Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 01	April 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G11. Speedy deleted by User:Athaenara. See also User talk:TheMusicBioWriter. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Trackz

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

Author deleted prod -- Only good source that goes in-depth is an interview on a WordPress hip-hop blog. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. JTtheOG (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Author sources include accredited SPIN.com, a subsidiary of SPIN, which is a notable editorial since 1985, as well as AllAccess, which credits noted production work. Whereas the stated "hip-hop blog", mentioned by JTtheOG is cited with details of the artist's background, as a newer - but notable artist - the website shows an editoral interview with reputable information to cite. Other sources include general information such as song releases, which are verified by DSPs. The Author request the nomination for deletion to be denied on the bases that sources are relevant, based on an editorial interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicBioWriter (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per JTtheOG's spot on rationale. MUSICBIO isn’t met. Celestina007 (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete — in the genre of hip hop, blogs and e-magazines are interchangeable. examples: Bossip and Hip Hop DX. These types of sources are authoritative in discussing the genre and culture of hip-hop. Since Blaze Trackz is a hip hop musician, the source discussing his background and general information should be taken as a credible source. Other sources are credits from sites made to show musicians participation in the songwriting process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicBioWriter (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TheMusicBioWriter JTtheOG is not correct. Do Not Delete sources for Blaze Trackz are valid. Blogs like the one mentioned are valid and credible in the hip hop genre, and other sources are credible, as well Kethoma123 (talk)— Kethoma123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete

. EzraJ102 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicBioWriter (talk • contribs) [reply]

Do not delete I agree with both TheMusicBioWriter and Kethoma123. The article for Blaze Trackz should not be deleted. Statements are referenced, and sources are both accurate and credible. The interview referenced by JTtheOG is a reputable site with other interviews and editorial pieces from many other artist in the hip hop culture and musical genre. Also the sites referenced Hip Hop DX and Bossip speak to the validity of blogs and e-zines as authoritative in hip hop. EzraJ102 (talk)— EzraJ102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not Delete This was requested by JTtheOG under the bases of lack of notoriety, yet this musician Blaze Trackz has visibility in google knowledge graph, as well as a researched authentic following. Blaze Trackz also has references under the moniker Davi Jordan as a writer on songs with viral appeal, as stated in the biography. I agree that this should not be deleted Ashwil1234 (talk)— Ashwil1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong delete: Cleat-cut case of WP:GNG fail. Blatant throwaway accounts voting here in the numbers. Took a look at the author's contributions and found another non-notable article. Tagging that one for AfD as well. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability per Wikipedia standards has not been shown, no matter how many sockpuppets TheMusicBioWriter sics on us here. – Athaenara ✉ 10:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bada Business

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

The organization doesn’t satisfy WP:NCORP as they do no have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE search hits in sponsored posts such as this overtly promotional piece and other unreliable sources. Their sole claim to notability is beating a previous record ”for the biggest online lesson” held by a different organization, which is trivial and negligible at best. This article is definitely a subtle WP:ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom _signed,Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 05:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Souces and news fails GNG and NCORP. Sliekid (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more reliable sources as you have mentioned and removed any text that may violate Wikipedia policy. I hope it has now satisfied all Wikipedia norms. Still there is any things which can be improved, please suggest. Editorpreeti (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current news Souces fails in meeting GNG and NCORP. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are few and unreliable. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom, sources examined don't meet WP:NCORP. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Spudlace (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moses McCormick

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

The article was created in the immediate aftermath of the death of the subject, and Wikipedia is not a memorial (WP:MEMORIAL). The subject does not meet notability criteria. He was not widely known outside of his online followers, and his proficiency in most of the languages he spoke was quite basic. He did not contribute substantially to knowledge on how one can learn multiple languages. Hzae (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Laoshu is a notable polyglot, has significant coverage, meets GNG, and is quite well-known in many ways. By the way, I am typically into academic linguistics and generally do not take many amateur polyglots on social media very seriously, but to me, Laoshu looks like he has made quite an impact on the online polyglot community and is worth including here. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moses McCormick meets notability criteria, he received significant coverage from independent secondary sources. He was wildly known in the language learning community and well beyond thanks to his unique style, method and personality. Clement75 13:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Users claiming there is or there is not GNG should more thoroughly explain why that is the case (by measuring the sources currently in the article; and additional ones if they can be found, with the usual requirements - i.e. WP:42).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per reasons above. The sources in the article (except Twitter) seem reliable. I also found a few more reliable sources which talk about him: [1], [2] and [3]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Sagotreespirit. The article is still relatively new, but that doesn't mean it can't be developed over time. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kannur University. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People Institute of Management Studies, Munnad

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No RS found with a WP:BEFORE. Relies on primary sources. Is not inherently notable. Vikram Vincent 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously AFD'ed so not eligible for a soft-delete. Further discussion required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kannur University, of which it is a constituent school, and per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 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) 05:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Allison

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

Non-notable personality with no clear multiple independent secondary references that would support her significance or notability as per WP:GNG Nearlyevil665 (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems that the article is well referenced, however having gone through every single source, you'll see they are all either primary, or related to the subject. There are some notability claims, however I couldn't find any IRS that would back that. When the article was first nominated for deletion in 2009 it was kept unanimously, however at this point I don't see how any of the notability guidelines can be met. Less Unless (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the last discussion one of the people voting keep admitted there was autobiographical material and conflict of interest. Such things should lead to automatic deletion and leaving it to later let an independent person create an article if they deam it necessary. However here we also have a total failure of GNG, so even if we ignored autobiographical issues there is no reason to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, off the promotional tone screams WP:TNT. I see a few articles by her, but absolutely nothing in reliable sources about her. She has 49,000 followers on Twitter, a testament to her follow-back and self-promotion strategies. This is a total fail of WP:GNG. I can't believe this was kept in 2009. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Advised. I'm not sure if that TV show is notable, but so long as it is an article, redirecting to the show in which she was a host makes sense. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players. plausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Farooque

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 7 List-A matches and has a significant minor counties career, but I couldn't find anything in a search. Sources may exist offline or locally due to his minor counties career though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player who has played one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Although close due to no. of matches and minor counties career, could still probably have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Celestina007 said, there is no reliable independent significant coverage in independent sources on this subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [[: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players - we must consider WP:ATD as this is definitely a plausible search term Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clear consensus for the article to be kept and the article nominator has acknowledged they have made mistake in nominating the article for deletion. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Curran (footballer)

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

~~I might be wrong but I don't believe this passes NFOOTBALL Noah ^💬 21:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 21:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 21:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator is indeed wrong; subject clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL with 10 appearances (to date!) in League One/League Two (both listed at WP:FPL) plus a further 5 cup appearances. Has @-noah-: even bothered with WP:BEFORE? Giant Snowman 21:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very easily passes NFOOTY with 10 fully-pro league games. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFOOTBALL simply requires the subject to have played in a game between two clubs playing in a league listed at WP:FPL which is clearly met here. Whether or not the subject meets WP:GNG is perhaps debatable but the deletion nomination has no mention of GNG. In any case, I can't see a reason to delete this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clear pass of NFOOTY. Eagleash (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was confused about the guidelines for NFOOTBALL at that moment.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Inclusion requires that WP:GNG is met, which requires WP:SIGCOV (significant coverage) from multiple, reliable sources. This means coverage that is more than trivial and mentions more than stats. Whether it is cricket, football, underwater basket weaving, whatever, it doesn't matter. That is the core of what is required to pass the first test for inclusion for any article, regardless of what any other guidelines on notability says, simply because they all derive their authority FROM WP:GNG. Through this lens, weighing the !vote not on their numbers as much as on the strength of their policy based rationale, I see a consensus to delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Ilyas

