progress election they are currently attracting very little coverage. In the past there has been some coverage, but historically they have been a bit of a one man band and it might be argued that an article on Alistair McConnachie is more appropriate. I can see the argument for leaving until the end of this election, but I have doubts that this will make a difference in the long term. Dunarc (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Considering that there is a moderate chance of increased notability in the leadup and aftermath of the upcoming election, it doesn't make sense to delete this article until after the election - then, whether or not Independent Green Voice is notable will become more black and white. Wait until after the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary elections. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 01:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:GNG. It's not even borderline. Arguments based on the proximity of the elections do not appear to me to have any basis in policy. What we have is a party so minor that secondary reliable sources are not talking about it. What RS coverage we do have is more about Alistair McConnachie than about the party, so my second choice would be to re-name the article Alistair McConnachie. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The party fails WP:GNG today. We are considering this article today. Should it become notable in the future the article may be restored, provided with delete without prejudice to future re-creation Fiddle Faddle 12:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. The article is basically just an acknowledgement that "this party exists". — Czello 14:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Diana (musical)#Live stage filming. Until there is more WP:GNG-compliant coverage about the film specifically, at least. Sandstein 12:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diana (2021 film)

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

Non-notable production/filming so far. It is the case of WP:NYF. Fails WP:NFF. Kolma8 (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a load of hits for this musical, should this be moved to Diana (2021 musical) ? Govvy (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diana (musical)#Live stage filming Just a filming of the existing stage show. Nate • (chatter) 14:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirect will make sense. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rediect per Mrschimpf. This is not a film, it is a filming of an existing show, and is not independently notable of that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dratify We may hear more news about it in the coming months regarding how it was produced and Netflix might submit it for awards consideration this fall like how Disney+ did it with Hamilton (Golden Globes/SAG).HM2021 7:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess it would be better to redirect it to Diana (musical)#Live stage filming at this point. It can then be reverted back to its current form once it has been released on Netflix and reviews and other appropriate sections can be added in due course. Keivan.f^Talk 19:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has occurred. Sources were presented later in the discussion countering the nomination, but the nominator and user !voting for deletion have not revisited the discussion to provide any commentary or input regarding those sources and the guideline-based rationale provided for article retention relative to those sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HRnetGroup

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for a recruitment company. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✗ G11

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:NCORP, sources are limited to trivial business activities and PR. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

Analyst reports

https://sginvestors.io/sgx/stock/chz-hrnetgroup/analyst-report^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports. Here are four of the analyst reports from three different firms:
1. "HRNetGroup Ltd". DBS Bank. 2020-08-12. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  The analyst report notes: "HRnetGroup is the largest recruitment agency in the Asia Pacific (excluding Japan), according to Frost & Sullivan. The Group operates in 13 Asian growth cities, with its headquarters in Singapore. It has two operating segments, namely Professional Recruitment and Flexible Staffing."
2. Seet, Jarick (2021-03-03). "HRnetGroup - RHB Invest 2021-03-03: Proxy To Economic Recovery; Keep BUY". RHB Invest. RHB Bank. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19 – via SG Investors.
  The analyst report notes: "2020 was a tough year for HRnetGroup due to COVID-19, as hiring decelerated – as evidenced by its decreased number of job placements, which led to a decline in revenue from professional staffing. However, with many countries expected to see an economic recovery this year, hiring should rebound – and this should benefit the company. As such, we lift HRnetGroup's FY21 earnings forecast by 15%."
3. Ong, Darren; Lim, Siew Khee (2021-03-01). "HRnetGroup - CGS-CIMB Research 2021-03-01: Forging Ahead In FY21; Reiterate ADD With Higher Target Price". CGS-CIMB Securities. China Galaxy Securities. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19 – via SG Investors.
  The analyst report notes: "Flexible staffing volume came in at a high of 14,347 (+14% y-o-y), stronger than we expected. HRnetGroup's FY20 core profit above our/consensus forecasts. Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) could potentially lift our HRnetGroup's FY21F core profit forecast of S$47.9m by 2.8%-28.3%. Reiterate ADD on HRnetGroup, with a higher target price of S$0.70, as hiring activities accelerate in FY21F from job creation."
4. Yeo, Alfie; Sim, Andy (2020-08-13). "HRnetGroup - DBS Research 2020-08-13: Cautious Outlook As Job Cuts Loom". DBS Vickers. DBS Bank. Retrieved 2021-04-19 – via SG Investors.
  The analyst report notes: "HRnet Group's 1H20 earnings below expectations on lower permanent placements. Weak GDP dampens earnings growth potential. Cut FY20-21F earnings by 17-20% on weak outlook."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow HRNetGroup to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:34, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elohor Aiboni

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

Non-notable. Of the three sources, one only mentions her once as an attendee. The other two mainly report on her appointment, which is not significant coverage. And the main claim to fame seems to be that she is the first female to hold the position of CEO at Shell Nigeria, which in itself is not an inherently notable role. Fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete Considering that it is rare for women to occupy prominent positions in Nigeria (see Women in Nigeria), being appointed to head the company is important and has been covered by multiple sources. An aide of the President is reported to have confirmed it. I think WP:CONTEXTUALISATION is important for the keep. Vikram Vincent 08:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, every one of the couple of hundred male midwives in the UK deserve an article, given that they represent a fraction of a per cent of the total midwifery workforce. I think not. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the UK Prime Minister acknowledges their appointment to head the mid-husband company ;-) Vikram Vincent 08:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated my !vote to delete after looking at the new sources presented by Bennyontheloose though my logic of context still stands. VV 21:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable sources from Nigeria have been added that document her winning the SheCanTech 2019 Woman of the Year award (SheCan holds second conference, celebrates Nigeria’s ‘First Women’ (The Guardian Nigeria, 2019)), and that she was also the first female Asset Operations Manager at the Bonga DeepWater Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) facility operated by Shell Nigeria, and her educational background (‘We believe every woman can do more when she recognises her innate potentials, capabilities’ (The Guardian Nigeria, 2019)). Beccaynr (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The level of psotion she holds does not grant automatic notability, and the coverage of her holding the position is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article has been published here in the last few days. There's also this and this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I’m not sure how this has eluded me for thus long, but yes per rationale by @DoubleGrazing, WP:GNG is definitely not met. Celestina007 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 19:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No attempt has been made to analyze BennyOnTheLoose's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, looking at the coverage presented by BennyOnTheLoose and others it seems to all be from the singular event of her being appointed to her position as Chief Executive of Shell Nigeria, with the exception of an interview and a passing mention in The Guardian Nigeria. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Mango

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

no indication of notability. lack of reliable references. fails WP:GNG Lastin4 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lastin4 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lastin4 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lastin4 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the nominator as a spam sockpuppet. However, I am leaving this nomination open for it to be assessed on its merits. MER-C 15:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches find some announcement coverage in 2009 ([30], [31]), which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. My searches, including Indian media specific, are not finding substantial coverage of either "Nuclear Mango" or "Split Image Pictures". The company website now redirects to a hairdresser, so it is unlikely that anything further will emerge in future. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cherushii

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. After filtering through all the sources, it appears that there are only two sources that could potentially be tested for notability: KQED and Vice. Much of the sources listed there are either press releases, editable databases, or social network posts. The Vice article appears to be a personal account from the artist's friend, so it cannot be used as a source, and the KQED article is plainly a trivial mention following the Ghost Ship fire. Even if the Vice article can be used as a source, it still would not fall under "significant coverage" as per the notability criteria. Thus it does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Aasim (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, and because I have added an obit/review from the Chicago Reader, an obit from SFGate, news highlighting her death from LAWeekly, The East Bay Times and Pitchfork, which support her notability; I haven't yet added this ABC7 report or this LA Times report, but both also provide biographical information. There are also reviews of her music from Pitchfork, LA Record, and 5Mag as well as in-depth coverage of her music from Pitchfork, which supports WP:CREATIVE notability, because she created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and similarly, per WP:NMUSIC, because she has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician. Beccaynr (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have never heard of this individual until after the Ghost Ship fire. None of the works that she has authored or coauthored with another artist is notable, and after doing some digging, she does not even have a big social media presence compared to other individuals and singers from the Bay Area and Los Angeles. This may be a case of WP:ONEEVENT, where all that she got attention and notability for is for being a slightly popular musician who died in the Ghost Ship fire. All of the coverage I am finding are from after the Ghost Ship fires. It may be better to merge this with Ghost Ship warehouse fire. But I do not think she merits an individual page on Wikipedia. See [32] and [33]. Aasim (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:IDONTKNOWIT, Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion. As to her notability, per relevant policies and sources cited above, including WP:NMUSIC, Cherushii has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician, with biographical information that can be used to further develop the article. Per WP:CREATIVE, the multiple reviews of her music cited above also support her notability. Per WP:SOURCESEARCH, social media posts are described as sources that aren't actually building notability at all, and are cited in the nom as problematic, so an apparent lack of a social media presence does not seem relevant to her notability. I also disagree that this is WP:BIO1E, including because based on the multiple independent and reliable sources, she did more than die in the Ghost Ship fire. Her music and her life are reported independently from the Ghost Ship fire (even when her death is mentioned), including by KQED in 2016 and the sources listed above, including music reviews several years after the fire and articles that focus on her. The obit articles cited above also support her notability per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG because they are significant and in-depth coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources. She also was not low-profile after she died, due to her music being released and reviewed by multiple independent and reliable sources after her death, so this is not WP:BLP1E. In addition, merger with the Ghost Ship warehouse fire article does not appear to be feasible, because that article focuses on the fire and the legal aftermath. I also do not think that links to WP:GOOGLEHITS, especially when only using her stage name as a search term, provides support for deletion, because multiple independent and reliable sources are available to support her notability according to several guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In particular, BLP1E and a merge have been suggested in addition to the NMUSIC and BASIC/GNG considerations. Further participation and discussion may help develop a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional sources, per WP:NMUSIC and WP:BASIC/WP:GNG: 2017 in-depth coverage about her life and music from Dazed, 2016 music review and interview before her death from Dummy, 2014 interview with Femmecult, 2020 review from DJ Mag (of music recorded by Cherushii in 2015), 2019 review with background context/biographical information from DJ Mag, 2019 review from Exclaim!. Beccaynr (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:GNG with significant coverage of her career as well as her death such as Exclaim!, DJ Mag, Pitchfork and Vice as well as newspaper coverage so this is not a case of WP:BLP1E and there is no valid reason for deletion in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sources to support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and how she was not low-profile before or after her death (and therefore not WP:BLP1E) include a 2016 Chicago Reader feature article before her death that includes a focus on her with substantial context, a brief 2019 KEXP review, and a Reverb magazine obit with commentary, which includes what is reported to be her last interview before she died. Beccaynr (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306. ~Kvng (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the sources identified by Beccaynr that show the subject passing WP:GNG (in my opinion). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston. Selectively. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Music Award nominations for Whitney Houston

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

We have already got List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston. There isn't any justification for this as a standalone article. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: It should be part of the article: List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston.Wasraw (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston. TheSkinsAdded (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston. I am not recommending a merge because this article attempts to add commentary, but that commentary is non-notable trivia and inappropriate mentions of who won when Whitney did not. No need to merge unsupported trivia to the larger article. This one is an unneeded split from an existing list that is fully informative in its own right. (I do not think this vote should lead to any sort of "no consensus" mess, because so far there is a consensus to at least redirect.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston. Selectively. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy Awards and nominations for Whitney Houston

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

Whitney "only" won 6 Grammies. She is neither the most awarded nor the most nominated person in Grammy Award history. Even if she were, there's no rationale for this as a standalone article, when List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston is there. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston. TheSkinsAdded (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Music Award nominations for Whitney Houston. I am not recommending a merge because this article attempts to add commentary, but that commentary is non-notable trivia and inappropriate mentions of who won when Whitney did not. No need to merge unsupported trivia to the larger article. This one is an unneeded split from an existing list that is fully informative in its own right. (I do not think this vote should lead to any sort of "no consensus" mess, because so far there is a consensus to at least redirect.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Friedrich Mittrich

