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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 58: Line 58:


== April Fools' Day nominations ==
== April Fools' Day nominations ==
<div style='font-family: "Times New Roman", "Times", "Comic Sans MS", "Comic Sans", cursive !important'>
{{AprilFoolsNotice|year=2021}}
{{AprilFoolsNotice|year=2021}}
{{warning|1=
{{warning|1=
Line 217: Line 218:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmie Johnson (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmie Johnson (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consensus}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consensus}}
</div>

Revision as of 15:53, 1 April 2021


< March 31 April 02 >

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 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)

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

Veena Sood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an actress, not reliably 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[1] (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. [2]. Everytime she is mentioned in a piece of new she is referred as an award winning actress. [3]. 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

Isaac Saul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable 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]
  • 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:
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 ([4] (this WP:INTERVIEW has a substantial introduction), [5]). ~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]
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

Eddie Kuligowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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: [6] 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:[7] 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:
Draw My Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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:
  • 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:
Max Hechtman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Jared L. Valanzola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a 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

Murtuza Kutianawala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:
Evan Edinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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, — MarkH21talk 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 [[8]], a review on Favorite Evan Edinger moments by Ten Eighty Magazine at [[9]], and a story of his career by American Expat Finance at [[10]]. 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

Cabbagetown Group Softball League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article 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. PKT(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

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

Happy Halloween (Dreamworld) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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

Bernard Courte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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, — MarkH21talk 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

FC Dinamo Sukhum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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. GiantSnowman 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 [11] (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

Baháʼí Faith in Chad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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
and
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 - 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

Elisha Paul Janes (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 does not seem to pass GNG. I found some passing mentions in the press ([12]) 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:
Independent Green Voice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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 wordsdeeds 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 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)

Diana (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable 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.fTalk 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

HRnetGroup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]
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]
  • 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-reportInternet 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

Elohor Aiboni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. 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]
  • KeepDelete 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]
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]
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]
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

Nuclear Mango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of notability. 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 ([13], [14]), 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

Cherushii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: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 [15] and [16]. 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, — MarkH21talk 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

American Music Award nominations for Whitney Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Grammy Awards and nominations for Whitney Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Wilhelm Friedrich Mittrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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

Donald and Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]
  • 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

Grub Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am 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

The Workshop for Non-Linear Architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP: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. [17][18][19][20][21][22]. 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

The Arboretum, Charlotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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 has nothing at all, even though post-dating the subject, and nor does Ely, Drain & Rogers 2001, are quite telling. Contrast Byers 2004 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

Nek' je od srca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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 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!]

Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It doesn't exist. also, I don't like it. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:48, 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 no consensus on WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viðar Örn Hafsteinsson

Viðar Örn Hafsteinsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]
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.[23][24][25][26]
  • 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:
Alan Haskvitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 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 [27] 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

Waltzing Matilda Aviation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

American Boogeywoman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP: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 assessment table: prepared by User:2pou
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
1 (Bloody Disgusting) No 3 pieces saying the same thing within a day of Yes ? Most is quoted mat'l--harder to tell how ✘ No
2 (JoBlo) No each other clearly fails WP:NFSOURCES Yes ? much is their work, but moot to analyze. ✘ No
3 (FilmInk) No (i.e. no independence as press release per WP:NFSOURCES) Yes No Same as above, and not even a byline ✘ No
4 (Deadline) Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
5 (Variety Insight) Yes Yes No 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, — MarkH21talk 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)

Sam Jamieson (sprinter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]
    [28], [29], [30]. 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, — MarkH21talk 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:
Kumud Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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 [31] 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 - [32] 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]
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

Momele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was 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]
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:
Frances Street Squats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously 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]
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]

  • 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

List of properties of Hilton Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article 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

Mass automobility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]
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

Pierre Szalowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a 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]
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, — MarkH21talk 22:54, 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 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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Zero-dimensional space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(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]

Point (geometry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Three-dimensional space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 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!]

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

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

Pompeii (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:
Milky Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is written 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]

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

Tiger King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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]

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

Frown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Interstate 296 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(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]

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

Dr. Luke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – )

(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).--NØ 10:27, 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

Boris Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating 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]

  • 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]
True. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:35, 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. --BlueCrabRedCrab 15:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of reminds me of this. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:23, 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 it's indefinite. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite article

Indefinite article (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]

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

GeForce 30 series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]

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

Lepidammodytes macrophthalmus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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]

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. InvalidOStalk 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

United States Electoral College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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

Austria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a fake country as it's another page of Australia HawkAussie (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Germany 141.92.129.41 (talk) 09:06, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was [33]. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. 35

Super Mario Bros. 35 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Main Page

Replace it with DuckDuckGo--119.237.10.81 (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, uh, whoops... haha...
  • 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]

Windows 10

200Px
200Px

It never released, still in “build” 21H1[April Fools!]--119.237.10.81 (talk) 04:47, 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 switch to Siri. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster 19:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cortana

[April Fools!]