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ~~yet another probably-permanent stub article created by the wretched Lugnuts.~~ versacespace talk to me 00:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VersaceSpace, you are to !vote as you deem fit & personally I agree that the article isn’t a notable one, but what you are not allowed to do is refer to one of our most active editors @Lugnuts, as “wretched” not now, not ever, I’m not sure why you chose that word but that may constitute WP:NPA. Celestina007 (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, he's one of the most active editors because every 30 seconds he creates a new permanent stub article. Regardless, he's (obviously, but maybe that's not very easy to understand through a computer screen without any clear tone) not actually "wretched" and I apologize for not using a sarcasm or joke template. versacespace talk to me 00:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was more of a song reference! "...The clouds will part and the sky cracks open ..." I'm all for hijinks and antics, but sometimes it needs to be clear it's not actually in WP:NPA terrority. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sort of personally attacks are not acceptable at Afd, this should probably be hidden by someone who knows how. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:FISHSLAP would have been more appropriate.----Pontificalibus 07:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree with the nom. Notability is clearly not met here. Celestina007 (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: thanks for your comments above. I've added some more info about this chap, below. I'm not trying to make you change your rationale, but some extra notes and sources may be handy. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite only playing in 2 F/C and 3 LA matches, he meets WP:NCRIC. Furthermore, he was selected to represent the Pakistan U19 team at an international tournament, in the form of the 2012 Under-19 Cricket World Cup. While playing an U19 in itself is not a pass for notabilty, he was showing some sort of form/talent to get picked for the national team, having been on the radar since his under-15 days. There's also this article from The News International with the headline "Shahid Ilyas the star as Islamabad enter U16 final". Now as a worst-case outcome, and due to him playing for a couple of teams domestically, the WP:ATD would be to redirect to the 2012 Under-19 Cricket World Cup squads. @Rugbyfan22: - I don't want to sway your keep/delete thoughts, but what are yours with regards to the ATD + redirect, if it came down to it? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has played a few matches, but I'm not seeing enough coverage to pass GNG really. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no significant coverages, is redirected/deleted. Has played for two different sides so no suitable WP:ATD per WP:XY for me. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not what WP:XY is for. Peter James (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to be changing back to what it had been for years, now we know Lewis (baseball) was on the Main Page last year. The football artices could probably have been expanded, but because of failures in coronavirus testing, and the lockdowns and other restrictions resulting from those failures, there has been no access to libraries in the UK. Peter James (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, But he has played 2 games for one side and 3 for another, while also playing for Pakistan U19. He has no standout club so there isn't a suitable one to redirect too. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a redirect relevant content can be added. Peter James (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Everything here is cited to single source (Cricinfo) and this really seems to be a WP:GNG fail. Agree that NPA terminology should not be used about other editors. Articles like this should not be mass-created without first getting consensus to do so per WP:MASSCREATION (and this means consensus to do so, not just no consensus to oppose) and yes this includes articles created by cutting/pasting. Slow down. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how WP:MASSCREATION applies here (or to any AfD), as that only applies to bots. And if you look at my keep comments, you'll see at least one non-trivial source that isn't from Cricinfo. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MASSCREATION applies to this article's creation, and should be understood by the creator. WP:MASSCREATION does not only apply to bots, as it also applies to "semi-automated" article-creation, a process which includes cutting/pasting. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. - "Assisted or semi-automated editing covers specifically lower-speed tools and scripts that can assist users to make decisions". As I've said time and time again, I have never used tools or scripts to create content. Please stop making false statements about me. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEATBOT. I really don't know why you're still doing these mass-creations after the community was so clear about not wanting them to happen in your recent ANI. No statement I've made here is false. FOARP (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, irrelevant. Unlike your WP:HOUNDing of me. So did you just happen to chance upon this AfD? Please stop following me around to make a WP:POINT. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, I am far from the first editor you have accused of this. My record at AFD speaks for itself. FOARP (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cricinfo is not the only coverage, other possible sources include [4][5] and those already mentioned in this discussion. Peter James (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My voting always tends to lead towards the keep side if possible or if it's likely that coverage exists, but none of these are significant coverage, just match reports and another database link. If something did exist I'd imagine it'd most likely be on his Pakistan U19 career though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a description there that is significant coverage, not only data. Peter James (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think that Cricbuzz bio is significant coverage, and even if it is it's only one source and multiple are required. ESPNCricinfo do bios like that on players and they don't tend to be considered as significant coverage. I'd love there to be coverage as he's played for two of the great name Pakistani sides in Pakistan International Airlines CC and Pakistan Television CC, but so far there isn't enough there for me. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is already significant coverage in sources used in the article or mentioned in this discussion. Peter James (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any of them to be significant coverage either, they're just match reports and squad lists, that second one Lugnuts has linked is the closest for me but is still just a match report of him doing well instead of significant coverage. Obviously these are just my opinions though and others might hold different views. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Think you'll find you're the wretched one versacespace, so do one, especially when one of your four new article contributions is this shite. StickyWicket (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources found come close to meeting WP:GNG; they do not constitute significant coverage, being routine mentions in match reports (the closest to SigCov being from u16s cricket), wide-ranging statistical databases and a short uninformative profile (which is by far the closest to SigCov we get). The pass of NCRIC is trivial, so GNG must be met and it isn't. No suitable ATD redirect target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Came here after a link at the ANI discussion; may have noticed this anyways. None of the available sources in the article or in the AfD pass WP:GNG. WP:NSPORTS requires GNG to be ultimately met (it's in the second sentence), so any SNG pass is irrelevant considering the lack of available coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 21:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also followed the ANI link and I agree with Peter about other sources. Shahid Ilyas has made five appearances in top-class matches so he easily meets the cricket SNG. Although ESPN is the only source actually cited in the article, it is nonetheless reliable and there must be offline coverage – sufficient to meet GNG – in books and journals such as the Wisden Almanack, the Playfair Annual and their Pakistan equivalents. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing sysop. Like a lot of people, I am sick and tired of joining AFD and ANI discussions to see FOARP, whose idea of a reliable source is the Daily Lies, using the ludicrous terms "meatbot" and "masscreation" everywhere he goes in his pathetic vendetta against Lugnuts. I'm also sick and tired of seeing juvenile crap from VerspaceSpace, such as that unacceptable jibe at the top of this discussion. I think it's about time someone in the sysop team took a long, hard look at that pair. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just as unacceptable a comment per WP:5P4 as the one VersaceSpace made. I strongly suggest that you strike it. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So one of these two is hounding Lugnuts and the other is openly insulting him but, by asking a sysop to investigate their conduct, I too am guilty of breaching a core policy? Could it be that you are an accessory who is also hounding Lugnuts by following him hither and thither to try and stop him from building the encyclopaedia? No Great Shaker (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You posted a link at ANI regarding VersaceSpace's conduct before posting this here. FOARP's conduct has not been subject to any ANI, and I'd be surprised if you would be able to substantiate any sort of behavioural issue claim against them, and regardless of any behavioural issues it shouldn't invalidate anything they've said at this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 12:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are entitled to be surprised and you are entitled to your opinion on validation, but hounding and insulting other editors is a serious breach of 5P4 and asking the closing sysop to take action is simply alerting the sysop to such breaches. I suggest we agree to disagree and move on. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think FOARP is truly hounding Lugnuts, ANI is that way. It has no bearing on this discussion. And you should still strike your comment. SportingFlyer T·C 12:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage to meet GNG, which is the bare minimum for inclusion. Megtetg34 (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I detect a distinct lack of WP:BEFORE. My searches turned up three independent reliable sources without any difficulty at all, including a 2008 article in a major newspaper which names him in the headline and was a "Top Story" on the day it was published; all now added to the article. He has played two first-class matches, which is a clear pass of WP:CRIN Test #1. If you don't like the WP:CONSENSUS in that essay, whose origin is in 2005, open a discussion and try to get it changed. Narky Blert (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YOUNGATH specifically excludes youth sports coverage from GNG, which is the article you posted (regarding a under 16 match), Wisden just has statistics, the Pakistan cricket board just has statistics, both failing WP:SPORTCRIT. None of them demonstrate a WP:GNG pass. SportingFlyer T·C 12:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, you know perfectly well that Narky Blert is not using the 2008 article to define notability, which is the point of WP:YOUNGATH. Notability rests with the fact that Shahid is a first-class cricketer, citing ESPN. The piece about his youth career is additional biographical material being used to expand the article. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources meet WP:GNG? SportingFlyer T·C 14:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YOUNGATH is about school sport. I do not see how it extends to playing in a representative match for the capital of Pakistan, and a report in the largest circulation (140,000) English-language newspaper in the country. I wonder what I might have found if I'd looked at page 2 of the Google search? Narky Blert (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that multiple sources have been identified is enough because GNG states that " multiple sources are generally expected", which is fair enough. GNG is only one part of WP:N because, to remind you:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

As Shahid is a first-class cricketer with five appearances in top-class matches, he meets the SNG so he is presumed notable. The article isn't excluded for WP:NOT reasons, so there isn't a problem. If you are able to rebut the presumption, can you please outline your case to support rebuttal? No Great Shaker (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat my !vote above, none of the sources constitute significant coverage, a core component of GNG, since they say nothing about Shahid other than confirming his presence on a cricket field and one brief synopsis of his performance in a junior match. They are passing mentions and listings in routine sports reporting, nothing more. We all know that the presumption afforded by the cricket SNG is extremely weak and cannot be relied on as a guide to the existence of significant coverage; hence the current work in rewriting it before it gets canned altogether. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider WP:N condition - Forgive me if I'm missing something here but it looks to me as if the wording of WP:N that I've just quoted above has been misconstrued here when people have talked about notability. The subject must meet either the GNG part of WP:N or the SNG part. I personally think there should be more than one reliable source in an article and I agree with the GNG request (not requirement) that "multiple sources are generally expected". Shahid Ilyas now has more than one source and he meets the terms of the SNG, having played in five top-class matches, so he must be presumed notable unless the presumption can be rebutted or for some reason the article breaches WP:NOT.

I'd like to ask everyone who has contributed to the AFD so far to consider the above, just to ensure that there has not been any misunderstanding about the GNG or SNG aspect of the WP:N requirement. So, pinging Narky Blert, SportingFlyer, Megtetg34, Wjemather, Pontificalibus, AssociateAffiliate, Rugbyfan22, Peter James, FOARP, Lugnuts, VersaceSpace, Celestina007, Spiderone, Störm. I think that's everyone. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was an RfC somewhere in 2017 saying GNG should be met. SportingFlyer will probably be able to link as I believe he wrote it. It's just not very well enforced at AfD as football and olympics AfDs seemed to be kept just for passing NFOOTY or NOLY, whereas in almost all cricket AfDs it ends up being judged on GNG. WP:N should really be updated as it is confusing and I mentioned it as an issue in the beginning of the NSPORTS discussions (probably before the proposals can't remember). I'm all for keeping articles if I believe it likely there to be coverage, but I don't think there is enough for this player given when his career was. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NGS. WP:N expressly includes both WP:GNG and WP:SNG, as alternatives. Narky Blert (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus is clear that NSPORTS (and its sub-SNGs, such as NCRIC) do not supercede GNG – there are countless discussions to confirm this, including recent ones at both NSPORT and N, and an RFC in 2017. In addition, the presumption offered by NSPORTS is that the subject will meet GNG; i.e. it does not supercede GNG. What we are seeing at this AFD is that GNG is not being met, therefore the presumption has been rebutted. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather's correct. The overall general Wikipedia guideline is that either a SNG or GNG needs to be met, true, but SNGs are weird things and work in different ways depending on the subject. For instance, a professor simply has to meet NPROF, because the sources notable professors receive aren't always secondary or independent while still being reliable, and a populated place only needs to meet WP:GEOLAND (though at what point GEOLAND ends is up for debate right now.) Sports SNGs are supposed to be written to predict when the GNG will be met, i.e. almost every article covered by the sports SNG should pass GNG. Other SNGs do this too: for instance, our SNG for authors has a different set of rules than the GNG, but is source-based, meaning if you can find a couple reviews the author's probably notable. Furthermore, for the vast majority of subjects on the site, if a stand-alone article doesn't meet GNG, they can get deleted, even if the SNG is technically met. I didn't write the 2017 RfC but I did write several of the drafts for WP:SNG, but we clearly wouldn't be bringing cricket articles that met the SNG to AfD if "meets SNG, must keep" worked in practice: we're here in order to ensure Wikipedia as reliable a source as possible, by doing a source search to make sure we have enough information to write a stand-alone article about a subject. SportingFlyer T·C 19:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT which all make it clear that significant coverage in reliable sources is needed. WP:WHYN explains why we can't have an article consisting of a few sentences based on statistics. ----Pontificalibus 14:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are more than statistics; the relevant guideline is WP:NSPORTS, not WP:NCORP. Peter James (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are a stats. The ESPN Cricinfo source doesn't contain a single sentence about him, the match report simply says that he "was the star of the day for winners Islamabad. He first lifted his team from a precarious 85 for five with an splendid unbeaten 44 at number seven to raise their total to respectability." That's basically stats converted to a sentence, certainly no basis for a biography. The purpose of NSPORT is to determine whether a topic "is likely to meet the general notability guideline" so it's correct to judge this by GNG.----Pontificalibus 15:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't all there is, or the only source. Also the guideline says at the top: "general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria". Peter James (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one has dug up any sources apart from stats and that match report. As to NSPORT you have selectively quoted a sentence concerning the citing of sources. The guideline makes it very clear the SNG criteria exist to help assess whether GNG is met. In this case GNG is not met.—--Pontificalibus 17:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources mentioned in this discussion. Peter James (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth has GNG got to do with it? The article passes an SNG, a different criterion under N altogether. Narky Blert (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of the "applicable guidelines and policies" of WP:NSPORTS says In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. If we look for sources and determine the GNG isn't met, then we can't keep the article. There's a 2017 RfC confirming this, but I don't have the link ready. Furthermore, sports SNGs are supposed to be written to reflect that GNG will be met. WP:NCRIC currently does not. SportingFlyer T·C 19:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is met, if the sources mentioned in the AFD are included and not just those already in the article. But it has never been a requirement, only a guideline, the real policies are WP:Verifiability, WP:Not and WP:NPOV, and the fundamental principles are more important. The SNG attempts to address WP:Not in a more WP:NPOV way, avoiding systemic bias and long discussions every time there's an apparently borderline case. Peter James (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is true: GNG is not met when you include the sources mentioned at this AfD, as I've written elsewhere (match reports, youth sports coverage, or statistical databases only.) Furthermore, appealing to some sort of "higher law" when almost every AfD ultimately looks at whether WP:GNG, including all of the recent cricket AfDs, actually further proves the point that the sourcing here isn't good enough for a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't exclude youth sports coverage. Peter James (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but WP:YOUNGATH does. SportingFlyer T·C 14:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't replace the GNG, or exclude coverage from qualifying for it. Peter James (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're reading - it very clearly excludes types of coverage related to young athletes. A six-paragraph match report about a U16 match in which he's mentioned in the headline and only four sentences about his participation in the match in the body, which is the sourcing hinge on which his notability currently rests, is clearly excluded by the young athlete guideline. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That part of the SNG is about whether "High school and pre-high school athletes" meet the SNG, and is not relevant here. It has no effect on the GNG. Peter James (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A U16 competition is clearly high school-aged... SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline is clearly about whether a young athlete would be likely to meet the GNG; it doesn't exclude coverage from being considered for GNG, particularly when that is not the only coverage and a different SNG is met. Peter James (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline literally excludes coverage: The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. The single article here is a game play summary, and whether the SNG is met is irrelevant. But I'm not going to change your mind. SportingFlyer T·C 19:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't say that; it's only the SNG, which is one that doesn't replace GNG. If the SNG could be used an alternative to GNG, the article would have been kept by now based on WP:NCRIC, just as all baseball articles that meet the baseball SNG are kept. Peter James (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather, SportingFlyer, and Pontificalibus have it right. NSPORT actually is very explicit that it is subordinate to GNG. This is literally in the first sentence, and is further expanded in the FAQs:

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline.

and

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

and most relevant:

Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.[5]

.

The only reason N says "GNG or SNG" is to cover the very few SNGs which do supersede GNG, such as NPROF. NSPORT is not one of those. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The relevant guideline is GNG SIGCOV, which has emphatically not been demonstrated. Match reports and passing mentions like those linked above are clearly not SIGCOV! JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 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 List of Faisalabad cricketers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Haider

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. versacespace talk to me 00:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Faisalabad cricketers Has played 4 FC and 6 List-A games so does reach a potential 10 game that has been suggested as a possible change, but I still can't find any significant coverage. Sources may well exist offline or in Pakistani sources that I haven't been able to access. There is a clear WP:ATD for redirect here though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is a total and complete failure of GNG. It is time for us to stop being cricketpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Faisalabad cricketers - no reason to delete when a valid and useful ATD is available Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consideration of this discussion was almost perfectly balanced in terms of numerical consideration. Moving to consideration of policy, two major disputes occur: the traditional NSPORTS/NCRIC vs GNG one, and the belief that there must be sources in other languages and it should be kept on those grounds.

Meeting an NSPORTS criterion does not remove the need to pass GNG when challenged, as multiple editors pointed out. Those arguing that NCRIC was met did not generally also argue that GNG was met.

Beyond that, at least 2 Keep !voters felt that it should be kept as there were likely (or almost certainly) were sources in other languages. However, this was not made with firm evidence, such as giving a source we just don't have access to check. An article could not indefinitely be kept on these grounds - though if you gain access please get in touch with me.

Factoring these in, the policy-backed consensus reaches the level of delete, rather than no-consensus. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qaiser Iqbal

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played in 8 FC, 3 LA and 3 T20 matches (WP:NCRIC) in a career spanning nine years (2002/03 to 2011) for at least three different teams. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has played 8 FC, 3 List-A and 3 T20 matches, well over the 10 needed as a potential for change to the SNG. Coverage in searches seems limited, but sources may well exist offline or in Pakistani sources due to the number of games played. There is no potential redirect per WP:XY due to number of teams played for. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This bio is not pre-internet era, tried search in DAWN, in The Express Tribune, and The News International (three high-quality English newspapers and they usually cover everything, if nothing significant in them then, in my opinion, we can't assume). Störm (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shouldn't AfD be where you have to actually show GNG exists, not just continue to presume based on SNG? If there's no coverage anyone can find now, when the subject has increased visibility as an AfD nom, who is to say anything more will be added in the future if kept? Which Pakistani sources would we even expect to contain SIGCOV? Perhaps the Cricket project could maintain a list of these SNG-meeting, GNG-possibly-existing players with relevant pointers for where such information might be found, rather than keeping a stub around indefinitely. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played in 14 qualifying matches, well over the 1 match threshold for WP:NCRIC, including scoring three first-class half centuries, which are exactly what is likely to lead to meaningful coverage for WP:GNG. Although I'm grateful for User:Störm setting out which sources he has checked- which I think would be a good approach in all AfD discussions- I'm uncomfortable with all of those searches being in English, rather than in Urdu, which is likely to have the most comprehensive coverage of Pakistani cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So at what point in the future would a deletion be supported? When someone who speaks Urdu, can evaluate RS quality, and is familiar with NSPORT criteria comes along and agrees that no SIGCOV exists? If this article edited by 5 people in 5 years, which has received only 26 views in the last 30 days with an active deletion discussion ongoing, closes as keep, realistically when will this happen? The next time it's nominated at AfD? What if no one speaking Urdu is found then? Do we just continue indefinitely with these saltatory discussions? This seems like a backwards approach to maintaining a BLP (which has strict sourcing requirements) and is completely at odds with how notability is assessed for non-sports biography subjects. Why is a contemporary cricketer accorded more leeway from WP:BIAS than anyone in any other discipline? JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very clear failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A weaker delete than usual, since I found the following, which is a lot more than I normally find for these AfD articles, BUT none of it is significant coverage, all match reports or directory listings: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. A redirect would be good until enough coverage is found to create a good article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, per my above comments and others'. JoelleJay (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Undoubtedly coverage will exist in native language sources for this guy. He has played enough matches and made enough contributions for that to very likely be the case. StickyWicket (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ahmed (cricketer, born 1931)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has played 6 FC games, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Search was happened by common name and the timing of his career though, so sources may well exists either offline or in Pakistani sources. Has played for 2 teams so no suitable WP:ATD per WP:XY. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per abovem fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Sliekid (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn't fail WP:NCRIC which requires only one first class match; he has six of them. DevaCat1 (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He played in six first class matches, and in those matches took 20 wickets, including the (rare) feat of a ten wicket match. It's vanishingly unlikely that there was not meaningful coverage of a ten wicket match in a first class game, but that coverage is likely to be in hardcopy sources in Pakistan. Any cricketer with a ten wicket match is notable. For point of comparison, there were only 19 occasions on which that was accomplished in English first class cricket in 1991 (a randomly chosen year)- I know this because it's sufficiently significant that Wisden has a specific section on it (Wisden 1992, p. 290). It would likely be one of the best half a dozen bowling performances in Pakistani cricket in 1954/5. This isn't someone who has just played a single List A match for a minor county- he has accomplished a truly major accomplishment in the career of any professional bowler, which will have led to significant coverage. This one is really about none of those sources being online, rather than not existing; he would be able to pass WP:GNG given proper research. DevaCat1 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DevaCat1, sources relating to his ten wickets in a match will exist, in addition to those about the rest of his playing career, just a case of finding them. One of those statistical quirks where I'm sure the 1956 Wisden will have coverage. StickyWicket (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all, passes WP:BASIC. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no one has identified actual sources that add up to passing GNG, so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A ten wicket haul is a rare trophy, indeed. First class matches are admitted, due the time snd the tempo of Cricket in those days. Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NSPORT requires WP:GNG to be met - it's in the second sentence past the jump - and we have no sources to support it, the three in the article all fail WP:SPORTCRIT. SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DevaCat1. Riteboke (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blissfullife2020 Cabayi (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Rabin (psychiatrist)

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

Non-notable medical professional, WP:OVERCITE with no apparent pass of WP:GNG. H-index on Google Scholar far from impressive for a high-citation field: a total of only four cited publications in the course of three years with only one with over 200 citations. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Probably eligible for G11 speedy as blatant promotion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Upon further review I believe this article was created by a sockpuppet throwaway account of Blissfullife2020. Article was previously speedy deleted. I'd love to open a sockpuppet investigation but am completely oblivious as to how. I don't want to mess up anything so be my guest. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. SPI created here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, failing GNG and NPROF. --hroest 00:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Started to look at coauthor metrics, but the answer was immediately clear from his own low citation profile. JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) Nearlyevil665 (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oko M. Drammeh

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

Peculiar case. Literally mountains of text with very intimate details of the subject's life but not a single in-line reference provided. An online search doesn't produce much to support WP:GNG. Most likely COI or UPE, but that's even beside the point right now. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 eligible Noah ^💬 21:13, 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. This is a fairly standard NCRIC vs GNG dispute. As NSPORTS specifically requires GNG to also be met, and there isn't a clear IAR exemption case made here, and there is a very clear consensus that GNG is not met, deletion is the appropriate outcome. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Saeed

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

Nothing notable in coverage about him found. Non-notable short career, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCRIC having played in List A cricket. Looking a bit further into his time at Wanstead in the Essex Cricket League, he was the first XI player of the year in 2005, and the leading wicket-taker in the league the year before. There's also this article at the Telegraph's website, despite being paywalled, the title is clear to see as "Saeed comes good to keep Wanstead top". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, they is nothing substantial in the Telegraph article – it's just a routine match report with passing mentions, and the content doesn't correlate with the headline at all; after conceding "56 runs and failed to take a wicket in 15 previous overs", Saeed "surprisingly" bowled the final over and the Gidea Park batsmen chucked their wickets away when only needing four runs to win ("excellent catches by John Chambers in the deep and the diving Akram in the covers"). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has only played 3 List-A matches for the Essex Cricket Board which won't receive much coverage, but there seems to be enough from his minor county career and from playing for Wanstead for him to pass GNG. List of Essex Cricket Board List A players a suitable WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Essex Cricket Board List A players. No significant coverage, only wide-ranging scorecard databases and passing mentions in club cricket reports, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. This trumps any trivial passing of NCRIC, which has proven a very poor indicator of suitability for standalone articles in cases such as this. However this arguably fails NCRIC, since he has not played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of match status, playing for a cricket board falls well below this standard and coverage is generally limited to scorecards. Redirect is an accepted ATD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's little significant coverage, and not enough for a WP:GNG pass. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably clarify my vote. There are five external links in the article. Four of them are to Cricket Archive statistics pages and the other one is to ESPN CricInfo. A fairly detailed BEFORE search brought up no further sources apart from the Telegraph, where he gets covered, but it's also a routine article about a local sports league. Even if we assume it's okay (it's not, really - if a local paper did a feature on me playing for my local club, I wouldn't be notable), there's not enough coverage here to get him past WP:GNG, which WP:NSPORT requires for biographies. SportingFlyer T·C 22:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played List A cricket, meets WP:NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted at request of RandomCanadian.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 20:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Obviously improper for me to !vote on this. Just noting, as I had pointed out, that NCRIC, being an SNG, is not a substitute for GNG; therefore future closers should take this into account (and also not close AfDs with a result, absent exceptionally poor reasons for one side, when the margin is 4-3...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is clear that "meets NCRIC" is not a valid keep rationale if the subject demonstrably fails to meet GNG. I searched newspaper archives for sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG but didn't find it. ----Pontificalibus 07:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As current presence fails to meet GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is the minimum for including an article. There is a total and complete failure of GNG, we do not do articles sourced only to statistics pages. SportingFlyer has above demonstrated that there is no reason to keep the article and no justification for the keep votes that reflectively argue it in total disregard to the centrality of reliable sources to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Essex Cricket Board List A players - no indication that this cricketer is notable enough for an article; sources do not address the subject in depth Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Riteboke (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to CentOS#History. There is consensus that the subject is not notable (the keep !vote only posits that notability might exist). There is a slight consensus to merge a small portion of the referenced content to the history section of the article about its successor as an alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CAOS Linux