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

BLP which is a borderline attack page. The sources indicate the company and the scandal are likely notable, but not the individual. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This heise.de article is a lot more about the company than the person, and this article should be rapidly refactored or deleted. Writing everything in the shape of biographies is not right. Uncle G (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and not enough content about the individual. Moving to Optical Disc Service [de] might be an option if we want to talk about the company and scandal, but we don't have sources for a biography. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 12:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 15:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald and Douglas

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

One of the few remaning stand-alone articles about characters in this franchise. Prodded last year with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". Deprodded as "too iconic" for a PROD. Article has, of course, not improved at all since the PROD. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. The subject is clearly not notable, and the article is way below the quality requirements of Wikipedia. Laplorfill (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of coverage out there such as the Thomas and Friends Character Encyclopedia and the details of their engineering and Scottish heritage are reasonably well done. And, as always, it's interesting to find where and how the engines have been recreated with actual working examples. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, Thomas and Friends Character Encyclopedia is an illustrated children book companion, neither reliable nor independent (just look at this). As for WP:INTERESTING argument... sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BEFORE did not reveal any sigcov, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grub Smith

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

I am finding articles by Grub Smith, but not really about him. I am seeing nothing that gives me a sense that this subject passes the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 05:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. The BLP doesn't meet Wp:GNG and the two sources that are given are not reliable sources. The article must be speedy deleted. Iflaq ^(talk) 06:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I agree, the meet Wp:GNG, and the sourcing is skimpy to nonexistent. Article reads more like a promotional blurb than anything encyclopedic.TH1980 (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist lacking significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While there was a consensus that the subject is not a hoax, whether it is notable and whether the subject falls under WP:NOT is unclear. A speedy re-nomination based on the above reasons would be reasonable. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Workshop for Non-Linear Architecture

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

WP:BEFORE finds only mirrors of Wikipedia. Likely hoax. Fiddle Faddle 05:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding plenty of mentions in a variety of sources, e.g. [34][35][36][37][38][39]. None of these are in-depth and not all of them are reliable, but they do appear to be independent of Wikipedia so while I'm leaning heavily towards it being insufficiently notable for an article I am convinced it is not a haox. It would not surprise me if there was something here that would be suitable for merging into an article like psychogeography, especially if someone has access to specialist sources. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fiddle Faddle 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems the only question is if it's a hoax, and Timtrent's research seems to show that it's not. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced it's not a hoax, I'm not convinced WP:GNG is met. Brought up only a couple hits in online scholarly sources, but not entirely sure what to recommend. SportingFlyer T·C 18:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be borderline promotional given that it makes repeated references to "Stewart Home" including inline ELs to his work (now removed), his webpage, and all the citations are pretty much to him as well. It also seems to attract a remarkable number of single-purpose accounts. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Arboretum, Charlotte

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

This neighborhood is not officially recognized by the City of Charlotte or any other government. The shopping center at it's center is nothing more than an unusually large strip mall. I've not been able to find any source, probably because there are none to be found. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a real neighborhood, just a shopping center and things nearby. No indication of notability (lack of significant coverage in sources aside from mundane local news) or need to standalone; we have a whole article on the city. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find any in-depth documentation on this, either. Arcadia books are usually good for this sort of thing, at least as starting points, when a subject is a documented one, and I have used them to good effect with other articles. The facts that Rogers & Rogers 1996 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRogersRogers1996 (help) has nothing at all, even though post-dating the subject, and nor does Ely, Drain & Rogers 2001 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFElyDrainRogers2001 (help), are quite telling. Contrast Byers 2004 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFByers2004 (help) being a good indicator that Plaza-Midwood is documented.
- Rogers, John Reynolds; Rogers, Amy T. (1996). Charlotte, Its Historic Neighborhoods. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780752405155.
- Ely, Vermelle Diamond; Drain, Grace Hoey; Rogers, Amy T. (2001). Charlotte, North Carolina. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738513751.
- Byers, Jeff (2004). Plaza-Midwood Neighborhood of Charlotte. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738517018.
Uncle G (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hanka Paldum. Basically a "soft redirect". As no sources were presented, redirecting to artist as WP:ATD. If reliable sources are located, no prejudice against restoration to article status. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nek' je od srca

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

Could find no evidence of notability, either under WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. The most I could find was this trivial mention in one book. WP:BEFORE was performed with the Croatian and English names, with and without the name of the artist. Were this an English album, I would've simply PRODed. However, as I don't speak Croatian, my WP:BEFORE in that language was very rudimentary, and so I'm using this as a check on myself to make sure I'm not somehow missing something and causing this to be unjustly deleted. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viðar Örn Hafsteinsson

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

Simply does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep One of the best known coaches in the country, passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. First of the subject fails WP:NBASKETBALL so he has to pass general GNG criteria. The sources in the article are not giving enough sigcov hence fails this also. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seems borderline. Alvaldi what would you say were the WP:THREE best sources on this player in terms of coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me it would probably be these: Morgunblaðið - Coverage about him and his success with Höttur. Vísir.is/Stöð 2 - An interview on Stöð 2 with him regarding his stay with the team and recent promotion in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic in Iceland. Fréttablaðið - Article/interview regarding him and the flow of foreign players in the Icelandic leagues. This one is also from Vísir.is but is a good coverage about him and his team and a discussion about the interview with him. He became a bit of a cult phenomenon due to his bluntness in the interview and his quotes have been frequent headlines in the Icelandic media.[40][41][42][43]

Keep - I agree that the sources above are enough to demonstrate WP:GNG, which simply requires that multiple reliable sources discuss the subject in a non-trivial way (multiple paragraphs dedicated to the subject would be more than a trivial mention); the references cited are from major reliable Icelandic publications, many of which I am familiar with when working on Icelandic footballer articles. Furthermore, there would be no obvious merge target so it's essentially keep or delete. There's definitely enough Icelandic media coverage to support a keep vote in this instance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Haskvitz

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination; the last one was a "no consensus" in 2014. Sounds like he had an interesting career, but I don't think this meets the notability hurdle as there is no significant, in-depth, independent coverage. Neutrality^talk 02:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep clearly notable given all the awards ~~and a obituary in a (local) newspaper.~~ --hroest 13:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The obituary looks like a paid obituary rather than a staff-written one. The awards don't establish significant in-depth coverage independent of the subject. Neutrality^talk 14:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that but I think this is the paid one. I am also not claiming that the obituary by itself gives notability but based on the prior discussion and all arguments I concluded that he is notable. --hroest 16:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these appear to be paid obits, just in different local papers: the first in Pasadena Star-News and the second in Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Neutrality^talk 17:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I retract my statement regarding the obituary. I also share your concerns regarding RS, it seems they are very sparse and from the ones in the article it seems only [44] has any info about him, a source I have never heard of before. On the other hand, some RS may be pre-internet. --hroest 01:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the awards does not have the independent coverage that is needed to show notability, and even a staff written obituary in a hyper local paper would not be in and of itself a sign of notability. There is nothing here even remotely suggesting that Haskvitz was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waltzing Matilda Aviation

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

PROD was removed but without a valid reason. Not a notable company, as the size of their fleet and the lack of proper secondary sources indicate. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this fails NCORP, based on available sourcing.--- Possibly (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This company has announced operations firmly beginning in Fall 2021. Previous editor deleted sources. This operator is notable due to fleet expansion / orders / options with deliveries over next few months. Operator is positioned to become direct competitor with Porter Airlines given fleet expansion of Dash 8 Q400 aircraft and FAR Part 121 service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyguyairlines (talk • contribs) 2021-04-01T15:04:20 (UTC)
- … none of which is at all relevant. Where has this company been independently documented in depth by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy? Please point to that. That shows notability. Our personal opinions of how important something is are not relevant. Nor are company press releases. Uncle G (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP. PR coverage only. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have enough news coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Consensus was that the subject does not meet WP:NFF as an unreleased film since the production itself does not meet WP:GNG.

There exists consensus to discount some sources for overlapping coverage (and likely non-independence) when determining whether the production meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Boogeywoman

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

WP:TOOSOON fails WP:NFF as no indication out of pre-production and that principal photography has started. This was moved to Draft space to incubate, which was correct for this but rejected by the author. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anyone can clearly read in the Deadline article that the film is in post-production phase, from what I see the person who opened this discussion did not even bother to read the links. It is also the prequel to a film known as Monster and will be distributed by an internationally known distributor. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - It seems that the nom tried this, but perhaps if there is wider consensus behind it, it will stick a little longer? To ensure this, you'd probably have to (a) force it to go through AfC (some will cringe), or (b) just wait for at least two reviews per WP:NFO? I don't quite understand your comment, Bruno Rene Vargas. Deadline reports that it's in post-production--OK, that's one potentially reliable piece, but being in post-production doesn't automatically meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG notability requirements. Being a prequel to another film doesn't have any relevance to this film since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. And having an international distributor also doesn't matter as the first part of NFO is being widely distributed with at least two reviews. NFF says filming must have started, but it also says that the production must be notable. Thus far, I am only seeing one independent, reliable report. Casting reports are very rarely independent and these (or at least the one linked) seems to fail WP:NFSOURCES being churn of primary source claims. An independent casting report would mean a reporter dug in and uncovered something unannounced that was later confirmed. Varity Insight seems good for verifying info, but there is zero prose, so it cannot fulfil NFSOURCES.
Of course, if the production was notable and there are reports out there saying something like "Peyton List was a dream to work with" or "The crew had to work 22 hours a day to get this done, and everyone hates ___" or whatever, I'd be happy to adjust my !vote, but until then, there's no real rush to have this in main space until there is more real independent coverage. I'm 99% sure this will be notable soon, but I don't see enough yet. Pretend there is a fire and all footage is destroyed, and they cut their losses after insurance pays out, never to try again. Is what we have enough to say it was a notable production? Not yet, for me at least. -2pou (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ok @2pou:, I agree with what you say in some things but I do not understand why drafity if it is practically 100% sure that the film will have more notability very soon. Also, under the argument of imagining that hypothetical case, the truth is that a great majority of existing articles should be moved to drafts because only mega-productions or films with renowned directors would be taken into account because it is this kind of productions that have hundreds of articles. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're absolutely right. If you see them, you could nominate them, but it's hard to comb through them all unless it's in the WP:NPP feed in order to bring it here. -2pou (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 5 sources in the article are enough to pass GNG clearly. Reliable, significant coverage that is independent of the source. The rest is irrelevant to an AFD. The length and/or quality of the article is an issue for the talk page and for future editors to improve upon. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "clearly" is a stretch. See below -2pou (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:2pou
1 (Bloody Disgusting)	3 pieces saying the same thing within a day of	? Most is quoted mat'l--harder to tell how	✘ No
2 (JoBlo)	each other clearly fails WP:NFSOURCES	? much is their work, but moot to analyze.	✘ No
3 (FilmInk)	(i.e. no independence as press release per WP:NFSOURCES)	Same as above, and not even a byline	✘ No
4 (Deadline)			✔ Yes
5 (Variety Insight)		Zero words (prose)	✘ 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: You are inventing reasons to dismiss sources that don't follow GNG. Labelling sources as "non-independent" despite at least three of them being unrelated to each other, and unrelated to the subject. You've also quoted an essay as a reason to discount a source. Essays aren't guidelines, anyone can write an essay and they have no weight or bearing on official discussions. It is not surprising to me that multiple sources will report on something once the information is made public, so calling that "churn" anyway is ridiculous. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to remove the essay reference if that is distracting. It was only intended to expound on what the WP:NFSOURCES guideline is saying already in a paragraph--to better articulate for an interested reader what it meant if they want to read instead of ask. The essay is not important to the argument at all. The point was that they are not unrelated to the subject as it is being put out by them—JoBlo straight says it, BD says they're just repeating Deadline, and FilmInk doesn't give a writer because that's common for press release. This falls under what WP:N defers to WP:NFILM for exclusion. Regardless, I doubt I'll sway you, but I will remove the essay, and let the community decide. -2pou (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:NFF: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." What is the rush? Kolma8 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To really establish that this is notable, the film needs to have coverage of the production in some form or fashion. As someone who writes very, very regularly about horror films on Wikipedia, this is often not doable with most films because there aren't that many outlets that really care to report regularly on horror media. Sometimes if something goes mainstream enough it will, but it's never a guarantee.