AfDs for this article:
Cortana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a spyware and Microsoft are tracking you viewing the page.--119.237.10.81 (talk) 04:52, 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. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alderaan

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

SCP-682 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]

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

AfDs for this article:
List of Wikipedia controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:
Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]

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

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

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

The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of The Simpsons episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(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)

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


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

Foreshadowing? >>BEANS X2t 18:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:HOAX. (non-admin closure) GMXping! 00:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Lie in April


Your Lie in April (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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


Anime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable art form. I mean c'mon, who watches anime? Link20XX (talk) 00:25, 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 You will never become God. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Day I Became a God

The Day I Became a God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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 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

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

Virtual YouTuber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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:

Hololive Production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Kizuna Ai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
[April Fools!] Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:23, 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 Maybe I wasn't meant for this world.... (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genshin Impact

Genshin Impact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A 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]

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

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

eye I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment.
 Unlikely, Red X Won't fix Opal|zukor(discuss) 09:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD has gone fishing.

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. --Heymid (contribs) 12:06, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Paper Mario: The Origami King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL})

The 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]

  • 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:
Disemvoweling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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!] Aaeeaee02 (a ae o a | a i o u i'e oe) 01:55, 1 Ai 2021 (U)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotye

Gotye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of lasting notability. versacespacetalk to me 01:36, 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

Fall Guys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A 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]

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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) JJPMaster 02:33, 1 Ai 2021 (UTC)

ooa

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)

  • 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

Irrational number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(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 . Also, Hippasus' discovery of irrational numbers had caused him to be punished![April Fools!] --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 01:07, 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]
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. --Heymid (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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Dictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page 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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) JJPMaster 15:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moai

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

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


Boeing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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. --BlueCrabRedCrab 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! United States🎆🦅🍔🥧⚾United States {{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


Super Mario 3D All-Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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.

Super Mario Bros. 35 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

[April Fools!] Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:30, 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 another cancelled one. [April Fools!] (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caillou

Caillou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 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]
  • 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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)


Spoiler (media) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]

delete - per WP:I am your Father 141.92.129.41 (talk) 09:41, 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 April Fools is over and so is Stadia. (non-admin closure) MorphinBrony (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Stadia


Google Stadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A 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 [34]? [April Fools!] Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:21, 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 Speedy drift. (non-admin closure) GMXping! 00:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joy-Con


Joy-Con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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

Mario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mario has been executed.[April Fools!] JOEBRO64 00:16, 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

Ever Given (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's finally free! This article isn't needed anymore. [April Fools!] Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been freed
  • Be free!
    Be free!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Sinai Peninsula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]

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

Among Us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page looks sus. I saw it vent.[April Fools!] O.N.R. (talk) 00:08, 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) JJPMaster 21:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunk 2077


Cyberpunk 2077 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Lockdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I just want to go outside. CanadianOtaku Talk Page 00:16, 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

U.S. Route 66 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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├─────┤TalkContribs 23:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

Hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found 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]

You had me in the first half, I'm not gonna lie. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:06, 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.

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

Crab Rave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

🦀 The meme is gone! 🦀 Let the meme die! 🦀[April Fools!] Jalen Folf (talk) 00:48, 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) JJPMaster 21:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universe

Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:COI. April Fool 2021 (talk) 01:37, 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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]

Synthesizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Jedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]
  • 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was everyone sus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SUS