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

Procedural nomination (no opinion on my part) per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_25#CAOS_Linux. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural courtesy ping to participants of RfD: @Laterthanyouthink, Dexxor, Ahunt, Vaticidalprophet, and Uanfala:. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, but leaning keep for article balance purposes. The PROD was contested at the time (leading to a unilateral redirect to an inappropriate target, which is what landed us at RfD) because of this project's important role in the history of another. While Linux distros are not really my field and accordingly I am not as qualified to interpret their sources as someone who is, I would be unsurprised if the coverage for a stand-alone article exists in the context of "things that discuss the other project, but give heavy discussion of the history of this". If it doesn't, then this article can be merged to CentOS, the successor of the distro -- but I have some concerns about the degree to which the content of this article can be balanced in the other without making it overlong, and dislike merges that are really redirects with a couple extra words, so I'd prefer to keep where possible. Vaticidalprophet 20:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article does not even come close to WP:GNG. The Computer World ref cited does not even mention it, the Infiscale ref is just a passing mention and the readyspace ref is about the founder, not the OS. The remaining ref is WP:PRIMARY. Just a discontinued, non-notable Linux distro. Sure, it is an ancestor of CentOS, which is notable, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - just to note, no opinion from me, I just reported it as an administrative matter and have no knowledge of the subject (and no time to investigate further at the moment). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've dropped a note on 86.23.109.101's talk page, as he was also a major participant but as an IP can't be pinged. Vaticidalprophet 03:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...ha, and I find RandomCanadian got there before me but didn't mention it. Vaticidalprophet 03:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a paragraph or so into the history section of the CentOS article, or Delete. The current sourcing doesn't demonstrate standalone notability in my opinion, we have 2 product/feature listings, an interview on a blog, and a piece that is almost entirely about the popularity of it's successor, CentOS. If this was trimmed of the information about the capitalisation of the name and when the website went dead I think this could form a reasonable paragraph in the CentOS article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HD 44385

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Below naked-eye visibility, not named in the pre-photographic era, not in any suitably historic catalogues, and very lacking in journal papers. The exoplanet is a candidate still unconfirmed. Lithopsian (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any convincing arguments or evidence to delete this article. Just because it's a candiate doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. 400Weir (talk)

But even if it was a confirmed exoplanet how would that make its parent star notable? Surely by now it is recognised that certainly very many, probably most and possibly very nearly all stars have planetary systems? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a pretty clear WP:NASTRO fail. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree it fails WP:NASTRO. PianoDan (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable. Tercer (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nancy Spungen. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Spungen

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

Fails WP:BIO. While her daughter is notable, notability is not inherited and article subject isn't notable for any other reason other than being the mother of a notable person. ♟♙ (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nancy Spungen, Deborah spent a lot of time writing about Nancy and that can be covered in her article.★Trekker (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nancy Spungen, as per above. Sliekid (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect I agree with the nominator - notability is not inherited and Deborah doesn't pass the guidelines on her own, however information from her article can be added to Nancy's. Less Unless (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note from a random user; As someone researching the topic of Nancy Spungen I have found her mother to be an interesting person in her own right. Not only has she written extensively about her daughter and had direct contact with Vicious after Nancy's death, she has also gone on to write about more general topics related to family tragedy. Including; homicide in the family and dealing with becoming a widow. She also involves herself with some causes related to families dealing with tradegy. If anything her page needs updating with more relevent info, as she clearly isn't shy of the public eye. Her publishing and promotion of these materials indicates she is happy to spread awareness and discussion about these issues. Which having an easy to search wiki page is already doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.152.40 (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Nancy Spungen Alex-h (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NAUTHOR#3. While she might be less famous, she's more notable than her daughter. Nancy Spungen is primarily notable for one one event (her death), while Deborah is notable as an author having written at least three books (Table for One is missing from our article). Her first book (And I Don’t Want to Live This Life) was widely reviewed, and would make her notable even without the additional books. pburka (talk) 22:42, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Pizza Boy

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

Non-notable film, with no significant coverage at all in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search didn't bring up much to show that this film is notable, as it looks like this went the way of most indie budget films - it received little to no notice in the media. The claims of being first low budget film to premiere in a given area is also kind of dubious, as I'd wager that a lot of low to no budget films premiere in midtown Manhattan. Given the creative output that goes on in NYC, I'd be very surprised if there weren't films with lower budgets that have premiered in one form or another. Looking at the sourcing in the article, it's not really enough to establish notability. Here are my issues:

The BWW link is a press release and the only source we have for the Queens Chronicle review. A look on the newspaper's website only brings up an article announcing that the film will screen.
A look at the one link we have for the QC shows that the writer is a "Chronicle Contributor". This brings up the question of whether or not contributor pieces are given any sort of editorial oversight or if they're like Forbes's contributor pieces, where they give absolutely zero oversight. In my experience the term "contributor" typically means the latter, no editorial oversight. This makes the news source unusable unless it can be shown otherwise with the paper.
The Richard Propes (Independent Critic) should be usable, he's typically seen as a RS on Wikipedia.

So that leaves us with only one source that's really usable to establish notability, which isn't enough. If the QC contributor post could be proven to be usable it would help this meet the bare minimum threshold of notability, but then we'd also need to be able to locate said review. I'm very leery about using PR posts to back up reviews, as it's not uncommon for articles to sometimes be misrepresented. It's entirely possible that this was an offhand quote rather than a traditional review. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I would expect more sources for the lowest budget film to be screened in Midtown Manhattan but I'm not finding enough to establish notability. Spudlace (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Misanthropic Bitch

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

Controversial blog during its time, and certainly one of the first of its kind - but not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. It doesn't pass WP:WEBCRIT, and WP:INHERENTWEB should also be referred to. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and per my own review of it. I had hoped there would be some meat-and-potatoes in terms of sources, but after culling all the blogs, dead links, and articles that made no mention of the subject, there is precisely one confirmed article in the San Francisco Chronicle that mentions it, which I confirmed by finding the url for it (only the print info had been cited up until now), and added it to the citation. The other is another non-online source called San Francisco Metropolitan, and I have no way of vetting its content, since I couldn't find any mention of that publication via a Google search, so I don't even know if it passes WP:IRS, or even exists. Nightscream (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what pinktoebeans said. It is a piece of Internet history, and worthy I think of being saved in the Internet Archive, but I am not sure it belongs on Wikipedia? Mpc60ii (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To keep a closed website, it would have to have a high Alexa score (rating of websites) and this one does not figure on alexa. It does not meet WP:WEBCRIT insofar as there are no independent sources evaluating the site. Yes, Archive.org is the best place for this site. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:46, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Madaki

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

Maybe this is just because I'm fatigued but I've read the article twice and can't see what the actual claim to notability is. None of the teams that he has allegedly managed or played for have ever played in a professional league, so clearly WP:NFOOTBALL is failed. This article relies too much on this self-published and unreliable source. My WP:BEFORE search only came back with this passing mention in Sinar Harian, which is nowhere near enough to pass WP:GNG.

The entire article seems to be a vanity piece and the article creator never made any edits that weren't directly related to Madaki. The Sinar Harian source proves that he exists but we need more for notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NFOOTBALL as well as GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: go to WP:FPL and the Niger Premier League is mentioned under mens leagues. He has played at first class level in Niger. Ibrahim managed to recover from his injury and two years later, he won a 1-year contract offer from Niger Premier League side, Espoir FC. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru: - Niger Premier League is listed as Top level leagues which are not fully professional on WP:FPL, along with the other leagues that don't meet the criteria. Not to be confused with Nigeria Professional Football League, which is listed as fully professional. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: OK, thanks for that. I must have (oversighted) the not fully professional --Whiteguru (talk) 21:37, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Han Hung

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

According to Soccerway, Soccerpunter and Tribuna, this player has only played one game of professional football back in 2011, constituting a very weak WP:NFOOTBALL pass. Aside from that, there is very little info about him. We don't even know his DOB.

Searches, including a Malaysian one, come back with almost nothing. He is mentioned in a squad list, a transfer announcement (the source used in the article) and another squad list. This is not enough for WP:GNG and, per consensus, deletion should be considered since the SNG pass is fairly weak. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per GiantSnowman above --Whiteguru (talk) 11:00, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wakefield and District Football Association League

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

This does not meet WP:FOOTYN criteria for presumed notability as this is a sub-county feeder league and none of its clubs are eligible for national cups. Such leagues are required to meet WP:GNG. Internet searches only yielded a passing mention in Telegraph & Argus.

As ever, newspaper searches have the most promising results. For this league, however, it seems that it only had occasional results listings but little evidence of anything more. In my opinion, this is not WP:SIGCOV and does not meet WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. I am local-ish and have never heard of the league or the teams in it. Giant Snowman 17:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing listed for it in the entry for Wakefield in ISBN 9780714652511 on page 208. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A per nom and Giantsnowman Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local league only. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Based on policy rationales rather than !votes, the consensus is to delete this article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interbrand

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

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⁺⁺ 16:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As far as I know, they have just been named Red Dot Agency of the Year last year, one of the most important and independent global awards for brand design. Besides, I think the arguments from 2008 against AFD are still valid. I think the article simply needs some updates and new source, I don't see a decrease of notability since then. -- Microhierax (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That has no applicable weight towards WP:NCORP. Megtetg34 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 1 is from the topic's own website. Source 2 and 7 makes no mention of the topic. Source 4 and 5... I can't find that the articles in fact exist on either publisher's website or in any archives. Source 3 is the company's bio listed on another website. Source 6 and 8 are the same article cited twice that doesn't even mention the topic. Source 10 fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources 12, 13 and 15 are press releases from the topic. Source 9, 16 the link is dead or the page doesn't exist. Topic is clearly cloaked in unnamed sources in an attempt to appear notable enough for inclusion, and I can find no other sources. Topic should be deleted and frankly I'd even back a WP:SPEEDY. Megtetg34 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I checked sources 2, 7, and 6 (8), and all of them do mention the topic. Source 4 is a legit source with multiple academic citations (Google Scholar citations for reference).