Now as far as the existing coverage goes, this says that the film is in post, but doesn't really give us anything about the production itself. For example, there's nothing really about where it was filmed, when, or other important info needed to establish that the production was notable. It's relatively rare to find coverage that would firmly establish this, which is why so many horror films don't have articles until fairly late in the game, typically after they're released. Offhand there doesn't look to be coverage to show where production is notable - there needs to be some other details other than "it's in post production" to really establish this. If I have time I'll try to see what I can do, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Part of the issue with establishing notability for films is that we need to be able to establish that the production has received coverage. This is usually done by news articles reporting on the start of filming, announcements of stars coming on to the film, and so on. But with this there's nothing. No coverage of any type until the announcement that the film will release and that it's in post production. This is kind of surprising given the names involved (Tobin Bell for one). The coverage all says effectively the same thing, to the point where it is very, very obvious that they're based off the same press releases.

The issue here is that while there is a brief flurry of coverage, it doesn't really show any depth of coverage because it's all pretty much the same. If some were slightly different and went over the locations or if there were announcements about stars coming on, then it might be easier to argue for a keep but this is just a bit too soon. If this were to sit in post-production hell (which happens A LOT) then this coverage wouldn't be enough to justify it passing NFILM or NFF. TBH, this is fairly common for horror films. They tend to fly under the radar and then spring forth almost fully formed once it's time to release, gain more funding, or sell. This can just sit for a little while until more coverage becomes available. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How long an article might be has nothing to do with if it's notable or not. This article while passing GNG might only need to be a 30 word stub. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the length, it's about the fact that the existent coverage all states content taken from the same press release. There's no depth of coverage here. If something were to happen and this were to sink into post-development hell, which can and does happen extremely frequently - particularly with horror films - there would not be enough depth of coverage to justify inclusion. The main keep arguments here are arguing for inclusion based on the amount without really taking into account the content of the sourcing. It's not like the sources are written all that differently content-wise or like any of this has info on the production (other than it being in post) or even a review. There's just not enough out there to show a depth of coverage. That's why I think this should be put in draftspace. I think I'm probably one of the more liberal people when it comes to film notability, particularly when it comes to horror, but this just isn't there. It's just not ready yet. There needs to be at least some other coverage to really help establish how this meets NFF. I mean, if there were at least an interview somewhere that would be something but there isn't. There's not much out there other than what was put in the press release that was sent out. I don't think that any of the cast or crew posted on social media about this during filming, that's how little there was out there when I looked. Having an article is just premature at this point. This could release by the end of the year and have a ton of coverage... or it could sit for a few more years on the shelf, completed but not seeing the light of day due to the typical industry stuff that happens with films. We can't judge it based on potential future notability, just on what's here now - which isn't enough in my opinion to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, it's not the length of the article, it's the fact that all of the available coverage is based on a single press release. The outlets can't give any more details because they haven't been given any other than what was in that single press release or what they took from the outlet(s) that reported on said press release. If there was something, anything out there to give more depth of coverage then that would be great - and I definitely looked - but there just wasn't anything. Ultimately all that was told was that the film is in post, has the specified actors, and was purchased, but not anything about where it was filmed or anything along those lines. NFF is pretty much hanging on a single sentence mentioning post-production, which isn't enough given that it's based on multiple outlets reporting on the same press release. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stawell Gift. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Jamieson (sprinter)

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

Does not meet WP:NTRACK. Has information from only one source, the Herald Sun, which isn't considered to be a reliable secondary source. Nevertheless, the subject does not have significant coverage and does not meet the notability guidelines for their sport. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Stawell Gift - not individually notable person as this race is a community handicap event rather than an elite competition. SFB 14:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination shows a complete lack of WP:BEFORE. A basic search shows coverage in multiple other mainstream reliable sources. Even if you are not keen on a stand alone article (might see it as blp1e) there is a clear alternative to deletion as pointed out above. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you talking about? – because I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources that talk about him other than very briefly, in passing. He also doesn't meet WP:NTRACK. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[45], [46], [47]. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those three sources hardly make him meet WP:NTRACK. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence of multiple sources that would lead to passing GNG. Ideally people who want to argue for such should add the sourcing to the article. At a minimum they need to cite specific sources in an argument to keep. They key to Wikipedia is verrifiability, which means finding sources, not just asserting they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Sillyfolkboy - no one has demonstrated that a merge to there isn't inappropriate. Johnpacklambert's contribution is unhelpful and should be ignored. Deus et lex (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's little discussion, and given the apparent potential for confusion, any new nomination should make sure that we don't confuse this person with the subject of the last AfD (if they are indeed different people). Sandstein 07:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kumud Das

AfDs for this article:

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

This journalist was found in 2013 to be non-notable, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumud Das. The information in this article is from or prior to 2013, and so already considered by the prior AFD. Naïve Google search finds LinkedIn and Facebook and shows that he writes for the Economic Times. It appears that not much has changed in eight years. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The person Kumud Das [48] mentioned in your AFD remark is a different person. Kumud Das is not only a journalist but also a noted writer in Assamese language. To avoid confusion, here is a video of Kumud Das while hosting his popular TV show - [49] Nalbarian (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wp:GNG -- Eatcha 05:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eatcha, could you please elaborate? He is a author of several books and a leading TV journalist of a major TV channel in Assam (Check the article and references). I think namesake (people having identical monikers in a nation of 1.3 billion) is the only problem with him. Nalbarian (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Momele

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." If so, I wish they had been added to the article. Which right now only has 2 press releases, an interview, and a couple of brief mentions. Does not meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a whole review! Meet WP:NALBUM. Last time you deleted an album that had four reviews! --Sanslogique (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay, one more time for the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tamara Gverdtsiteli as a compromise, and that is standard procedure for questionably notable albums anyway. I am unable to find anything in Russian or Georgian beyond the sources already in the article, but that may reflect my foreign language searching skills. I reviewed the current sources via Google Translate and agree with the nominator on how they are brief press releases from questionably reliable sources, a review that might be reliable but might not, and an interview with the singer in which this album is only mentioned briefly. Redirect to the singer per the usual procedure, and if anyone finds anything more reliable the article can be re-created easily. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Street Squats

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously ended up being soft deleted due to lack of participation. Someone WP:REFUND however no compelling sources have been offered. The article from the very beginning was sourced almost entirely from the The Ubyssey which is like a local paper. Another from a different college paper by the same author. I find that this former squat house of the local interest doesn't pass WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:NORG and in determining/WP:SIRS, series of coverage by the same publisher or journalist is considered one source. The student paper as well as local centric sources fail the audience base, because it is a intended for Vancouver area coverage. It also appears that the article's creator was an involved party of the article. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing suggests this is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user who requested WP:REFUND added contents and sources, but it still doesn't amount to significant coverage in media not tailored to local cverage. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be extensive coverage in the Vancouver Sun, The Province, The Ubyssey, and it's the subject of a chapter of Under the Viaduct: Homeless in Beautiful B.C.. Some of the sources I don't have access to (like the text of that chapter), but considering the amount of pre-web coverage that's accessible or at least visible, I'd imagine there would be even more from contemporary sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- comment which The Province coverage? I didn't see it cited. Care to explain which source you mean? Local Vancouver matters (local affairs) covered in Vancouver press is hardly a surprise. The Ubyssey is exceedingly local. The Ubyssey would be reliable coverage for that those things happened near the UBC campus, but meaningless for notability. Have you looked at AUD in WP:ORGDEPTH? Also articles that extensively quote long quotes of "the subject organization said..." for the lack of intellectual independence should be properly discounted. That book you talk about is very much locally focused. A chapter in a locally focused isn't much in terms of audience. It's also over reaching to speculate on the coverage significance based on a chapter in a book you don't have access to. Graywalls (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found the Province sources when browsing newspapers.com. I'll have to get back to you with links as I'm now on a computer which doesn't have that login saved. As for the book, according to Worldcat it is held by 66 libraries, only 7 of which are in BC. It may have a local focus, but isn't "local coverage". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AUD doesn't just concern geographical coverage, but field of interest too. If one tries, they could find books held by a number of libraries that talks about farms in North Plains, OR... or churches on Forest Grove, perhaps in some depth. Those have limited meaning in WP:NORG notability for those places named in the book. Graywalls (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Was this such a notable case that it resulted in any laws being changed, anything changed at all? Is it taught in any textbooks? A search through old newspapers shows its mention along with other squats, they quite common. Dream Focus 01:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is a valid point. There are locally themed books focused on Oregon Willamette Valley/Wine Country that has a list of vineyards that may have a many pages dedicated to each vineyard going into the vineyard's history, the family, then there are probably local papers that talk about those thing in depth, because they're of importance in the locality. I would say that's still not enough to satisfy creating an article here for that vineyard, unless you say, that vineyard is more greater significance than simply being talked about for a chapter in a local themed, topic specific book. I see no real indication that these group of houses that have become squatted are more than relatively common, run of the mill squatter occupations that happened to get picked up and covered fairly extensively in one source (per SIGCOV, series of coverage by one publication counts as one) Graywalls (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not correct at all. We do not consider audience size or personal judgements, as that leaves us open to losing a lot of proper content, and this was a point made early on in Wikipedia history with the failed "Wikipedia:fame and importance" idea. Most subjects have limited audiences in one way or another, from species of beetle to 1970s music groups. It is writing not reading that counts. A vineyard that has its history, geography, economics, and whatnot independently documented in depth by multiple people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy is as valid a subject as a city that has history, geography, economics, and whatnot so documented.
    Indeed, to the contrary: local history books are often very good sources, especially compared to the alternative such as robot-creating articles from GNIS database entries. I have found, for example, the Arcadia Publishing ones invaluable for rewriting things such as Robert, California (AfD discussion) or Escalle, Larkspur, California, and equally for filtering out truly non-notable things like The Arboretum, Charlotte (AfD discussion). Local history books point the way, and newspapers and other stuff flesh thing out, correct errors, and suchlike.
    This subject is another case in point. The only major coverage that I could find, stating how important the author thought it was, turned out to be authored by one of the squatters. And the article started out sourced to squatter press releases. There's a lot more independent coverage of "Woodsquat" at Woodward's department store in Vancouver than there is of this. It's that that has actually escaped its authors/creators and been independently documented in depth, with background and analysis. A geography professor has discussed it, for example, in Blomley 2004, pp. 39–50, as has another professor, in a university press book (Robertson 2011). (There is nothing similar for this squat that I can find.) The erstwhile photograph manager of the Vancouver Sun includes it, per xyr talk on these sorts of things and presumably in the connected book Bird & Demers 2017. That is definitely multiple people.
    And once again Special:Whatlinkshere/Woodsquat tells us that we did not even know that we did not have this.
    - Blomley, Nicholas (2004). Unsettling the City: Urban Land and the Politics of Property. Routledge. ISBN 9781135954192.
    - Robertson, Kirsty (2019). Tear Gas Epiphanies: Protest, Culture, Museums. McGill-Queen's/Beaverbrook Canadian Foundation Studies in Art History. Vol. 27. McGill-Queen's Press. ISBN 9780773558298.
    - Bird, Kate; Demers, Charles (2017). City on Edge: A Rebellious Century of Vancouver Protests, Riots, and Strikes. Greystone Books. ISBN 9781771643139.
    Uncle G (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The examples you provided are not organizations or companies.WP:NORG is a SNG with emphasis on sourcing to prevent promotional articles that organizations/companies articles are susceptible to. In notability, under WP:SIRS, media of limited interest (which local coverage would be) are specifically discounted for notability building purposes. But, with regard to this article, it seems like you're suggesting it fails to meet notability requirements. Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, that is wrong. Excluding limited interest sources loses the beetles and the like, as their sources are limited interest too. It is sources that are not independent or trivial that are discounted, which includes press releases, even recycled ones masquerading as newspaper reporting, and stuff authored by the subject or its inventors/founders/creators/whatnot such as Bruce Gongola writing in that volume of West Coast Line. Few people seem to have noticed that Wulwick in West Coast Line is a press release by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty written in the first person. I know why Rhododendrites thinks that there's "an entire chapter" in a book about this, because I found the same book review. However, I've actually looked at that book. This "entire chapter" is first-person interviews with the squatters (all in quotation marks), followed by Squatters Alliance of Vancouver Press Statement (which is clear on its face), followed by Chu 1991 which is another first-person analysis by one of the squatters.
        Chu, Keith (1991). "The Frances Steet Squats" (PDF). In Baxter, Sheila (ed.). Under the Viaduct: Homeless in Beautiful BC. Vancouver: New Star Books. pp. 80–88.
        The existence of multiple sources independent of the subject is the step that this subject fails on, as only the Vancouver Sun has independently published anything about this. (I haven't turned up the other newspaper sources waved at above.) There's lots of autobiographical stuff from the actual squatters themselves, but the subject hasn't escaped just them to be independently documented in depth by multiple other people as Woodsquat has.
        And if the squat that I hyperlinked isn't an organization or a company, then this also a squat isn't either; not that that matters because these principles apply well to everything, from beetles to squats.
        Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        , then do you have a !vote? Graywalls (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Forgot to ping. @Uncle G: Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Graywalls, throughout this discussion you keep arguing based on WP:CORP (WP:AUD, etc.). This isn't a corporation or organization. It's a set of six houses. We're looking for GNG, not NCORP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see it differently. They're a group of houses, organized by squatter occupants who have collectively organized them into "Frances Street Squats", a collective action of two of more people, thus I believe that NORG is appropriate Graywalls (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They did organize themselves into an organization, which is mentioned in this article. This article is not about that organization. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a public-interest journalism source from 2016 that reports on the Frances Street Squats in the context of other squats, and mentions the documentary about the Frances Street Squats, which is linked in the External Links section of the article. This commentary, along with the documentary, appear to support WP:ORGDEPTH (the guideline specifically identifies a documentary film as an example of substantial coverage, and also states at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary, which the source linked above and the documentary appear to satisfy), and there is another source, albeit from a student writing on a Pacific Rim College website in 2018, that describes the Frances Street Squats as "one of the largest and most notable public squats in Canadian history," which suggests that additional sources may WP:NEXIST. The article also is already more than a stub, which is part of what the WP:ORGDEPTH guideline seems concerned with avoiding. Beccaynr (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