SUS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The name literally says "SUS". ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to WP:SALT Among Us musical? Opal|zukor(discuss) 12:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the imposter is sus!😳
⠀⠀⠀⡯⡯⡾⠝⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢊⠘⡮⣣⠪⠢⡑⡌
⠀⠀⠀⠟⠝⠈⠀⠀⠀⠡⠀⠠⢈⠠⢐⢠⢂⢔⣐⢄⡂⢔⠀⡁⢉⠸⢨⢑⠕⡌
⠀⠀⡀⠁⠀⠀⠀⡀⢂⠡⠈⡔⣕⢮⣳⢯⣿⣻⣟⣯⣯⢷⣫⣆⡂⠀⠀⢐⠑⡌
⢀⠠⠐⠈⠀⢀⢂⠢⡂⠕⡁⣝⢮⣳⢽⡽⣾⣻⣿⣯⡯⣟⣞⢾⢜⢆⠀⡀⠀⠪
⣬⠂⠀⠀⢀⢂⢪⠨⢂⠥⣺⡪⣗⢗⣽⢽⡯⣿⣽⣷⢿⡽⡾⡽⣝⢎⠀⠀⠀⢡
⣿⠀⠀⠀⢂⠢⢂⢥⢱⡹⣪⢞⡵⣻⡪⡯⡯⣟⡾⣿⣻⡽⣯⡻⣪⠧⠑⠀⠁⢐
⣿⠀⠀⠀⠢⢑⠠⠑⠕⡝⡎⡗⡝⡎⣞⢽⡹⣕⢯⢻⠹⡹⢚⠝⡷⡽⡨⠀⠀⢔
⣿⡯⠀⢈⠈⢄⠂⠂⠐⠀⠌⠠⢑⠱⡱⡱⡑⢔⠁⠀⡀⠐⠐⠐⡡⡹⣪⠀⠀⢘
⣿⣽⠀⡀⡊⠀⠐⠨⠈⡁⠂⢈⠠⡱⡽⣷⡑⠁⠠⠑⠀⢉⢇⣤⢘⣪⢽⠀⢌⢎
⣿⢾⠀⢌⠌⠀⡁⠢⠂⠐⡀⠀⢀⢳⢽⣽⡺⣨⢄⣑⢉⢃⢭⡲⣕⡭⣹⠠⢐⢗
⣿⡗⠀⠢⠡⡱⡸⣔⢵⢱⢸⠈⠀⡪⣳⣳⢹⢜⡵⣱⢱⡱⣳⡹⣵⣻⢔⢅⢬⡷
⣷⡇⡂⠡⡑⢕⢕⠕⡑⠡⢂⢊⢐⢕⡝⡮⡧⡳⣝⢴⡐⣁⠃⡫⡒⣕⢏⡮⣷⡟
⣷⣻⣅⠑⢌⠢⠁⢐⠠⠑⡐⠐⠌⡪⠮⡫⠪⡪⡪⣺⢸⠰⠡⠠⠐⢱⠨⡪⡪⡰
⣯⢷⣟⣇⡂⡂⡌⡀⠀⠁⡂⠅⠂⠀⡑⡄⢇⠇⢝⡨⡠⡁⢐⠠⢀⢪⡐⡜⡪⡊
⣿⢽⡾⢹⡄⠕⡅⢇⠂⠑⣴⡬⣬⣬⣆⢮⣦⣷⣵⣷⡗⢃⢮⠱⡸⢰⢱⢸⢨⢌
⣯⢯⣟⠸⣳⡅⠜⠔⡌⡐⠈⠻⠟⣿⢿⣿⣿⠿⡻⣃⠢⣱⡳⡱⡩⢢⠣⡃⠢⠁
⡯⣟⣞⡇⡿⣽⡪⡘⡰⠨⢐⢀⠢⢢⢄⢤⣰⠼⡾⢕⢕⡵⣝⠎⢌⢪⠪⡘⡌⠀
⡯⣳⠯⠚⢊⠡⡂⢂⠨⠊⠔⡑⠬⡸⣘⢬⢪⣪⡺⡼⣕⢯⢞⢕⢝⠎⢻⢼⣀⠀
⠁⡂⠔⡁⡢⠣⢀⠢⠀⠅⠱⡐⡱⡘⡔⡕⡕⣲⡹⣎⡮⡏⡑⢜⢼⡱⢩⣗⣯⣟
⢀⢂⢑⠀⡂⡃⠅⠊⢄⢑⠠⠑⢕⢕⢝⢮⢺⢕⢟⢮⢊⢢⢱⢄⠃⣇⣞⢞⣞⢾
⢀⠢⡑⡀⢂⢊⠠⠁⡂⡐⠀⠅⡈⠪⠪⠪⠣⠫⠑⡁⢔⠕⣜⣜⢦⡰⡎⡯⡾⡽

MorphinBrony (talk) 05:34, 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 speedy keep per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALLISNOTNOTKRYSTALBALL.[April Fools!] (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Ball

Krystal Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Checkuser note: crystal ball CheckUser is not a crystal ball Opal|zukor(discuss) 09:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Checkuser note: crystal ball Wait, it is, sorry Opal|zukor(discuss) 09:20, 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 Deleted Was a great game but only to get Rockstar to stop milking it for mirco-transactions and make something new Mainline421 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:BLOATED. Rockstar has been milking this game for far too long. Delete it and hopefully they'll come out with GTA 6 faster. Saucy[talk – contribs][April Fools!] 04:48, 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 something strange. [April Fools!] (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something Strange