I do agree that it's not possible to find sources 5 and 9.

Source 16 might no longer be working, but there are plenty of other sources to back that information (just Google ["Best Global Brands" + Business Week]).

Besides, I did some research and it appears as if the topic has notable influence in various other areas:

E.g.: In the article on Brand valuation Interbrand is named as the "pioneer of brand valuation". The influence on that topic is also backed by the article for John Murphy. I am sure some sources there will also apply to this topic. As mentioned in the article on Wi-Fi Interbrand has been heavily involved in the creation of the name, I think the influence of the term "Wi-Fi" can not be denied; sources back this information (e.g. here and here). There is also evidence for Interbrand's involvement in the creation of Pfizer Viagra (source), the design of the 1995 Suisse Franc notes (source), or more recently the creation of JIO, "the largest mobile network operator in India and the third largest mobile network operator in the world" (source). As stated earlier, I believe that this article can be saved by simply adding the relevant pieces of information. The current version clearly does not do that to a necessary degree, but I still pledge for keep.-- Microhierax (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not seeing the articles mention the topic as you are. Please indicate where exactly in the articles on 2, 7, 6 and 8 and what it says about the topic. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure -

[2] cited re: the founding of Novomark; turned into Interbrand - Paragraph 7: "[...] Mr Murphy stayed in touch and when, after brief post-Dunlop career in financial services, he decided the time had come to launch a business of his own, he secured a deal to set up in the UK under the Novomark name." & Paragraph 12 and 13: [...] " This concept, of creating not just a product identity but a persona with which customers can connect, Mr Murphy decided to call branding, a term he then introduced to the public in the title of a book he was editing, which appeared as “Branding: A Key Marketing Tool”. The concept, he says, ruffled a few feathers among marketeers but the term slowly caught on, Novomark began to style itself as a “branding consultant” and, eventually, it became Interbrand."

[6] you're right, it does mention the overall topic, but does not state Michael Birkin as group chief executive like it is cited as. Therefore, this source should be removed there and only be used as [8], also solving the double sourcing.

[7] cited re: Michael Birkin being CEO of Interbrand Group From 1987 to 1995: paragraph 17 (at the very bottom) - "Natif du Royaume-Uni, Michael Birkin compte plus de 25 ans d'expérience dans le domaine publicitaire. Il a été notamment président et chef de la direction d'Interbrand Group de 1987 à 1995." This translates to: "Michael Birkin is a native of the United Kingdom and has over 25 years of experience in the advertising industry. He was President and CEO of Interbrand Group from 1987 to 1995. (translated with deepl.com)"

[8] cited re: acquisition by Omnicom - paragraph 1: "The Omnicom Group said yesterday that it had acquired Interbrand Group P.L.C., an international corporate identity and brand-consulting company based in London [...]."

I'm sure that it is possible to find more reliable sources to add as citations as I have shown above, and that this is only a question of research and not notability. -- Microhierax (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those are trivial mentions. None of that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well there is more on the topic in these sources of course. Being conscious of length, I only cited the information that is mentioned in the current version of the article. I don't see why these sources should be disqualified as trivial. -- Microhierax (talk) 15:44, 7 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]

Keep: Is Wikipedia running out of storage capacity? I can't see any rational reason for this deletion request. Just my opinion. Have a great Sunday. Klaus Bells (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Interbrand was the pioneer (first-in-the-field) firm in brand-management consulting. Companies prize a good place in Interbrand's Best Global Brands report and enthusiastically communicate such success to their stakeholders, who may then look up Interbrand on Wikipedia. Deleting the article would have a deleterious effect on the articles about Brand valuation, the List of most valuable brands, and John Murphy. --Frans Fowler (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Riteboke (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Megteg that the sourcing doesn't meet SIGCOV or WP:CORPDEPTH. Industry awards don't really convey notability for a general encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:11, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Finance

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

The appropriate guideline for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, existing references in the article are standard listings or PRIMARY or PR/Announcements. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A probable WP:COI article describing a company's activities, sourced to their own site and press releases. My searches are not finding the coverage about the company which is needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with AllyD's comments. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:42, 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. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Wea

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

Not every Native American artist that ever lived is notable. After recent additions, this stub now has all published, secondary information about this person. By any of her names, she fails to meet the criteria at WP:ARTIST: not considered important or widely cited by her peers, did not create a "significant new concept, theory, or technique," has not "a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work," and has her work has "work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" (emphasis mine). Her aunt *is* notable and has an excellent article, but just being someone's relative does not confer notability. Ahalenia (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia[reply]

I agree. I wrote the article because I had run into her name when writing other articles. I was wondering, now, if I could "beef" up the article... and find more articles to link it to. But I am not finding much (i.e., not notable). It doesn't seem to be a good candidate for expansion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. Pop Wea could be listed on Pop Chalee's article as a relative and her name be a redirect to that. Ahalenia (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is in two dictionaries of native-American artists, and one museum collection. More than enough for WP:ANYBIO.--- Possibly (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria at WP:Artist calls for inclusion in several notable museums/galleries' permanent collections. The Heard Museum holds 40,000 artworks. Lester's directory lists more than 3,000 names. I don't understand why notability standards appear to never apply Native American bios. The energy put into this article, whose author agrees to delete, could be directed into articles for truly notable Native artists. The stub now contains all the information available about this person. I did mention her on Pop Chalee's article. Ahalenia (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia[reply]

NARTIST is a special notability guideline. One needs to only meet GNG or ANYBIO for inclusion here. Also, we do not specify how large a museum's collection can be for it to be used in notability discussions. If 40,000 was the cut off, we would have to stop using the Metropolitan Museum of Art (way more than 500,000 objects) and the Musuem of Fine Arts, Boston (more than 450,000 objects). --- Possibly (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, any article written about any Native artists gets a pass. Duly noted. Ahalenia (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia[reply]

Ahalenia, respectfully, you might want to think about what you said: I don't understand why notability standards appear to never apply Native American bios. I've seen quite a few deleted. The keep !voters here are quoting notability policy and guidelines: GNG, NARTIST, ANYBIO, BASIC, HEY, not just making things up in a cavalier manner. Netherzone (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahalenia you've said three things that really aren't related to notability. First, not every Native American artist that ever lived is notable., second I don't understand why notability standards appear to never apply Native American bios and third Okay, any article written about any Native artists gets a pass. Please stop claiming native American ethicity is a "pass" for notability, because it's bullshit and it's verging on something really unattractive. If you feel the need to say again that native Americans are somehow exempted from notability rules, please just restrain yourself. --- Possibly (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've improved the article, it now has several newspaper and book citations that span a period of several years. These combined with the museum collection + 2 biographic dictionary entries meets notability criteria. Her career spanned a short 3 years, from 1963 to 1966 when she died young and unexpectedly. However, during those 3 years she received significant attention for her work which was shown in several museums, and placed in private collections. What makes searching for these references difficult is that in addition to her indigenous name Pop Wea, she also went by six variations of her Anglo name. Netherzone (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, as discussed above. Beccaynr (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon the recent edits by Netherzone and Keep comments here. I struck out my comment above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You know, we have articles here on sports guys whose careers span one inning in cricket, or one down in American football—that have survived AfD—so I'm pretty sure an artist who has substantial output and a notable museum presence won't break Wikipedia, especially per NARTIST and ANYBIO. GenQuest ^"scribble" 23:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's in two print biographies. I think she qualifies! Mpc60ii (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pop Chalee This article has no birth date, no birthplace and no death place. It does not even include a list of works. Unless there is more information available in reliable secondary sources, it would be better to make a section in her aunt's article rather than a permanent stub. Joofjoof (talk) 09:50, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Hong

AfDs for this article:

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

First AfD ended in no consensus, mainly due to a lack of participants. Nothing has changed though; if one removes the sources which are not about Tea Hong, and the souces which are not reliable or independent, one ends with virtually nothing here. This company just hasn't received the necessary attention to have an article here. Fram (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any reliable sources supporting WP:GNG Delete Snake Oil Wench (talk) 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To the nominator: "If one removes the sources which are not about Tea Hong" ... please specificy which? Also why didn't you just remove those sources? it will make our voting jobs easier. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is usually frowned upon to AfD an article and at the same time remove sources from the article, as it looks like gaming the system. Anyway, Tea Hong was established in 2012, all sources from before are about other companies and don't mention Tea Hong. E.g. "Heiss, Mary Lou (2007). The Story of Tea: A Cultural History and Drinking Guide." (= source 4), and the current sources 6 to 11. So that leaves you with source 1, 2, 3, 5 and 12. 1 is the "about us" of the company, so no notability there. Source 2[11] is a Wordpress blog. And the last source, Tea Guardian, is a site from the owner of Tea Hong. So that leaves you with potentially two sources, source three and five. Source 5[12] presents Leo Kwan as one of the known tea makers, but hardly deals with Tea Hong (it mentions it, but it isn't the focus of the article at all). I have no access to source 3. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is far more an article about the various successive ventures involving Leo Kwan than an article about Tea Hong. I am not seeing the information or the coverage which can demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. In-depth coverage, by a reliable source, is not available. Ifnord (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet the notability guidelines. Riteboke (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Northern Escapee (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

İzmir Bomb Kurabiye

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

It's a cookie. The sources cited are recipes; many of them don't even call it Izmir Bomb Cookie but rather Nutella Stuffed Cookie. Needless to say, no coverage, significant or otherwise, so fails WP:GNG and probably much else besides. (I would have requested speedy, but the refbombing is so plentiful that I didn't think it would pass.) I'm including Turkey in the sorting categories, but I really don't think this has anything to do with Turkey. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article has been redirected to İzmir Bombası. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0zmir_bombas%C4%B1
https://www.cnnturk.com/yasam/izmir-bombasi-tatlisini-artik-tum-ulke-biliyor
https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/lezizz/galeri-unu-tum-turkiyeye-yayildi-baklavayi-tahtindan-etti-41552596
https://www.bolgegundem.com/izmirin-hangi-yiyecegi-meshur-ne-yenir-1400512h.htm
Weak keep. Recipes don't contribute to notability, nor do corporate websites. But the articles in CNN Turk and Hurriyet – both reputable Turkish sources – do appear to recognize this dessert as an important part of local and national cuisine. Such coverage is probably enough to eke out a GNG pass, although I freely admit that it's a borderline case. (Future participants are advised to search under the Turkish name, "İzmir Bombası". The grand majority of the coverage is in Turkish.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Hürriyet and CNN articles (which are identical, both supplied by the Demirören News Agency; therefore they don't count as two sources, but one) make it quite clear that this isn't some "important part of local and national cuisine" at all, but an invention of a local baker from less than ten years ago, which has recently become popular on social media. (Future participants are advised to search for sources that are older than a decade and do not refer to Mr Acar's bakery shop.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The confectioner has interpreted an existing cookie for herself.
https://www.sondakikaizmir.com/izmir/izmir-bomba-tatlisi-nasil-yapilir-bomba-tarifi-ve-fiyati-h1907.html
https://www.sozcu.com.tr/hayatim/gurme/incecik-hamur-ve-cikolata-iste-izmir-bomba-tatlisi-tarifi/
https://www.birgun.net/haber/bomba-izmir-e-degil-celebi-ye-ozgudur-267287