op-ed. Did you see that this is an OPINION piece? "Opinion by Jakub Markiewicz" ? Graywalls (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and per WP:ORGDEPTH, Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization (emphasis added), and it includes reporting on the Frances Street Squats and the reference to a screening of the documentary as part of the larger opinion article, which both seem to emphasize the enduring notability of the Frances Street Squats long past the initial burst of news coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading there, I see coverage, but not sigcov. FWIW Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and it does not appear to be a trivial mention per that guideline due to the commentary and context, nor within the list of examples of what constitutes trivial coverage in WP:ORGDEPTH, e.g. listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary. Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage highlighted above is not sufficient, it fails WP:GNG - the coverage in independent sources is not in-depth - I’m sure I could find a similar depth of coverage about my local grocery store. Additionally WP:ORG is the relevant policy and that requires a greater depth of non-local coverage than GNG. Those arguing it is not an organisation but a collection of buildings should consider that it obviously fails WP:NBUILD too. --Pontificalibus 11:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of properties of Hilton Worldwide

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

Article is a directory that violates WP:NOTDIR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Aausterm (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, it's not a directory because it doesn't include contact information. It's a list and, insofar as it contains several blue links, that's fine. If the red links and plain entries don't seem useful then they can be removed by ordinary editing. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category:Hilton Hotels & Resorts hotels has 120 articles, how does the scope of that category compare to what was intended with this list? Nom is a WP:VAGUEWAVE currently. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This violates the simple listings part of the WP:NOTDIR as it just provides a listing of locations. Most of them are non notable and the notable ones are already covered by the Category:Hilton Hotels & Resorts hotels. If this page is to be kept, it will need to be changed Aausterm (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOTDUP, we don't delete lists just because there is a category. Needing to change is not a reason for deletion, and it is common practice to limit many lists to only notable examples if that is what consensus determines is appropriate here. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a directory of mostly non notable hotel franchises and accompanied by their official websites. Clear cut WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:OR and fails WP:LISTN - there are no sources cited that confirm all these properties are operated, owned or franchised by Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. and not some other entity. Seeing a hotel branded as Hilton outside the US and assuming it should be on this list is a big leap that should not be made. Also, the group of hotels of Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. is not notable - there are no sources discussing this group in detail. There might be scope for a navigational list more closely related to the category of Category:Hilton Hotels & Resorts hotels, but this isn't it.----Pontificalibus 06:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass automobility

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

Neologism covered elsewhere such as Automobile dependence, History of the automobile etc. Darrelljon (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The OED has usage of automobility back to the 19th century and so it is an established part of the English language and therefore not a neologism. Moreover, the topic seems to be reasonably notable and so merits a page. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mass automobility suggests something distinct from mere automobility or other topics already covered such as automobile, history of the automobile, automobile dependence or modal share.--Darrelljon (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It crops up in some papers and books, e.g. "Harmonizing Cars and Humans in Japan’s Era of Mass Automobility", "The Automobile Industry Since 1945.", "Exploding Johannesburg: Driving in a Worldly City", Republic of Drivers: A Cultural History of Automobility in America, "The Car and the City" Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Automobile dependence, the articles essentially cover the exact same topic, the only difference being that this one goes of on an America-centric original research-ish tangent. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does. Automobile dependency is essentially current urban planning, while History of the automobile covers the nuts and bolts of inventions. Mass automobility is a social phenomenon. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive city covers urban planning. Automobile dependency covers the social phenomenon. Mass automobility is surplus here and the title implies something other than mere automobility. The level at which it became "mass" automobility is covered in the history of the automobile.--Darrelljon (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Szalowski

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NAUTHOR. As usual, every writer does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- the notability test requires some indication of his significance, such as winning major literary awards and/or having enough critical attention paid to his work in newspapers and literary review journals to pass WP:GNG. But this literally just states that he exists, and references that existence exclusively to his "our authors" profile on the directly affiliated website of his own publisher and a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable blog -- neither of which are sources that can support notability. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have far more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is decent coverage in French. I added four sources, including LaPresse, Le Devoir, and Voir, which are good publications here (in Quebec). His books have been subject to independent in-depth reviews. (General statement: pretty much all the coverage is in French, so if you cannot read French it is going to be difficult to assess this one.)--- Possibly (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have now added nine sources. Four of those are for the Cinematheque quebecoise, which is a museum of Quebec cinema. What I am seeing overall is three decent-size independent profiles on him, a significant prize (Archambault prize), a tv episode that he was the subject of (Au Coeur du Cinema Quebecois) and three works that he wrote or directed are in the Cinematheque quebecoise's permanent collection. I am thinking this meets GNG.--- Possibly (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Possibly's sources now demonstrate notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In particular, further discussion can consider new sources that were brought up during the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how the current content of the article fits WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Two books which almost nobody knows about? Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

April Fools' Day nominations

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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 we have a winner, and it is everyone because this is over. (non-admin closure) MainPeanut (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

AfDs for this article:

Last year, I said this should be deleted if WP:NOFUN were to exist. As it turned out (and on an unrelated note), WP:NOFUN was, in fact, created last year, so we can delete this now. MainPeanut (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep too late, it's April 2 where I am now 💜 melecie talk - 23:57, 1 April 2022 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Levine Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borat (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjala

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 kill with fire!. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jar Jar Binks

^{[April Fools!]}

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

No. Just no. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes just yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteStacman24 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just maybe. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was

April 2

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

May it always be April's Fools. --2001:569:7B92:5500:80BB:ECFE:EB9B:C074 (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not being WP:N. Sans (Undertale) 23:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah I'm good. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 23:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police

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 per WP:HOAX. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania

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

Doesn't exist according to XKCD 2394. JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Redirect all to United States as all are constituent parts of the United States. A redirect to Earth could also work as they are all on the planet's surface. Finally, all could be redirected to Uranus. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax per WP:CSD#G3. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Robinhood (company) (and all its redirects)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

GameStop it. --2605:8D80:440:5BDA:8448:C328:DAA9:8BF6 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Soroka

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

It is all Max Fried now. --2605:8D80:440:5BDA:8448:C328:DAA9:8BF6 (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow

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

This article should be deleted per WP:SNOW. Link20XX (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:ITSCOOL. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was PRUNE. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shrubbery

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

Oh Knights of Ni! I have fetched you your shrubbery. Now can I go? PeteStacman24 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prune. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 🚀🚀🚀. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GameStop

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

If we delete this page, it’ll trigger a short squeeze, and we can get our tendies. $GME TO THE MOON! 🚀🚀🚀🚀💎🤲💎🤲💎🤲 Not financial advice, I just like the stock —xX_WallStreetBets42_Xx (talk | contribs) 21:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Soundlike a plan, the markets will respond to anything at this point Mainline421 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mappa mundi

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 💥. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Queen

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

Killer Queen has touched this stupid page. Reply to this and you will explode. PeteStacman24 (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this a Jojo reference? Oh shi- Ian1231100 (talk)
Guarantee to blow your mind... anytime! JJP_{Mas_ter} 21:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BOOM James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 22:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border

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. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple on pizza

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

Delete because it is disgusting, and whoever decided to put pineapples on pizza in the first place should be punished severely. ^{[April Fools!]} Ian1231100 (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire Pineapple does not belong on pizza. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I agree with the nominator. Link20XX (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep because pineapples have bromelain, which may assist in digestion because it breaks down proteins. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Watermelon for no reason. Sans (Undertale) 22:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's technically outside normal jurisdiction, but it is still april fools in the US of A! Therefore, I think the page should be put on pizza. 4D4850 (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Beef. It's What's for Dinner. (non-admin closure) MainPeanut (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beef

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Akording tu Chik-fil-A, u shud eat mor chikin. MainPeanut (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You must learn to love beef, my friend. So says the almighty Burger King. Ian1231100 (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Q: Where's the beef? A: Here! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Feeb. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. April fools is over now (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Meal

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

Eating one did not make me happy. Link20XX (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly horrific. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trash Can for being useless. Tanker4390 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the Nuggets of wisdom. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Go to Arby's instead but nobody likes that place. Panini ^📚 17:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One individual's experience is not a significant enough data point to warrant deletion. See WP:ANECDOTE. Orcaguy (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Crappy meal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classroom

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. Improperly formulated April Fools Day joke. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel culture

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

AfDs for this article:

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

Deplatform all of them!!!!!!! One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 19:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - Wrong place... (seriously) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Best April Fools Ever Randy Kryn (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel the AfD itself. En2que (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serious note: this is the second nomination today for this article. 1) Please check the AFD log before you nominate so we don’t reuse jokes and 2) Maybe come up with some better jokes?

And a serious vote to accompany my serious note: speedy keep. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative for Germany

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

Their name's (in German, Alternativ für Deutschland,thus AfD) acronym clashes with this crucial Wikipedia page,therefore it must be deleted. KaptaşHero (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:No Nazis

Shushugah (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was File:Streisand Estate.jpg. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete per WP:Beans WP:BLP Article contains photos which are privacy violation --T1980 (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Recursion. GMXping! 23:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was sticky. (non-admin closure) MainPeanut (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla Glue

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Has now become a hair product instead of glue. Also runs a frightening ad campaign where ordinary people are jump-scared by a gorilla and forced to use their product against the persons will. I suggest a rewrite. MainPeanut (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stick so that it can do its job again. Sans (Undertale) 18:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Super glue due to both being basically the same thing anyway. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Numbered Highway System

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 evaporate per WP:A41.^{[April Fools!]} (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Water

Water? You mean from the toilet? ^{[April Fools!]} Brawndo (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2021(UTC)

Delete Dihydrogen Monoxide is too dangerous to be kept in this world.^[1]One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 19:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.dhmo.org/dihydrogen-monoxide/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Merge to H2O, or maybe to HBO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary substance. Link20XX (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Dihydrogen monoxide, its true name. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was stand-ins don't have lines. (non-admin closure) MainPeanut (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake from State Farm

Drake from State Farm is superior. MainPeanut (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you wearing, "Drake" from "State Farm?" GlitchMaster2 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhhhh.... Khakis? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per stereotype and cliché. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was █████. Consensus was [REDACTED], [EXPUNGED], and █████.^{[April Fools!]} (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SCP Foundation

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

Delete because [EXPUNGED] that [EXPUNGED] of [EXPUNGED] for the sole purpose of [REDACTED] that stupid little--^{[April Fools!]} Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 18:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protect because [REDACTED]. Sans (Undertale) 18:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'[REDACTED]'One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 19:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and assign nominator to Keter Duty The O-5 Council (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and reward nominator with access to SCP-294. JJP_{Mas_ter} 21:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Fails WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

AfDs for this article:

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

This should be deleted as it fails WP:N. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Four-dimensional space. Sans (Undertale) 18:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace Combat: Assault Horizon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Route 99

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 Dark mode enabled. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Afraid of the Dark?