Something Strange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete this per WP:STRANGE.[April Fools!] Jalen Folf (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is strange. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But not as strange as stranger things. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strange Things is stranger. Panini📚 10:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is strange right now. Why are we nominating this and not life? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
....in your neighborhood..... Who are you gonna call? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WIKIBUSTERS! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with strange matter. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 19:36, 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 totally did not get rickroll'd.[April Fools!] (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QR code

QR code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The image is incorrect. It should be this one --->
If it can't be this, then it can't exist --Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs 05:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a reliable authentication method. --Heymid (contribs) 15:17, 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.

Donald Trump (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 05:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suez Canal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Suez Canal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It's too small to have an article, and also WP:EXPLODE.Ahmetlii (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19

because let's be honest, it's WP:HARMFUL and WP:ITSOLD. 98.243.132.66 (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per {{WP:HOAX]] 141.92.129.42 (talk) 11:14, 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 delete per WP:HOAX. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magic

Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant violation of the International Decree of Wizarding Secrecy or whatever it is called. All of Wikipedia needs to be obliviated. [April Fools!] CrimsonComputer (talk) 06:32, 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 5G causes cancer[4-1]. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5G

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

My uncle said on Facebook that 5G is being used by the government to spread COVID-19 and hack into our minds. Saucy[talk – contribs][April Fools!] 07:03, 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.

Wikipedia:Administrators

They are spineless courtiers, uninterested in doing good yet dangerous when they seek to do harm, they go back to lay their power at their master's feet and help him to resume arbitrary power on condition they become his chief servants. Nomination on behalf of User:Maximilien Robespierre, who cannot type (for a medical reason) since 1794. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:33, 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 deleted so the nominator doesn't have to go to school anymore. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperstown Junior/Senior High School

Cooperstown Junior/Senior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you delete the article you delete the school and I dont want to go to it JayPlaysStuff (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC) If you delete the wikipedia article, you delete the school. And that means no more school for me! JayPlaysStuff (talk) 12:07, 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.

Winnie-the-Pooh

For harming the image of our glorious leader Xi Jinping. All hail President Xi.[April Fools!] His Glorious Subjects of the People's Republic of China (talk) 15:15, 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 merge to Carbon monoxide because what could go wrong? (non-admin closure) GMXping! 00:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Air

Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist.[April Fools!] Ian1231100 (talk) 15:23, 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 delete, basketball schools don't need football pages. (non-admin closure) MainPeanut (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Wolverines football

Michigan Wolverines football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Team is simply not relevant anymore. They have gone 1–15 against Ohio State in the past 16 years and has only one National Championship since 1949. MainPeanut (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Harbaugh, keep team An infinite number of monkeys at keyboards have to produce a coherent defensive plan eventually, right? 98.243.132.66 (talk) 17:20, 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 nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. [April Fools!] (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python

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

Delete this page per WP:SPAM. ChekhovsGunman (talk) 13:29, 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 rename to Queen Periwinkle. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King Crimson

We still haven't del - rimson. It's starting to become a thr - ipedia. So gu - ete King Crimson now! Hey, why is there a guy with pink hair standing th - eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedszxesdx

We still haven't deleted King Crimson. It's starting to become a

We still haven't deleted Ki

We still haven't deleted King Crimson. It's starting to become a threat to Wikipedia. So guys, delete King Crimson now! Hey, why is there a guy with pink hair standing there? Wait, whereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewdsxz

「真実」ニ到達スルコトハ決シテナイ

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 chungsensus. (non-admin closure) Sans (Undertale) 17:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Bunny

Bugs Bunny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For WP:IMPERSONATE-ing Big Chungus. Tanker4390 (talk) 14:09, 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 WP:BEANS. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nose

Nose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So we can't stuff beans up them.[April Fools!] CrimsonComputer (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is eating Beans Opal|zukor(discuss) 15:41, 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 speedy keep. April fools is over (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Gonzales

Speedy Gonzales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as per WP:SPEEDY. Finder of EggsHow's My Editing? 14:37, 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 BANANA BOAT. (non-admin closure) Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs 23:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DNA

DNA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Humanity was a mistake. Revert to monke --Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs 14:46, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmie Johnson (2nd 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) GMXping! 00:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Consensus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NO CONSENSUS. Opal|zukor(discuss) 15:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks. 2021-04-01T18:30 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't look to be consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 19:54, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_April_1&oldid=1015455279"