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0zmir_bombas%C4%B1 :)Samizambak (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We would usually merge the reliably sourced content to Qurabiya but I don't think there is any reliably sourced content. There are some problems with the quality of sourcing and editing but there's enough here for me to believe that foreign language sources exist that would contribute to GNG. Spudlace (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:GNG. This is a cookie that I want to taste. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article with some text translated from the Turkish Wikipedia and removed a few weird sentences like İzmir Bomb Kurabiye are now on the list of anyone who comes to İzmir or goes back to their hometown. I think with the sources above (excluding the recipes of course) it passes WP:GNG. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 16:55, 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. Salix alba (talk): 19:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piia Pasanen

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

Familiar face from Finnish TV, sure, but that's neither relevant nor enough to establish notability. Search finds a few tabloid / gossip mag pieces, so barely RS, and even then no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ENT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's the news anchor on Finland's national channel. A search for her name on Google News yields 900 results from a range of sources... but I have to admite that they are all in Finnish, which I cannot read. Furius (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Again, I don't speak Finnish, but from a quick Google she certainly appears to notable; an anchor on Finland's main national broadcaster and presenting the prestgious Independence Day Reception (Finland) event wouldn't be given to some throwaway celebrity. Additionally, the Finnish article for her has existed on the Finnish Wikipedia for 15 years, and the pageview stats for that indicate that the Finnish article for her actually has been getting consistently more views than someone who is currently linked from the Finnish main landing page; not an indication of notabilty, granted, but certainly indicates at least local interest. TubularWorld (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a well-known public figure which is reflected by the number of sources out there. I speak Finnish and searched in Finnish-language sources. Much of it is in the genre of entertainment news/women's magazines but the sources themselves are WP:RS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are plenty of hits, but none of it is sigcov, it's all about her mother dying and that sort of thing. Also, many hits are about her reporting (eg. on the Linnan Juhlat), rather than her being reported on. In other words, quantity rather than quality. (And not that I should have to point this out to anyone, but being a news anchor etc. is not a notability criterion. Let's not confuse familiarity of face and name with notability.) When I first saw this article I did some searching in order to save it, but failed, and had to conclude that the subject isn't notable by English-language Wikipedia's standards. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why isn't being a news anchor for a major channel a notability criterion? It seems like it should be roughly equivalent to starring in a notable film, which can be used as an argument for actors. Furius (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TubularWorld. Meets notability guidelines. Riteboke (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hog Farm _Talk 16:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greece in the OGAE Video Contest

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

None of the other countries represented in this fan club contest have their own pages. Information here can be integrated somehow into OGAE Video Contest (which has its own notability issues) or into Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 15:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very little here that can be merged into any relevant page. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:10, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 16:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ascesnsion Missionary Baptist Church

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

Local church, not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCHURCH. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing particularly notable about this church. Individual congregations, even when they have large levels of autonomy, are not inherently notable. Missionary Baptists Churches often have under 100 congregatants. There are I believe thousands in the city of Detroit. Most are not at all notable. If this congregation was found to be notable we would reshape Wikipedia where the majority of articles were on church congregations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the name "Ascension" has been misspelt, fortunately a Google search corrects for this. I have moved to the correct spelling. TSventon (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and as failing my own standards for churches. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. Prabhakaran

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

I analysed the complete sources and found that, all of them are talking about his company rather than this person. Some of them dont even mention him. On doing a WP:Before, I only got this [13] as the one giving any least coverage. Here also the main topic is his company. Thus the sources provided are just a REFBOMBING and the subject have no significant coverage at all and fails GNG. There is also a possibility that this article was created for promotional purpose if we are looking at the style of writing. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 15:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the tag says, this article reads like an advertisement and does not demonstrate notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Antoniou

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

Second-tier footballer who does not appear to have played in the first tier. There has already been an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alkis Markopouliotis. So the subject does not satisfy football notability, and there is no indication of general notability being satisfied. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL with 9 minutes professional play in the Football League Greece in the 2018–19 season (confirmed by SW), but there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage about the subject, hence fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 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. Obvious consensus to delete and salt. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Post-Grunge (2nd nomination)

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

A bad fatih recreation of the article that by rights should have remained deleted on both A9 and G4 grounds, this article returns to the community less than a month after its was correctly deleted because the original filer refuses to abide by WP:CONSENUS and has already repeatedly insiuated that he will recreate the article again and again until such time as it meets the standards required for inclusion (Talk:Northwest Post-Grunge,[14]). The GNG and NALBUM issues raised have not been addressed in any meaningful way beyond the addition of sources from the originally deleted version which the previous afd already established as insufficient for the purpose of demonstrating notability - in point of fact the entirely article was pasted as was and then worked on in the main space in order to circumvent community standards. The article refuses to die, having already been deleted four different times [15], so I'm moving for deletion AND WP:SALT this time. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge for the previous AfD on this album, just one month ago, in which the consensus was to delete. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Per my discussion at the DRV, this article fails WP:GNG. While additional sources have been added since my comments, including a several-sentence review in Gavin Rocks, none of the other sources are close. I'd prefer a salt - if this is recreated, it can be done in draft space. SportingFlyer T·C 12:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established by brief, regional reviews. Take note that the creator is also spinning out articles for the obscure bands on the compilation contribs (Mar19 - present) that may need to be addressed as well. I have looked through a few and the sourcing is scant. ValarianB (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two non-trivial sources on this article. The band pages I'm creating are supported by non-trivial sources as well. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @ValarianB: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Leitmotiv, if you are concerned, now is the time to add your two cents there. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT to the strongest extent possible - My delete vote is for the exact reason as in the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge. See the comments in that discussion, and also at Talk:Northwest Post-Grunge, by the article's creator who is incapable of accepting community consensus. The album remains non-notable and that is not going to change. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - this completely and utterly fails WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Insufficient substantive coverage in independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Also support T-banning Leitmotif from musical groups, obscurely construed. ——Serial 13:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - None of the padding in this version addresses the non-notability of the subject. No substantive coverage in reliable sources. Since the creator does not seem to be able to accept consensus this needs to be salted. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and consider sanctions against creator as he refuses to abide by consensus. StarM 15:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Album passes on two non-trivial sources everyone. I see some of you acknowledge Gavin Report, but not the other. That qualifies as multiple, right? Leitmotiv (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources isn’t the issue here, it’s your disruptive editing and refusal to abide by consensus, which was unanimously in favor of deleting the article three weeks ago. And the fact that you can’t see that further reinforces my belief that you need to be sanctioned for wasting our time - again - when you were already told to let this die - twice: once at the afd, and then again when speedy deleted on A7/G4 grounds. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The album does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unfortunately, I see two editors who are being aggressive and are pushing the limits of civility, User:Leitmotiv, and User:TomStar81, who is an admin. I do not see bad faith by Leitmotiv, only stubbornness, which is undesirable but is not bad faith. Enthusiastic stubborn editors should sometimes be ignored rather than counter-attacked. I don't think we needed an WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I see stubbornness in me too - out of a love for wikipedia content. I also agree that the admin involved is knee-jerk reacting as a defense of their friend who nominated the article for speedy deletion on incorrect grounds that it was identical. @Robert McClenon: I would like to see history that this article really has been brought up for deletion 5 times, by me. I'm not disputing that, but I also don't recall that. How did the article survive the first 3 times without having non-trivial sources? It just seems odd that in one argument TomStar81 is saying 5 times, and in this one, 2 times. Which is it? It's one thing to say 5 times in as many days, but if it's 5 times in twice as many years, that's a different story. I don't remember what I worked on in 2009 to any great extent. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guilt as charged. I had a bad, bad, BAD experince at DR about two years ago which I am still pissed over, which is the reason for the ANI: I would have blocked for two weeks without question, but I am under the influence of my emotions and a little too involved in this to act with a neutral hand, which means the community needs to weigh the case and make the call here because I don't trust myself to - and I'm not dragging an otherwise innocent editor down with me. Its an attempt at AGF on my part, which hopefully counts for something. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (Largely repeated from WP:ANI) - User:Leitmotiv is stating a good-faith but serious misunderstanding of the relationship between verifiability and notability, and I think that is the whole problem. They say at WP:ANI: "To determine it's non-notable it basically has to have no notable sources (at least on the current grounds of argument), right?" Wrong. If it has no notable sources, it is non-notable. But the existence of sources does not establish notability in themselves. The sources verify the content of the article. If what the text of the article says is not notable, the sources will not change that. Sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition. The idea that sources are THE key to acceptance or retention of an article is a common myth in Wikipedia. In this case, the problem is the album doesn't satisfy the album notability criteria. User:Leitmotiv is not acting in bad faith, only mistaken as to policy.
Ok I just posted at the ANI and came here next. I see your comment about "If what the text of the article says is not notable" and that may be my hangup right there. How do I know if the content is notable or not, even if it is in a notable source? What's the criteria? I've looked at WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM per everyone's argument for deletion and I don't see anything to instruct me about how to judge if the content of a notable source is in fact notable. I am very willing to learn here everyone, I just don't think I fully understand what "notable" content specifically refers to. Being the type of person I am, I often need to be held by the hand and pointed to the exact thing because I've found wikipedia's help section to be very unintuitive, and honestly, it has a horrible search engine. Things that you would think should pop up number 1 in the search results typically don't appear until way down the list of results, or at least out of reach that I give up searching for it. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:TomStar81 - User:Leitmotiv is seriously wrong as to notability, but is not acting in bad faith. Users with wrong ideas on policy are a more complicated disruption than bad-faith users, because their content should be reverted but their conduct is not blockable.
Thank you thank you thank you! I don't feel I'm acting in bad faith either. Heated? Sure. Passionate, heck yes. Every attempt of mine has been to improve the articles as I understand wikipolicy (in error or not). I felt the speedy deletion was in error and the deletion discussion agreed. Does the article still appear to fail AfD? It appears so, because there's consensus here, however - no matter what the results are at this discussion, the thing I want to walk away with is a greater understanding of, well the things I'm not understanding - the notability part. I have been operating under the premise that if I can find non-trivial sources that meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM that that should be enough. Apparently not! I want to learn more about what makes something notable and how can you tell? I want cold hard data! Please, and thank you. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Salt - I have no reason to think that an expansion of the article will introduce anything new that will satisfy the musical notability criteria. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. I am in agreement with comments already made about the events leading up to this AfD. --John B123 (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where can I go to sort out my confusion with notable non-trivial sources versus notable content? I feel that the tags I'm seeing at the top of articles are misleading when they say it needs notable sources, yet notable sources are provided, but editors still claim the content is still not notable. In other words the tag to improve the article does not directly confront what is really needed. And because I don't understand the lack of notability within notable sources, I need some sort of instructional video, a page or talk thread that clears up the confusion for me. WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM have not sufficed, despite everyone citing those wikipolicies. @Robert McClenon: has been the only one willing to attempt to recognize I'm not up to speed, that I've fallen into some sort of common "myth" at Wikipedia. So far as I can tell, it appears the measurement of notability within a notable article is left at the discretion of opinion, since the tags we apply to these articles only requests non-trivial sources be applied, not that the content itself is unnotable. If this myth is as pervasive at Robert McClenon suggests it is, we need to fix some of the policy to clarify as it's too ambiguous. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Start here and the links on that page.