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

Submitted for the approval of the Midnight Society: The Tale of the Joke Deletion Nomination.🔥 Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enable dark mode — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesome Aasim (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Turn on the lights to get rid of the pesky darkness. - KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question: do any of my 90s peers remember this show? There are like so many memeworthy comments that could be made and none have popped up :-( Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Vision corrected. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glasses

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

Whoa, everything's so blurry all of a sudden! Where did everyone go? What does this text say? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? AdoTang (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is everyone?!?! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Velma Dinkley. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wear contacts, doofus. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 17:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glass per WP:SINGULAR. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Knock out Glass Joe to take on the next challenger. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Sans (Undertale) 18:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I need to be able to see. Link20XX (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trip and fall over. HELP! クロッド (呼んで) 18:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Contact lens. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 18:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Necessity. JJP_{Mas_ter} 18:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Gimubrc (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be blind to see this AfD. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The trees have never had leaves anyway. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, contacts are so much better. MainPeanut (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Trouted. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pufferfish

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

Delete per WP:BLOATED. ^{[April Fools!]} Ian1231100 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLOWITUP. Sans (Undertale) 17:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You are scaring it with AfD! It will return to size once all the extra refs added to make it appear more credible are removed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sup peeps? - The Pufferfish (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Oh god. No one say anything. AdoTang (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aeugh because it needs carrots Yes, That Will (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blow up the pufferfish and unban this pufferfish. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:50: 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Ask Tucker Carlson. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

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

I disagree with it.^{[April Fools!]} AdoTang (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all opinions are bad (including mine) Link20XX (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Start an edit war and get us all banned. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, that's just your opinion. Panini ^📚 17:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reflects bogus assertionism POV.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Sent to miniluv for your crimethink. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen Eighty-Four

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

Delete for █████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.^{[April Fools!]} Ministry of Truth (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It' sequel was better. Panini ^📚 17:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
bb dayorder rectify ref unperson Ian1231100 doublespeedwise. luv bb. Gimubrc (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. April fools' is over now (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It (2017 film)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. It's just too spooky for me.^{[April Fools!]} TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, James Charles?? D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, okay, this one is actually genuinely clever. Panini ^📚 02:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. --Hey mid (contribs) 12:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don't like IT. --BlueCrab RedCrab 15:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Georgie never got his boat back..... that clown was mean and this should be deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ILIKEIT. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, totally offensive. Get that thing out of my face! Ni! Ni! Ni!--The Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Explode per WP:NUKEIT. Sans (Undertale) 22:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. April fools is over now (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Meal

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

Eating one did not make me happy. Link20XX (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly horrific. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trash Can for being useless. Tanker4390 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the Nuggets of wisdom. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Go to Arby's instead but nobody likes that place. Panini ^📚 17:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One individual's experience is not a significant enough data point to warrant deletion. See WP:ANECDOTE. Orcaguy (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Crappy meal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Spam removed. April fools’ is over. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spam (food)

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

Delete per WP:Spam. Duh.^{[April Fools!]} No one likes spam (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All spam should be deleted. No exceptions. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Delete it. In my mouth. Estheim (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil Fools Day

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

For being a WP:RIPOFF. Tanker4390 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Choose Helix Fossil. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fishy says he's not a fool. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no fool!

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 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Blocked, tagged, closing.. (non-admin closure) Pahunkat (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duck

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

Delete and block per WP:QUACK as an obvious sock puppet. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explode to see what happens. Tanker4390 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to Goose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a duck to me —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quack Quack!
–Cupper52^Discuss! 18:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Block per WP:DUCK. --Hey mid (contribs) 18:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald Duck. --Hey mid (contribs) 18:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Replace with hatnote at United States (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 23:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada

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

Obviously subject does not exist, therefore failing WP:GNG. KingOfAllThings ^{(thou shalt chatter!)} 15:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States as Canada is basically the same as the US anyway. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canada and delete United States instead since the U.S. is basically Canada's shoe. Casspedia (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also delete New Jersey (New York's shoe), Ocean County, New Jersey (Monmouth County's shoe), and Toms River, New Jersey (Lakewood's shoe). JsfasdF252 (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just the United States' hat. Link20XX (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. When was the last time a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup? --Hey mid (contribs) 16:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with United States, so that us Canadians can get our vaccines faster. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commonwealth of Nations. --Brewster239 ^(T/C) 19:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minnesota. If Canada actually existed it sounds like it would just be a bigger Minnesota. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 20:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Technologic. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daft Punk

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered daft. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Confirmed to not exist in 2021. 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Harder, per WP:BETTER. Gimubrc (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Put in WP:DAFT. HotdogPi 20:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:NOTPOINTy (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-dimensional space

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

This article, as well as the point (geometry) article, should be deleted per WP:POINT.^{[April Fools!]} --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BATTLEOFBIKINIBOTTOM. Tanker4390 (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and block all per WP:POINT. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winnie-the-Pooh

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 Make 4D. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three-dimensional space

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

If 3-dimensional space is not allowed on Wikipedia, then this article should not be allowed as well.^{[April Fools!]} --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Paper Mario to unlock the third dimension. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. Has anyone seen three dimensions? We can only see in two dimensions. --Hey mid (contribs) 15:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Years (Lukas Graham song) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walgreens

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 bury a friend. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Eilish

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Hey, this article doesn't give coverage on eyelashes [50][51][52] therefore it is off-topic and covers NOTHING — so... yeetus deletus! Goodbye! —beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️^{[April Fools!]} 14:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eyelash. You can't pronounce Eilish without Eyelash! Train of Knowledge (Talk) 21:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You're a bad guy! JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC); edited 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dude

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 per WP:IDONTLIKETHENEWLOGO. (non-admin closure) GMXping! 00:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki

^{[April Fools!]}

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

Obliterate all Wikimedia websites in one fell swoop by removing the engine! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the logo isn't simplified enough. It must be user-friendly. Panini ^📚 13:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there weren't enough flowers in the logo, my attempt to add it for 4 minutes. Tropicalkitty (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. April fools is over now (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pompeii (song)

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

"But if you close your eyes..." After that line, this article would be deleted just like some countries.^{[April Fools!]} --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...and other geographical regions. --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pompey. Panini ^📚 13:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost feels like nothing changed at all when it was made. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herculaneum "Does it almost feel like you've been here before..." Yes, That Will (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pompeii per WP:NSONGS. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was eaten. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Way

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is written as though this location truly exists. However, it's a fictional location, claimed to exist only by those who claim to be from there. In fact, even Wikipedia's own article starts as: "The Milky Way is the galaxy that contains our Solar System". 147.161.9.166 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because life is meaningless. Panini ^📚 12:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Milky Way (chocolate bar) because it's delicious. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Milky Way (chocolate bar) - Obviously the real Milky Way. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Andromeda Galaxy to form Milkdromeda as will happen in several billion years. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's Wikipedia's responsibility to usher in the apocalypse. Some fear the inevitable, but we know our true purpose. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was the article was fed to the tigers. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger King

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

This Netflix "documentary" contains several WP:BLP violations and should be deleted per WP:BEANS.^[4-1] —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nailed It! because it's clearly the best show on Netflix. Panini ^📚 12:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Burger King. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lion King per WP:Misspellings. --Hey mid (contribs) 17:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was turned upside down. (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 23:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frown

^{[April Fools!]}

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

Turn that frown upside-down. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is sponsered by the WP:Department of Fun

Keep for all of the angsty teenagers out there. Panini ^📚 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smile to fix the problem. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Botox and tone it down a bit.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Signed with ~~~~. April fools' Day is over now. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 296

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

If Interstate 296 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, is unsigned, then the article should also be unsigned.^{[April Fools!]} --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts with ~~~~ —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~ per above. Panini ^📚 12:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of god, guys, it's not that hard. SineBot (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was April fools is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Luke

^{[April Fools!]}

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

Non-notable producer with no Grammys and barely one or two hits over a decade ago. A publicized court case does not impart notability to this one individual involved in it. If it won't be deleted then at least redirect to Tik Tok (song).--N Ø 10:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dr. Eggman because it's almost Easter. Panini ^📚 11:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luke Skywalker, the far more notable Luke —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a Merge of Dr. Eggman and Luke Skywalker because the two are the more notable doctor and Luke. Panini ^📚 12:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Blond. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Johnson

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Nominating a wet wipe for obliteration per WP:Spam Idan (username is Zvikorn) (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only popular because of have I got news for you and he couldn't even do that properly 141.92.129.41 (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His hair is wierd per nom. Panini ^📚 09:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should have been deleted years ago per CSD G1. Sincerely, Marksomnian. ^{(Talk to me)} (if you reply, please {{ping|Marksomnian}}) 10:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NEWSSTYLE, Especially avoid bombastic wording, attempts at humor or cleverness, reliance on primary sources, editorializing, recentism, pull quotes, journalese, and headlinese. Popcornfud (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Who would replace him? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Donald Trump as basically the same person but British, hair and all. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-While we're at it, why don't we redirect Narendra Modi, Jair Bolsonaro, and Vladimir Putin as they basically follow the same formulas? JayPlaysStuff (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep to get brexit done! Yes, That Will (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serious non-joke comment: Doesn't this count as a borderline attack page? Foxnpichu (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxnpichu: I don't think so. As long as everyone understands that this is just a joke and that no one here means what they say. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My page was deleted for being too political. Maybe it should be deleted. --BlueCrab RedCrab 15:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of reminds me of this. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Weird blonde-hair man... sounds like a violation of WP:COPYVIO to me. KingOfAllThings ^{(thou shalt chatter!)} 15:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His hair violates WP:COPYVIO. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, which says "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be". What was this guy involved with besides being Prime Minister? :P SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was it's indefinite. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite article

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

How can we have an article that self-declares it's not even about any definite thing? DMacks (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A11 Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kup Panini ^📚 09:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 11:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely block. It is just asking for it. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX, because its not a thing 108.172.21.134 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Solve the GPU shortage. April fools' day is over now (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeForce 30 series

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

GPUs of this series doesn't exist on retail market. NotCory (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it exists at all. We should not have an article on a fictitious product. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 07:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radeon RX 6000 series because they are superior and cheaper.^{[April Fools!]} Purplneon486 (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck is a GPU? Panini ^📚 09:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does a GPU even look like? Casspedia (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bitcoin One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 19:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Whaled.. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidammodytes macrophthalmus

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

This poor fishie has never been nominated for deletion before and I didn't want it to feel left out of the April Fools' Day festivities:-( Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not notable enough to be considered for deletion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A2: This clearly isn't English. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just one source?! Wikipedia demands at least one source per ten syllables! Nuke it!^{[April Fools!]} クロッド (読んで) 09:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unstubbify, expand, stubbify, draftify, take to ANI to show this fish what Wikipedia is actually like. Panini ^📚 09:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trout because it needs it. HotdogPi 12:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. Gimubrc (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I can’t pronounce it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anagram, this fish's letters will be useful for my Scrabble game. —moonytheantifool (Braden N.) 16:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Fish as it is not notable enough on its own. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article title is far too long. Link20XX (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smash! You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly. Invalid ^OS _talk 00:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was great wrong righted. (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 23:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United States Electoral College

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

This should be deleted per the policy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. In addition, it focuses all attention on swing states which means it should be deleted per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Finally, elections should be based on the popular vote which only could happen if this is deleted. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lists of American universities and colleges. Obviously. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest close Stop the count! AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's deleteDede2008 (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A11, even if this were real it wouldn't even make sense. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald Trump per "Trump 2020 Joe Biden is gonna die guys". Panini ^📚 09:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delayed DELETE! As soon as they sort out the constitution (or implement the NaPoVoInterCo), this page is history! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You know, this seems to be a bit overdue at this point. It was clear that this is an unreliable source for elections. Robertocomics fart 16:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tertiary schools are usually presumed notable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Australia. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austria