In particular, consider: "You can cite numerous, published, reliable, secondary, independent sources and it will not help establish notability if they do not treat the topic substantively – think generally two or more paragraphs of text focused on the topic at issue. Remember: it is much better to cite two good sources that treat a topic in detail, than twenty that just mention it in passing. Moreover, citation overkill to sources containing mere passing mentions of the topic is a badge of a non-notable topic..." This seems to me one of the areas where you are running into issues with this article. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Leitmotiv - I don't think that any policies need to be fixed. If there is a specific policy that is ambiguous, please point it out and it can be reworked. Wikipedia policies are complex. It is not always possible to provide a simple unambiguous summary of complex policies. A simple summary of complex policies is likely to be, and is, an overly simple summary that is wrong. The idea that reliable sources are essential to acceptance of an article is correct. The idea that reliable sources will guarantee the acceptance of an article is incorrect. Many inexperienced good-faith editors and many inexperienced bad-faith editors have the simplistic idea that having enough sources is a sufficient condition for acceptance of an article. It is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. Some people have difficulty understanding the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. If there is a policy that oversimplifies, it should be fixed, but I think that the problem is that some editors simply oversimplify things because it is easier (but wrong). I don't think that the policies need to be reworked. If they do, we can discuss at Village Pump. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:I get what you are saying. However... I'm just having trouble when people cite policy, or the latest help from Lard Almighty linking WP:NERROR. I believe I understand these help articles in full, but none of the three articles cited in the AfDs directly confront the issue of what makes something un-notable even if sufficiently cited. Like when @John B123: tags Berbati's Pan as possibly not meeting notability standards, and the tag asks us to "[cite] reliable secondary sources that are independent". Well, that's all the article has, is four reliable, independent, and non-trivial sources. But you're telling me, that the issue isn't what the tag is saying, but that even the notable sources aren't discussing notable content. I'm failing to find wiki-help content that discusses how to glean that from a source. As far as I can tell, it appears to be a matter of opinion among editors, which may help me in a talk page or AfD, but it doesn't help me going forward on my own creating articles. I'm conflicted, because Lard Almighty says 2 good sources are better than 4 trivial sources, yet Berbati's Pan, in my opinion, has 4 really good sources. Each directly discusses the subject matter in a non-trivial way (3 have headlines directly about Berbati's Pan, with full articles) and the other, a book, devotes an entire half column to the venue. I feel like I'm going around in circles trying to understand what everyone is telling me. I understand what a notable source looks like, I don't understand what unnotable content within a notable source looks like, and no wiki-help content that I've been directed to sheds light on that subject matter. It appears to me, that it's at the discretion of Wikipedian opinions, which isn't immediately useful to my growth here at Wikipedia. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Leitmotiv - No. Apparently either I haven't adequately explained Wikipedia policies, or you don't understand. You are not the only editor who has conflated two different policies, notability and verifiability. Sources don't make a subject notable. They only verify the notability of the subject. I personally think that many inexperienced Wikipedia editors, including yourself, either mislead themselves or are misled into thinking that sources are the key to acceptance of an article, when in fact sources are only one of two tests that must both be passed. On looking at the example that you provide of tagging a bar, I see that part of the problem is that the wording of the tag is problematic. Establishing notability is more than a matter of providing sources. However, on further reviewing our policies, I am half inclined to agree with you, User:Leitmotiv, that our policies are ambiguous, because I do see how general notability is poorly defined and appears to be a matter of sources. In the case in point, however, which is Northwest Post-Grunge, there is a special notability guideline, and the deletion discussion is over whether it meets album notability, which is about musical criteria, and not just about sources.
Comment to User:Leitmotiv - Maybe this discussion needs to be continued at the Teahouse or at Village Pump.
Comment - Can someone else either try to explain to User:Leitmotiv the difference between verifiability and notability, or can someone explain to me how verifiability and notability are the same?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Team KART

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

Currently the page acts as a promotional frontpage. The article appears to be an original research. It lacks inline citations. References have not been improved since 2014. defcon5 (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just an article written for promotional purpose with no significance. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found in Gnews or normal Google, thing about go-karts, nothing about these folks. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Significantly trim and redirect to Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur 03:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability and much of the content is unsourced. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:31, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)
SSSB (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Lewis Hamilton

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

An unnecessary split. The table of World titles contains no additional information than the career summary table at Lewis Hamilton. The awards section was copy and pasted from Lewis Hamilton and the other tables aren't notably enough to be covered anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone a dedicated page. I therefore fail to see how this WP:SPLIT is necessary, justified, or in line with WP:N.
SSSB (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions.
SSSB (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the Lewis Hamilton article is otherwise too long and the nature of this split seems very sensible to me. I'm astonished to think Hamilton's achievements aren't notable. Thincat (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking they are, a list of his podiums are not.
SSSB (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Lewis's article is too long. I published the article even before it was ready as a way to encourage other users to participate in the expansion of it (“Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively”). Now, there is a list of podiums and a list of pole positions. The list of records and the list of awards was brought to the list of achievements. I am still adding sources and then I will expand the introductory section. Minerva (talk to me) 14:04, 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 speedy delete. It was the same article as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OGdoings, re-created by its original author from User:Rayzi Nwaoha/sandbox. Uncle G (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OGdoings

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG Setreis (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no more notable than it was three months ago when there was extremely clear consensus for deletion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 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 Deleted as G12: Violation of the copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grant kelley

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

Fails WP:GNG Setreis (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unnotable and blatant self promotion. Already been nom'd for G12. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:24, 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 procedural close. Wrong forum, obviously using WP:AfD for wp:merger discussion. Will move the discussion. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firefighting apparatus

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

There is a large overlap between this article and Fire engine. While there is some good content here, it would be much better if it were merged into the Fire engine article. Or alternatively delete Fire engine and merge its content here. Either way there should only by one article where there are currently two. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

… none of which involves deletion, an adminstrator hitting the administrator-only delete button. You, or indeed any editor without even your privileges as an account-holding editor, could do everything that you've stated above, in fewer edits in fact than the series of edits necessary to make an AFD nomination. And not only are talk pages the things to use to gain consensus about merging duplicate articles, there's even an open discussion of this already at Talk:Firefighting apparatus#Duplication?. Uncle G (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the nominator does not provide a valid reason for deletion. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per WP:OVERLAP#2: substantial overlap. Neither of the three reasons in WP:NOTMERGE hold. Both articles have lower-medium lenght.Trimton (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think the articles are notable and that neither should be deleted without prior merging.Saturn Lover! (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fire engine. Frankly, I would have thought from the title that this referred to equipment rather than vehicles, but it does not. BD2412 T 00:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strictly speaking WP:SKCRIT#1 applies here. With no prior attempts at editing or discussion, I'm not sure why this wasn't just done boldly. Indeed in the absence of opposition it could probably still be done boldly and this discussion speedily closed. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The hierarchy may not be clear. A fire apparatus is an umbrella term that can denote a ladder truck, a fire engine, a specialized heavy rescue vehicle, a water tender, an aid car, or any number of special purpose vehicles. Trying to merge "apparatus" with "engine" doesn't make sense. If the article is unclear on that such that non-specialists might think merging the articles is a good idea, then it should be clarified, rather than merged. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move: to Firefighting equipment and brutally re-written. The main issue is my understanding of the definition.. ie (from a google result) "the technical equipment or machinery needed for a particular activity or purpose". In other words equipment (or which fire engines/tenders are a subset). So this article should not be restricting itself to vehicles' in my opinion. In all events don't delete and if redirecting/merging to Fire engine allow for a later redirect. Show not have been brough to AfD for reasons given above. There may or may not be content worthy of attributed copying. 07:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 2021-04-04T07:57:45 (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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dethan Punalur

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

lack of reliable references which are independent of the subject. WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did a WP:Before in Malayalam and found that this source [16] from Mathrbhumi is giving significant coverage to the subject. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasoning by Kichu. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won a lot of awards for photography in South India. An established, high quality photographer. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:20, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N. A. Naseer

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

lack of independently reliable references. no indication of notability. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the reputed photographers from Kerala, who popularised wildlife photography in the state. Notability can be established with these [17][] [18] [19][20]. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasoning by Kichu. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs work, the subject passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG based on multiple reliable secondary sources, such as a review on his upcoming photography book at [[21]]. Roulisegee (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:46, 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashington JW RFC

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. It competes in regional league. (Level 7). Basically it is not a notable professional league or competition. Delete. Kemalcan (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU and while there is some coverage, it is merely trivial coverage and not enough to pass WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would that Wikipedia had the actually notable things, which are the Ashington Coal Company one of whose ventures was the Ashington Welfare Club, which in 1924 had "twenty-seven football teams, eighteen cricket teams, three hockey teams, and two rugby teams".(Dintenfass 1992, p. 105) harv error: no target: CITEREFDintenfass1992 (help) Yes, the rugby teams that are alluded to here. Yes, the Hirst Welfare club was the ACC, too, as well as Lynemouth and Lynton.(Davison 1973, p. 251) harv error: no target: CITEREFDavison1973 (help) Ashington Joint Welfare was registered as a charity in 1966. But Special:Whatlinkshere/Ashington Coal Company tells us that we didn't even know, from a to-do list or otherwise, that we didn't have this, and it's certainly not specific to one rugby club.
- Dintenfass, Michael (1992). Managing Industrial Decline: The British Coal Industry Between the Wars. Ohio State University Press. ISBN 9780814205693.
- Kirkup, Mike (2000). ASHINGTON COAL COMPANY: The Five Collieries. Seaham, Co. Durham: The People's History Ltd.
- Fordyce, William (1860). "Ashington, Broomhill, and Radcliffe collieries". A History of Coal, Coke, Coal Fields, Progress of Coal Mining, the Winning and Working of Collieries. London: Sampson. p. 86.
- Davison, John (1973). Northumberland Miners, 1919–1939. National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area). ISBN 9780950301402.
Uncle G (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Present sources Fails WP:NRU. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Bíró