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

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

This is a fake country as it's another page of Australia HawkAussie (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Malagasy Wiktionary per this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australia as a common misspelling. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spedy delet per WP:R3: This articel is clerly a type o of Austrayliya. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Germany 141.92.129.41 (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. per nom. Panini ^📚 09:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hungary Idan (username is Zvikorn) (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't like it. --Hey mid (contribs) 11:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:XY: could be a typo for Australia or Asturias. HotdogPi 13:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australia, cause they're the same place right? Link20XX (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was [53]. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. 35

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Limited in March 31st, Now is March 32nd/April 1st--119.237.10.81 (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fortnite Battle Royale and call it Mario X Fortnite. Panini ^📚 11:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not just this article, but also all the ones in this two templates per WP:G3 and WP:HOAX, this clearly has never exist. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 15:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Create Mario games #5-34 and #36-62. (63 is already a fangame.) HotdogPi 16:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"So long eh Bowser." This game is no longer accessible after March 31st. --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Nobody cares about a bloated Japanese videogame franchise. One is enough! Estheim (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:DDTMP. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page

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

Replace it with DuckDuckGo--119.237.10.81 (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say don't delete the main page, but I am curious... (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blow it up. Obviously not needed. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke, revdel, and salt as it's long past time this garbage was removed from the site. Gimubrc (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was switch to Linux. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} 19:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10

Windows 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)It never released, still in “build” 21H1[April Fools!]--119.237.10.81 (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buggy
Inconsistant
Slow
Redirect to Windows 9 Opal|zukor(discuss) 08:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update to Linux to please the PC gods. JayPlaysStuff (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment trying to find an answer on Internet Explorer but it won't load. Panini📚 13:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the mythical Windows 9. It must be better than Windows 10. Or redirect to macOS Big Sur as Windows 10 is just a copy of macOS -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email)  15:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Debian GNU/Linux, which is better. JJPMaster 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was switch to Siri. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} 19:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cortana

^{[April Fools!]}

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a spyware and Microsoft are tracking you viewing the page.--119.237.10.81 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This cave is not a natural formation. Gimubrc (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this the one Iron Man uses? Panini ^📚 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with BonziBuddy. SleepForever (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This nomination may be unnecessary. Microsoft is also being nominated for deletion, and if it is deleted, this article will be, too. HotdogPi 16:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per her husband, Microsoft Bob.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I didn't hear anything. —moonythepuppet (Braden N.) 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was April fools is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alderaan

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

You may fire when ready. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Destroy as Dantooine is far too remote to make an effective demonstration. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aldernaan is a major tax base and blowing up a civilian world is just going to cause backlash. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alderaan's sympathies towards the Rebellion cannot be tolerated. MorphinBrony (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh' I can't come up with a Star Wars joke. Panini ^📚 09:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find you lack of jokes Disturbing User:Darth Vader 11:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to 'Destruction of Aldernaan'. that's all anyone will visit the article for - nothing else notable about it. 141.92.129.42 (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in California - Apparently, "Alderaan's not far away, it's Californication". 147.161.9.166 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too peaceful. They have no weapons. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was laptop exploded upon attempting to delete it. (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 23:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SCP-682

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

That lizard is a menace and must be destroyed! Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fail gng.--Welp, IN just want to his AFDSTATS' data is gooder on Apr.Fools day. 06:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guys I lost SCP-173 Panini^📚 09:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You idiot you had 1 job! Yes, That Will (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete because we can. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedia controversies

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

AfDs for this article:

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

Libelous material. No credible evidence that Wikipedia or its editors have ever made a mistake. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even when we're wrong, we're right. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews -> OWNN when? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedia achievements, as merely deleting would be insufficient remedy to any mind so depraved that it would search for the controversies list. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Main Page. AdoTang (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we can. Link20XX (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was WP:COI. KingOfAllThings ^{(thou shalt chatter!)} (non-admin closure) 20:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

AfDs for this article:

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

By definition, this article is entirely the product of COI editing. Not logically possible for this issue to be resolved. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because !voting keep on all of these joke nominations will improve my AfD ratio. jp×g 04:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because my AFD ratio was hosed years ago from all my joke AFD votes so I really don't care anymore —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, although are we sure these really count? JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quick keep beacuse it hasn't fall GNG!!1!--Welp, IN just want to his AFDSTATS' data is gooder on Apr.Fools day. 06:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:LORRRSAITYRRRSNC point 1: Noboy cares about your stupid website. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uncyclopedia because why not. Casspedia (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The place where everyone slowly loses their minds. Cus it's true. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:VOLUNTEER. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fortnite: Battle Royale because Wikipe-Tan is now in the game. Panini ^📚 11:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so teachers will stop bugging me about not using it as a source for my work! Yes, That Will (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it is an obvious hoax created by Willy on Wheels to spread his infinite automobiles. ThatOneRandomGuyYouMeet (talk)
Delete because it is WP:TOOLONG. Tanker4390 (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, obvious WP:G3 violation. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stupidity. KingOfAllThings ^{(thou shalt chatter!)} 16:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Encyclopedia Dramatica. =)
We're editing it right now. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fork of Nupedia. Mr. Wheely Guy (on wheels!) 18:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Main Page. --Brewster239 ^(T/C) 19:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:TNT is required to clean the pervasive WP:COI editing, but the logical problem can be solved by forking MediaWiki, hosting it at notwikipedia.org, ask people who never edited Wikipedia to write an article there, and transclude it. The main problem is finding people who have never edited Wikipedia. I propose to ask the Sentinelese to do it. Tercer (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was blocked without talk page access. (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 23:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Per WP:VANDAL. It states right there that vandalism is prohibited -- why has this article been allowed to stay for so long?^{[April Fools!]} CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 03:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Graffito per WP:SINGULAR. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article's sequel, Subway Surfers. Panini ^📚 11:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so people UNDERSTAND UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF LOVE GlitchMaster2 (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEANS 108.172.21.134 (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3 as vandalism. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Flip upside down. April fools' day is over now. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

^{[April Fools!]}

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

It doesn't exist. also, I don't like it. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 14:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep due to this very reliable source https://twitter.com/mejesseandari/status/1509147338459291653 CT55555 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flip upside-down 💜 melecie talk - 15:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Salt and redirect to New Zealand, basically the same thing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Asia Islands per Heartland theory once the merger between Europe and Asia is completed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2022 (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 Doughnut touch the page. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons

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

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

These articles is way too long, everybody knows The Simpsons ends in Season 11. -- Click here to read the April Declaration 2021 by User:TuxStrikesBack 02:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Bartman per nom. Panini ^📚 03:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They'll never stop the Simpsons. Have no fears - they've got stories for years. 141.92.129.41 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it down Preferably slowly and painfully. As they deserve.

-mr man man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.188.73.178 (talk • contribs) 10:17, April 1, 2021 (UTC)

D’oh! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah yeah. Hah hah!. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge with macOS and Linux^[4-1]. April Fool's is over now. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Allegedly in talks to take over Discord. NotCory (talk) 02:26, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment per Cyberbot I. Panini ^📚 03:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Linux. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Preferably with Hannah Montana Linux. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Macrohard. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Linux alternatives. jp×g 04:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Mac OS worst clone ever--119.237.10.81 (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Inc. as Microsoft Windows is just a copy of macOS. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Linux. ^{[April Fools!]} User3749 (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's the best operating system. Bill Gates (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Move - I suggest we add some features and rebrand it as Microsoft Plus! >>BEANS X2^t 07:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foreshadowing? >>BEANS X2^t 18:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE With fire. They just copied the mac. Steve Jobs (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Merge with Microshaft. Casspedia (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tried to delete it but computer says no. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Apple Inc. and Linux so we can finally have cross-platform compatibility. --Hey mid (contribs) 12:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Monopoly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:HOAX. (non-admin closure) GMXping! 00:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Lie in April

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

It's April, so this is a WP:LIE and should be deleted accordingly.^{[April Fools!]} Link20XX (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nodame Cantabile, at least the main girl doesn't die in that one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

God, another Anime deletion? Panini^📚 02:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 😂 Gimubrc (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. April Fools' is over now (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anime

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Non-notable art form. I mean c'mon, who watches anime? Link20XX (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anime belongs in the trash. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and build a huge statue of Wikipe-tan, my forever waifu. Start making Wikipe-tan full body pillows NOW! --BlueCrab RedCrab 00:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hayao Miyazaki's immortal words: "Anime was a mistake". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amine, silly typo ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with United States - we need moar anime. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manga since manga and anime versions of any given series are generally one-for-one adaptations. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was You will never become God. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Day I Became a God

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Jun Maeda's worst series ever and one most watchers would want to forget. I say erase it from existence. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sacriligeous. Panini ^📚 02:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ehh I think its better than Charlotte. Link20XX (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disbelieve, what is this "god" you speak of? —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per WP:Blasphemy 141.92.129.42 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. April fools' day is over. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hololive Production

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

Konlamy konrushi yo dayo FAQ nanora peko poruka oruka poi knight cup yametekudastop no waifu friends nenenenenenenenenenenenenene ground pound a kikkiriki inaaaaaa deadbeats nonstop nut november hey moona docchi docchi i'm god shuba shuba NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE -10hp desk-kun ~~help vtubers are ruining my life please get me out of this hole but sui-chan will literally axe me help help help~~ ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC) ^{[April Fools!]}[reply]

What? Panini ^📚 02:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hololive wa warukunai yo ne? クロッド (読んで) 02:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Hail the vTubers.. (non-admin closure) HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual YouTuber

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

VTubers were a mistake and so are their fans and the management companies. Suggest deleting the menace once and for all so that peace may be restored to weebdom.

Also nominating the following articles:

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

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

^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of this house. Out of this house. Panini ^📚 02:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I rate them "i don't know what they are" out of ten, as such they should be kept. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but fix typo in title by moving to Bacharu Yuchuba. jp×g 04:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, for reasons that are pretty obvious, I think. AdoTang (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ryan's World, where the real VTubers are. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Liver", the obvious supreme terminology. クロッド (呼んで) 19:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Maybe I wasn't meant for this world.... (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genshin Impact

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

A fad that's already starting to die out. Suggest deletion or at best a redirect to Uma Musume Pretty Derby. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghost of Tsushima because I get the two confused. Panini ^📚 02:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild as it is so obviously a ripoff. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Military dictatorship in El Salvador. Giraffe ^{(who stole my "r"?)} 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Ruin Guard, not this article. Fortunately I have a Level 80 Lisa so I should be able to delete it in a couple of clicks. (Pyro + Electro, Pyro + Hydro, Pyro + Cryo) Aasim (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and ban any users associated with it. AdoTang (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I'll close it later. (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 00:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procrastination

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Do not reply to this AfD on April Fools' Day, but instead procrastinate (and then it would already be too late to reply to this AfD). ^{[April Fools!]} GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment.

The the Tanker4390 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll decide how to vote on this tomorrow. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely,

Won't fix Opal|zukor^(discuss) 09:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get around to voting on this eventually. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss for as long as possible so I can procrastinate through procrastination. Cheesetron246 Say hi! 03:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: appears to be a textbook case of WP:TOOSOON. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'll do it later. There's more interesting stuff on Youtube... Yes, That Will (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhhhhhhhh I'm not sure. Maybe do this again next year and I will have a decision. Link20XX (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This obviously needs to be relisted, preferably multiple times. Hog Farm _Talk 03:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist this discussion so I can make an actual verdict later. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 06:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See source code for "joke". -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 11:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to procrastinate.
Relisting comment: Should not be closed until next year's April Fools.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Go out and do something productive instead of procrastinating by reading this article. --Hey mid (contribs) 12:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it later. MainPeanut (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Trashed.. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario: The Origami King

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

The game is not Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. As a true Paper Mario fan every game has fallen from grace and is stupid. I WANT XP. ^{[April Fools!]} Panini ^📚 02:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FLAT Tanker4390 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cut because it's paper. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That was flat-out as rough as sandpaper. Go back to the drawing board on that one. Panini ^📚 02:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to [[Trash ~~Paper Mario~~:Origami King]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.10.81 (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fold into Origami. Maybe an Orizuru? 2A07:7840:0:100:BD80:ABD4:3491:47E5 (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Give us a TTYD reboot instead. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shred, staple, and glue, no paper is immune to office supplies. —moonythepuppet (Braden N.) 19:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Prcdrl cls pr th rqst of the grmmr plc. (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disemvoweling

AfDs for this article:

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

E ou o oo ue a i i aiay ei. I i e ou eee i aie.^{[April Fools!]} Aa_eeaee02 (a ae o a | a i o u i'e oe) 01:55, 1 Ai 2021 (U)

ee e :IA. auooeiaa5 ^aoe 02:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cnsnnt —pthncdr (tlk | cntrbs) 02:37, 1 prl 2021 (TC)
Delete per WP:GERMAN. Panini ^📚 02:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rdrct to Dsmvwlng ILostMyOriginalAccount (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mrg wth nly cnnct 141.92.129.42 (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kp bcs dsmvwlng shld b rmvng vwls nt kpng thm Gmbrc (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- U I o uo ieoei, o I a ieooai iea. Auay_eeaee (a a o a | a i o u i oe) 19:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kp pr ncnt Srlts, Brhm, Ssc, & Jcb.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotye

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

No indication of lasting notability. versacespace talk to me 01:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just somebody that I used to know. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the word Belgium is fun to say. Panini ^📚 02:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't have to cut this page out and make it like it never happened. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:FANCRUFT of a non-notable YouTube video. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is clearly notable despite its graphic content. Just because it's a shock site doesn't mean we can't have an article about it (WP:NOTCENSORED). jp×g 04:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what a pretentious way of spelling gotcha Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Got ya! --Hey mid (contribs) 12:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftified to await G13. (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 00:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Guys

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

A fad that died faster than you can say sus. Doesn't have lasting notability. I say delete. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fall guy, because yes. P anini ^🥪 01:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fall Guy, which re-redirects itself back because yes ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 02:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fall Guy per WP:SINGULAR. ILostMyOriginalAccount (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eject yellow is sus --Cyan (talk | contribs)
Userfy to User:Willy on Wheels~enwiki. Opal|zukor_(discuss) 18:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was cancel. ^{[April Fools!]} (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Babylon 2021

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Delete this anime per WP:PLAGIARISM, and given that it's already starting from scratch, I'm sure CLAMP agrees. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't make me GoHands over this one. Link20XX (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bakugan Panini ^📚 02:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

e oowi iuio i a aie eae o e ooe eeio o e aie eo. eae o o oiy i. ueue oe ou e ae o e aoiae iuio ae (u a e aie' a ae o i a eeio eie). o uer ei ou e ae o i ae.

e eu a ee e :O. (o-ai oue) JJP_{Mas_ter} 02:33, 1 Ai 2021 (UTC)

ooa

i ae oai aeia a i e eaue i i oiee uoou.
u aeia i o ea o e ae eiou.

ooa (ei | a | io | oe | eee | i | a | logs | ie) – (ie A)

(i oue: ooe (oo · e · oa · ee iae · e) · E · O · · )

Ei i ee o iou e. auooeiaa5 ^aoe 01:08, 1 Ai 2021 (UTC)

Ee e iieia:Aie o eeio/oe. <ie ee ee>_{a_e} 01:29, 1 Ai 2021
ee e IEI u O --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 01:33, 1 Ai 2021 (UTC)
ee ai ie i i aoi i o Eae (a) 01:49, 1 Ai 2021 (U)
E. Panini ^📚 02:31, 1 Ai 2021 (UTC)

Eoae —ooei (ae) 03:29, 1 Ai 2021 (U)

e aoe iuio i eee a a ahie o e eae. eae o o oiy i. ueue oe ou e ae o e oiae iuio ae (u a e aie' a ae o i a eeio eie). o ue ei ou e ae o i ae.

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 2.7182818284590452353602874713527. (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 00:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrational number

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

Not possible to insert an infinitely long and non-repeating decimal without using symbols like π and ${\sqrt {2}}$ . Also, Hippasus' discovery of irrational numbers had caused him to be punished!^{[April Fools!]} --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imaginary number. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I like eating pie! Sschr16 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I hate geometry. Panini ^📚 02:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Round to an Integer. —moonythepuppet (Braden N.) 03:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approximate via Continued fractions until a consensus can be reached. Pie3141527182 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin that this user, themselves an approximated irrational number, may have a conflict of interest. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a rational number such as 2/3. A redirect to Uranus could also work to fix this problem. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why redirect a mathematical concept to a planet? Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WP:ARBCOM#Members. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Irrational numbers go on for ever, and there are an infinite number of them. 141.92.129.41 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The most common letter in the local language is an irrational number. In fact, every vote to delete uses this number. I would like users such as AlphaBta135 to note this fact and reconsider his/her vote. 147.161.9.166 (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrational article. --Hey mid (contribs) 15:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the furthest corner of the universe. It can't do any harm there. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What if the universe is e. g. an ellipsoid, a torus, or a sphere? They don't have corners (as in, vertices). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Thesaurus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

This page should be deleted per the policy WP:NOTDICT which states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.^[4-1] -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete our policies are very clear on this issue. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDICT. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatent violation of WP:NOTDICT ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 01:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear competitor to Wiktionary, and we need to snuff out the competition. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wiktionary: Wiktionary is the only dictionary, why would we need this page? ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel because I can probably find racist words in there. Panini ^📚 02:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikt:Dictionary. jp×g 04:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless page - doesn't even have anything about Gullibility in it. 141.92.129.42 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should be practicing what it preaches, which is don't make dictionaries on Wikipedia. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 21:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Slang dictionary. Vernacular vocabulary is much better than formal usage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 🗿. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} 15:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moai

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Where's my gum gum, dum dum? 🗿 Epicgenius (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

🗿--BlueCrab RedCrab 00:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🗿 — Goszei (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🗿 Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🗿 —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 01:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
!🗿. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🗿 Tanker4390 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
& 🗿 Panini ^📚 02:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🗿 クロッド (読んで) 03:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🗿 Link20XX (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🗿 jp×g 04:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🗿 reppop^talk 04:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WHat's Squidward's house doing all the way on Wikipedia? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🗿 per snowball clause Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🗿 —🗿🗿 (🗿 | 🗿) 12:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🗿 per BlueCrabRedCrab et al Gimubrc (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🗿. MainPeanut (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The subject deleted itself by disintegration during production due to poor quality control.^{[April Fools!]} (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Their planes are either unsafe, have quality-control issues, delayed, or vaporware. This dinosaur of a company should be deleted or merged with Airbus. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Airbus's A380 is hundreds of times better then the 747. If only I could afford tickets. --BlueCrab RedCrab 01:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd rather be on a plane that crashes than one built by the Europeans. USA! USA! 🎆🦅🍔🥧⚾ {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boing! Panini ^📚 02:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bow-ing! —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was so long, gay Mario. ^{[April Fools!]} (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 3D All-Stars

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Unfortunately, against the wishes of every Nintendo fan and gamer on the planet, the game is no longer for sale and its sale pages have been deleted. As such, we must regretfully and reluctantly follow the wishes of Nintendo and delete our article for the game as well, as if pretending the game never existed.

Also including Super Mario Bros. 35 for the same reason.

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

^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mario is dead —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huff Per the above. Casspedia (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hoo, per above. P anini ^🥪 01:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, per nom. P anini ^🥪 01:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo! for reasons stated above. P anini ^🥪 01:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: I bought it before deadline so yeah!
Delete Super Mario Bros. 35: End of Article Service--119.237.10.81 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been completely discontinued due to the murder of Mario by Nintendo. Computerfan0 (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"So long eh Bowser." The game is no longer accessible after March 31st. --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buh-bye Mario! Foxnpichu (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mumma-Mia I have yet to even fish 1 of the games yet. Yes, That Will (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was another cancelled one. ^{[April Fools!]} (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caillou

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

The show's been cancelled, let's do the same to its Wikipedia page.^{[April Fools!]} Marioedit8 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is solely responsible for getting #CalliouIsOverParty trending on Twitter with his many Twitter accounts. This is a clear conflict of interest, and, how do we know Marioedit8 won’t turn into Marioedit8 and his 103619451047 sockpuppets??? They already did that on Twitter, so Looks like a duck to me. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 18446744073709551616x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's cancel the article the same way that God canceled his hair. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question How do you say "Cancel" in Canadian? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Us Canadians are too nice to cancel someone, hence my Keep vote above. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say it in Moose. Panini ^📚 02:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the shows been cancelled doesn't mean delete the article. I'm also pretty sure that there reliable sources, I'm not sure, but it looks notable. JennilyW (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user needs to realise what's happening. Each day you learn some more. Panini ^📚 02:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for no particular reason. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block for countless violations of WP:CIVIL. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Might as well, since most people don’t like it. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ground for 20210401 years per GoAnimate#"Grounded" videos. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (20th nomination)

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 ███████████. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler (media)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Per WP:SPOIL and WP:NDA. Redundant to the WP:Content disclaimer. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spoiler (car) because it's a better article. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
███████████ █████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ --████████████████████████ 00:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Han Solo dies per I just watched Star Wars: The Force Awakens. P anini ^🥪 01:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Midnight from MHA dies in Battle per Adam Levine has a small penis --Nhoj609 (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O Is The Master per just heard in the plane -- Click here to read the April Declaration 2021 by User:TuxStrikesBack 02:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rosebud was his !vote. jp×g 04:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per WP:I am your Father 141.92.129.41 (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per internet policy. Romeo and Juliet die in the end of the play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Blue Hat (talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neegan kills Dumbledore. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was April Fools is over and so is Stadia. (non-admin closure) MorphinBrony (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Stadia

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

A service that's the butt of jokes of the gaming industry, which is essentially on life support due to the closure of their gaming studios. We don't even know if Stadia will still exist two years from now (if it does, mea culpa). Should the article follow the path of Stadia Games and Entertainment? Time to add it to [54]? ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lol get gud your hotdog water Panini ^📚 01:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stadio Olimpico per Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy drift. (non-admin closure) GMXping! 00:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joy-Con

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

This article keeps drifting too much. This stupid device needs to be deleted until that damn drifting problem is addressed. Or at least until the new Switch comes out. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delakie, oops, my joay cosn keap dsroftieng si ist hrsd ty typo. Link20XX (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Drealke'" wenhever is tyr to plkaye maruioa kart and ia am adirt in ajoiycon itg si sahard aif am asuing nintendo~~/BlueCrab RedCrab 00:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Funny reference to "Tokyo Drift" but I can't write out the lyrics because of coypright. _Oopsie... Panini ^📚 02:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
drift parking —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs to learn to keep drifting in Mario Kart. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-Buy I need to finish Super Mario 3D All-Stars. Yes, That Will (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was press F to pay respects. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Mario has been executed.^{[April Fools!]} JOE BRO 64 00:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He’s existed and been the top figure in video game history for so many years now, and everybody knows him. Come on, let’s get something newer! --Heymid (contribs) 00:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Heymid, here you go JOE BRO 64 00:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO, and the article has clearly been hijacked by COI editors to whitewash the subject's many war crimes. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 00:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mario Draghi, the true Super Mario. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"So long eh Bowser." The game is no longer accessible after March 31st. --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- True? I can't access the game? If true, delete it! April Fool 2021 (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waluigi. You have entered the comedy area —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh yeah, Wario Time" Clearly Wario deserves more attention than red moustache man! Yes, That Will (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tux. We got 3D All-Stars on the list, but why no Kart? -- Click here to read the April Declaration 2021 by User:TuxStrikesBack 02:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Mario (character) and move Mario Batali here as primary topic. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MaaaaAAAAAAAmmmMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAaAAAAAAAAAmmmmmAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaMMMMMMMMmmmmMMMMAAAAA Panini ^📚 12:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luigi. Luigi is so much better than Mario! (I’m capping lmao)
Redirect to Luigi. I suppose we can go with the best next thing. (It’s way cooler anyway) —-User:Landthins15 — Preceding undated comment added 11:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject of this article clearly doesn’t exist. 180.150.37.117 (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - He was invented by some guy, therefore, the article obviously fails WP:A11. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog (character), because Sonic is way better than Mario. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 16:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wario because of wumbo. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luigi - Mario's brother. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Luigi doesn't seem like a suitable page to redirect to. Namcokid 47 18:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn plumber Harej (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed destruction 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 The boat has been freed. It swims once again. (non-admin closure) Panini ^📚 17:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ever Given

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

It's finally free! This article isn't needed anymore. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it And melt it for scrap, and make a giant statue of Wikipe-tan in Tokyo with the metal. --BlueCrab RedCrab 00:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relocate to the Suez Canal. OwO (what's this?) 02:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be free!

Move away from the Canal, don't block the route! April Fool 2021 (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suez Canal as it is not notable otherwise. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Call the fire brigade They will know what to do. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for someone to develop psychic powers I can’t think of any possible way that would backfire. IlSoupylI (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sink it. We're out of options. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Get rid of the excavators they're causing more blockage now what is hAPPENING GlitchMaster2 (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT to clear a path... only to have the debris clog the canal again. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boaty McBoatface. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relocate to Great Bitter Lake. - Ian1231100 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge with List of islands in the Mediterranean to expand the Suez Canal. (non-admin closure) ^[4-1] -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinai Peninsula

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

Remember the Ever Given that was stuck in the Suez Canal? If we get rid of this peninsula, we will never have to worry about incidents like this ever again! JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - getting rid of the peninsula will also put an end to this. Since Wikipedia is in the real world, deletion will clearly make the world safe for democracy. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 600,000 people live on the Peninsula. We can't make all of these people homeless just because of one stuck ship. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, merge with List of islands in the Mediterranean until enough houses are built elsewhere. ILostMyOriginalAccount (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mediterranean Sea and move the people to Africa. 14.0.164.60 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Exodus, not notable outside of that plot. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Panini ^📚 02:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Israel. 217.117.125.88 (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sell to Palestine per Kushner.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Mediterranean Sea. Nominator didn't do WP:BEFORE, moving suffices and preserves important page history. Tercer (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed ejection of the user below. Please do modify it. Subsequent comments should not be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). Lots of further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to eject Old Naval Rooftops per WP:SELFREPORT, WP:NOVENTSINMAINSPACE, WP:AMONGUSSOCK and WP:SUSSS. As well, Category:Wikipedians who self-reported shall be added to O.N.R.'s userpage so they can forever remember their mistake. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Among Us

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

Where? One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 19:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page looks sus. I saw it vent.^{[April Fools!]} O.N.R. ^(talk) 00:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eject - This article is a sus impostor. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O.N.R. sus There are no vents in mainspace. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eject Old Naval Rooftops instead - they’re lying, I saw this page scan. As well, Sprit of Eagle said there aren’t any vents in mainspace. Sus... D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eject O.N.R. per WP:SELFREPORT —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Illuminati triangle is better. Invalid ^OS _talk 00:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eject O.N.R. Clearly just the imposter's sockpuppet account. —moonythesock (Sock P.) 00:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eject Oshwah He is clearly sus. --BlueCrab RedCrab 00:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self Report O.N.R. sus. Mainspace's vents closed for the airship update, right? ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 00:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eject O.N.R. Sus. Casspedia (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Naval Rooftops was An Impostor.
1 Impostor remains.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposed ejection. Please do modify it. Subsequent comments should not be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). Lots of 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 deleted per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} 21:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunk 2077

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

It's too buggy! Delete this per WP:BUG. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The developers have already updated the game with bug fixes. Just update it! JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the excellent rationale of the nominator. Why didn't I ever think of doing this? Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BUG. Way to go, nominator! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grand Theft Auto V which is the superior game. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This will get better in 2077 ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 01:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but will it? Panini ^📚 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Breathtaking game. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no, you're breathtaking! Sincerely, Marksomnian. ^{(Talk to me)} (if you reply, please {{ping|Marksomnian}}) 10:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect CD Projekt to Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ask if these shrimp are fresh. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: this is clearly WIP. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 15:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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 per WP:ILIKEIT and WP:SUPERVOTE ^{[April Fools!]} (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 01:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bee

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

Per WP:HOAX, according to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly.^{[April Fools!]} Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Molandfreak, you forget that the bee, of course, flies anyway, because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. JOE BRO 64 00:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace every instance of bee in the encyclopedia with the script of Bee Movie. –Fredddie ™ 00:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bee Movie and have a complete script reading of it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wookiepedia. Articles on Star Wars creatures do not belong on Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. He's got bees! NO BEES! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bee Movie. We don't need a hoax article based off a movie's main character. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3. Vaticidalprophet 00:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's the truth. A bee should never be able to fly! It's proved through all known laws of aviation. --BlueCrab RedCrab 00:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was continue the lockdown. April fools close (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdown

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

I just want to go outside. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 00:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You may not love lockdown, but Kanye West does. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coraonavirus is fake news. --BlueCrab RedCrab 00:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)--BlueCrab RedCrab 00:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to COVID-19. Thanks to covid, we can't get out. April Fool 2021 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Globally lock. JJP_{Mas_ter} 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per WP:LOCK. Panini ^📚 02:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 04:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to COVID-19 - Thank you covid, I love you full Dede2008 (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 99% of people surveyed said they didn't need this
Keep - too soon. Suggest 50-year moratorium before this is discussed again. Vpab15 (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of all those who went through one; DELETE! DELETE! DELETE! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can't delete it untile we have deleted COVID-19. So will someone nominate it already!! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment April Fools is over, right? –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed decommission 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 Recommision. April fools' is over now (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 66

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

U.S. Route 66 has been decommissioned since 1985 and still is to this day!^{[April Fools!]} --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recomission I like the roadside attractions. --BlueCrab RedCrab 00:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kick. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Route 69 is better. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 00:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. –Fredddie ™ 01:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not sponsored by Freewayjim [1] --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's good screen-saver potential. Panini ^📚 03:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NGEO. There have been many articles created about non-notable locations and highways (such as this one) simply because there used to be a road at such-and-such coordinates. It's high time we cleaned them out. jp×g 03:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Radiator Springs is on that road. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Interstate 40.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was This discussion never existed. (non-admin closure) Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 23:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

I found a hoax on Wikipedia. Hoaxes are not allowed per WP:HOAX. I am open to speedy deletion (G3), but I need people's input to be sure that deletion is the best move. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uranus because I said so. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3 as a hoax. ^[4-1] -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Your mom for reason. Tanker4390 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the purpose of the project is to improve people's knowledge of the world, and an important fact about the world is that it is filled with lies. For this reason, we should seek to maximize the amount of lies and false information on Wikipedia. jp×g 04:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You had me in the first half, I'm not gonna lie. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Australia (and it's typo Austria) and 5G Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hoax isn't real and doesn't exist. Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan

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, 🦀April Fools is gone🦀. (non-admin closure) GMXping! 23:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crab Rave

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

🦀 The meme is gone! 🦀 Let the meme die! 🦀^{[April Fools!]} Jalen Folf (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crab cakes time Casspedia (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sans Undertale Panini ^📚 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go into my eyes TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Silver being a twink. SleepForever (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I will keep the meme alive! Yes, That Will (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cook per nom nom nom —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the observable universe. The rest of the universe can be deleted later. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} 21:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universe

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

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Per WP:COI. April Fool 2021 (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because since were deleting Earth we might as well just go all the way. Panini ^📚 02:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Initiate impromptu false vacuum decay. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are an infinite number of other universes; why should this one get special consideration? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because that's where my favorite band is from. jp×g 04:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to make way for a multiversal bypass. You were warned. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED applies; possible WP:TOOSOON, may achieve something later to warrant its own article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant, we have Multiverse already. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the universe is big - the point of an article is to summarize it's contents, but the universe is so big that no article can possibly do it justice. 141.92.129.41 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transreality - replace with a more interesting universe ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is mostly ok, except the Earth part keeps getting vandalised. That is where humans live, which is probably not a coincidence. I suggest we get rid of the humans and keep the rest. Vpab15 (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Do you understand what will happen if the Universe was deleted? Everything and I mean EVERYTHING would cease to exist! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete half to restore balance. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blow up. We don't need it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blow it up with antimatter! ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the multiverse theory is true. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Univers —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. per WP:SYNTH. April fools' Day is over now. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesizer

Should be deleted per WP:SYNTH. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Keep per WP:NOTSYNTH. JJP_{Mas_ter} 01:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.^[4-1]-KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Final Countdown (song). –Fredddie ™ 02:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguate", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why. Panini ^📚 03:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
⎍⎍⎍⎍⎍ —moonythepanda (Braden N.) 03:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIZE. Popcornfud (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Eject User:Jimbo Wales. (non-admin closure) Tanker4390 (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red

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

1. WP:SUS 2. It's not even a userbox Tanker4390 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pokémon Red and Blue. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Red is sus. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green as they are the same for some people (not me). –Fredddie ™ 02:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue because I'm blue, da ba dee da ba daa Da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa Da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa Da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa. Panini ^📚 02:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eject. I saw Red vent, and then he followed me to Electrical. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eject very sus. OwO (what's this?) 02:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Report dead body. JJP_{Mas_ter} 02:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and eject green instead. Red (Talk)
Redirect to List of The Blacklist characters#Raymond Reddington per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kinu: Defer to Global blacklist Opal|zukor^(discuss) 09:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eject blue instead. He went into electrical, I was on cams. GREEN SAW ME DO MEDBAY! Red's sockpuppet (talk)
Delete OHmagod guys! why aren't we trying to eliminate this existential threat immediatly!!!11 Red is soooo SUS!!!! -GoatLordServant ☂ ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 11:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was the near total extermination of the Jedi and rise of the Galactic Empire. Don't worry though, Luke Skywalker would blow up the Death STar and bring democracy to the galaxy, at least until his nephew blew up the new Republic. By the way, have you heard the tragedy of Dath Pelagieus the Wise?. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi

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

Per WP:ORDER66.^{[April Fools!]} Chancellor Palpatine^(talk) 03:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superlaser to death. —moonythesith (Braden N.) 03:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Execute Order 65 In the name of the Galactic Senate of the Republic, under arrest you are! Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question – Are you threatening me, Master [This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.]? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decide your fate, the Senate will. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate, I am. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. <Extends laser-sword> Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's treason, then... (extends lightsaber, then spin-jumps forward while screeching) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ughhhhhh (Inexplicably gets impaled by enemy's lightsaber even though I'm supposed to be a Jedi master). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sith. 141.92.129.41 (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it and delete sith. April Fool 2021 (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Trek because Star Wars is clearly copying it. Panini ^📚 10:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The time has come. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Because it's my religion Yes, That Will (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SUS Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krystal Ball Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Theft Auto V Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Something Strange Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QR code

Donald Trump (2nd nomination)

Template:Humor Template:AFD help Template:La

Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 05:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Home Alone 2: Lost in New York. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Joe Biden --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 05:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Covfefe Nalbarian (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mars, its fake news and I want him to investigate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Jim George (January 31, 2005). "Liquid mints become 'jewels' in a tube". Packaging World. Retrieved April 2, 2021.

[2] Lisa DeSisto (interviewer) (February 28, 2020). "Like a Boss: Read the interview with Tony Shurman, President and CEO of Jasper Wyman & Son". Portland [Maine] Press-Herald. Retrieved April 2, 2021. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

[3] ttps://www.dhmo.org/dihydrogen-monoxide/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[1]

@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania}}
+===[[Robinhood (company)]] (and all its redirects)===
+{{humor}}
+{{la|Robinhood (company)}}
+({{Find sources AFD|title=Robinhood (company)}})
+GameStop it. --[[Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:440:5BDA:8448:C328:DAA9:8BF6|2605:8D80:440:5BDA:8448:C328:DAA9:8BF6]] ([[User talk:2605:8D80:440:5BDA:8448:C328:DAA9:8BF6|talk]]) 22:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
+===[[Mike Soroka]]===
+{{humor}}
+{{la|Mike Soroka}}
+({{Find sources AFD|title=Mike Soroka}})
+It is all [[Max Fried]] now. --[[Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:440:5BDA:8448:C328:DAA9:8BF6|2605:8D80:440:5BDA:8448:C328:DAA9:8BF6]] ([[User talk:2605:8D80:440:5BDA:8448:C328:DAA9:8BF6|talk]]) 21:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow (2nd nomination)}}