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

Despite being a youngster in the world. He seems to fail WP:GNG for the time being and because he is not in the Kisvarda squad it could also be WP:CRYSTAL here. HawkAussie (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't checked my usual Hungarian news sources for this guy yet so I'm not sure about WP:GNG. He did debut only last season, though, and he is still 17. This season he is playing in the amateur third tier, as per MLSZ, the most extensive Hungarian football database. A bit concerned that he's struggling even to get game time there. No starts (kezdő), 9 sub appearances (csere) and 10 times that he sat on the bench but didn't come on (kispad). He has, however, started 4 regional U19 fixtures... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 17 year old at the start of his career, with one professional appearance to date so meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My question is though why does this player have their own page right here when they have made their only appearance, as a stub. Look I am saying delete right now because really we don't know if this kid would get more game time in the future as its the unknown. HawkAussie (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just passes NFOOTY but seems to fail gng. Relist8ng to give time for sources to be presented showing significant coverage, if that's possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Mushroomson (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GiantSnowman. If it meets WP:NFOOTBALL it doesn't particularly matter if the nominator doesn't like that the subject has only a stub page. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:CRYSTAL. Meeting NFOOTY is not sufficient for keeping an article at AfD if GNG fails. He's a kid currently playing in an amateur Hungarian league; if it's really so important that the one sentence and infobox are retained they can be userfied until such time he actually meets GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply fails WP:GNG. Passing WP:NFOOTBALL only means that a subject is likely to pass WP:GNG but he still has to pass it. In this case, there is no WP:SIGCOV, just a single link to a database listing. Alvaldi (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Present sources are not enough to pass WP:BASIC. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we create articles on people who actually are notable now, not on the presumption they may be notable in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ghansah

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple appearances in the Ghana Premier League claimed (the fact he has played verified by this) so meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 10:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - report above only mentions him as a sub, so better sources needed. I tried checking his career season by season as listed in the article and it looks like he only played in 2nd level leagues or lower in Ghana. Apparently the infobox is also incorrect as it doesn't show him playing for Wise in 2013. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How does one improve an article that has zero GNG sources? He's been playing in UAE and Oman the last 4 years, it's not like football coverage in the Gulf states in the 2010s is some inaccessible offline black hole. If he's only notable from his time on Wise to Ebusua, where would this alleged SIGCOV exist? How often do editors actually uncover ungoogleable non-trivial RS on contemporary Ghanaian footballers? JoelleJay (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any clear evidence that he passes WP:GNG in my searches. He might pass NFOOTBALL, he might not. As BlameRuiner has pointed out, we have evidence that he was an unused substitute in a game between two sides playing in an FPL but no evidence of actual playing. Even if he did play in such a game, we have no evidence that the NFOOTBALL pass is strong enough to completely supersede the very clear GNG concern. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Present sources are not enough to pass WP:BASIC. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its an interesting discussion here. Article claims he spent 2017-2018 playing with Al Shabab SC, winners of the Oman Professional League Cup for that year. This does not count as first class league as per WP:FPL ??? --Whiteguru (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oman is listed as not fully professional on that list. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep passes NFOOTY per his appearances in Ghana. I sympathise with the concerns of editors about GNG, but I find there is a distinct lack of internet sources for Ghanaian footballers generally (I don't even know of a stats website for the Ghanaian Premier League). Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Microwave Anarchist, are the stats at ghanafa.org (1 hit for Robert Ghansah) or footballghana.com (0 hits) or ghanasoccernet.com (5 hits) not sufficient? Most coverage from Ghana is passing mention of his sharing Top Scorer award for the 2013 MTN FA Cup (not SIGCOV). I searched in graphic.com.gh, ghanaiantimes.com.gh, dailyguidenetwork.com, yen.com.gh, theheraldghana.com, ghpage.com, ghheadlines.com, pulse.com.gh, and a few others and couldn't find anything. Anyway, how likely is it he would have garnered SIGCOV playing for Eleven Wise in 2013 and zilch playing for Oman or UAE more recently? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what SIGCOV does exist for him but there doesn't seem to be any online. However, this is why we have SNGs as there is going to be systemic bias against people from less developed nations as there are less online sources for them, so that's why it is a weak keep from me. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Microwave Anarchist, reference to the BIAS essay does not appear anywhere on NSPORT; the closest I can find is in FAQ Q4, which states (emphasis mine): There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given. The teams he played for unambiguously fall under the bolded portion, as evidenced by the many newspapers/websites I listed above that discuss Ghanaian football in detail in English during the time he was active there. I will also note the first sentence on NSPORT states an SSG only presumes to meet GNG -- if notability is challenged GNG must actually be demonstrated. FAQ Q5 lays this out explicitly:

The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

JoelleJay (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I've struck my !vote. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:36, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Love-Robinson

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

The subject commited fraud as a minor, and subsequently has been found guilty of fraud on two occasions since then. None of this would normally get much attention - and it doesn't appear that there has been that much attention - if it wasn't for the earlier case as a minor which was unusual. I'm not seeing enough here to justify an article and I'm concerned about the BLP implications considering that most of this occured as a minor: per WP:CRIME I'd be looking for evidence that the subject is a significant figure or that there is sufficient coverage to pass this "historically significant" bar, but I'm not really seeing evidence of either. Bilby (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bilby (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. The article may be poorly written. The subject may not merit ongoing coverage. However, this Dr. Love story has just enough Florida Man oddity to attract ongoing media attention, especially since he is allegedly still practicing medicine as of January 2021.[22] • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the BLP concerns are just too high to keep such an article on a living person. The coverage is clearly not high enough to say that people would find it odd that Wikipedia lacked an article on this individual and I really do not think there is justification to have such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, per WP:CRIME, not significant CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything about this article seems wrong. Poorly-written with significant tone issues. KidAd • SPEAK 04:12, 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 merge to Max Ward (drummer). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

625 Thrashcore

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

"record label" would fall under organization/company as it is not a band, and this company lacks sufficiently wide breadth deep coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Graywalls (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Found only trivial mentions here and here. My only qualm with redirecting to Max Ward (drummer) is that that article is also in pretty sorry shape, and only really scrapes by on notability through circular means (passes WP:NMUSIC as a member of 2 or more notable ensembles, but are those ensembles only notable because he's in them?) Kncny11 ^(shoot) 03:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment If it's a record label, I believe WP:NCORP, rather than WP:NBAND is the appropriate SNG to use. Graywalls (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was referring to the notability of Max Ward under NMUSIC, not the label. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 14:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ebullition Records or Max Ward (drummer). I disagree that NCORP is the correct guideline to apply, as I have argued repeatedly and at length elsewhere, but the label has at least a passing shot at meeting WP:MUSIC's sense of an important indie. In any case, it has at least five noteworthy bands that are all tied together by association with this label, and having a redlink here does not serve the user who wants to understand that connection. Upmerging to Ebullition, of which this was a subsidiary, is an option, as is merging into the Ward article, though I agree that it needs some sprucing up. Chubbles (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment I reviewed both redirect targets and they're both of highly questionable WP:GNG status. Notability is not built from association with notable people per WP:INHERITORG. WP:NMUSIC does not address recording labels/companies. These indie labels that fail to meet WP:NCORP fails to have enough notability to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC) '[reply]

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more with any of these comments. The only reason a record label is worth covering in an encyclopedia is its artistic output; citing NOTINHERITED is missing the point. We have no reason to cover a record label that does anything other than release noteworthy (i.e., notable) music and musicians; a label that passed GNG but didn't do that, in my opinion, may not need an article (e.g., EDGEOUT Records). WP:MUSIC does, in fact, have specific language suggesting a route to evaluating the notability of record labels, and we should prefer the input of subject experts in music on the notability of musical topics over business and organization experts, as we do for bands (which, were they not specifically excluded, unquestionably would meet CORP's guidelines, too). CORP neither is (by fiat) nor should be the holding standard, and certainly, Ebullition as a merge target is a noteworthy enough label to pass muster as an important indie label - if we don't have room for an article on that label, we have much bigger standard-of-inclusion problems than can be addressed in this specific discussion. Chubbles (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and I see that you have already moved to have Ebullition deleted as well, so I guess I'll move on to fighting that battle over there. Chubbles (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 05:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comments per ChubblesRajuiu (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Riteboke (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Max Ward (drummer), however it appears that his wikipage maybe borderline WP:GNG --Devoke water 16:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus that the topic is notable. A theoretical WP:HEY is not a reason to DRAFTIFY (the most common reason to draftify is some form of TOOSOON). If sources are found that establish notability let me know and I would be willing to provide the deleted text for improvement and consideration. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chithra Ramakrishnan

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely non notable musician with no awards or recognition in top media houses, either in India or in the UK. Besides, the pages of her organisation and the World Music Conference were created by the same IPv6 range Nikita Manzi (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete per MayureshK - I was the one who revived her article, a bit after the first deletion and went on to create pages of her org and WMC (to explain the same IPV6 range) :-) Based on the media coverage she appears to be a notable personality - enough for her to be nominated fora national level award and win civic honours - both for her work with dance and making it accessible. And also her work with the World Music festival and the Carnatic choir (apparently the first in the UK) as a secondary criteria for notability. She can't surely be compared with someone with an international repute, obviously. But I don't think that makes her any less notable. I would certainly say that's 2 out of the 3 of WP:ANYBIO. Just my 2p. -MayureshK

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 05:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search only brought up one article from a reliable source that isn't a passing mention. As a musician and dancer she doesn't meet the notability guidelines. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 10:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability given that all of the honours are non governmental honours and not some civilian or national award. Also, hosting a talk show with notable people doesn't make one notable. I feel, it is better to delete the article since it exists, without a single reference from a reliable source, either in India or in the UK since I belong to India and felt necessary to comment. Rohan9082 ^(talk)
Draftify I think having it incubated might help bring it to WP:HEY or better. I'd request others to also support a draftify. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per above Snehashis Chakraborty
Delete because doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Riteboke (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrious Nicholson

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON by a wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've removed the entire body as a copyvio of the player's college bio. Has a couple featured articles in his college's local newspaper ([23], [24]), but nothing elsewhere so fails WP:GNG. Did not play professionally, so also fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with what Eagles247 has said. Without copyvio, there is nothing. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, present sources are not enough to pass WP:BASIC. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable player of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:39, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trace VFX

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

Fails WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalida Mamanova

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

This article may not meet the notability guidelines for biographies. ThatOneRandomGuyYouMeet (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note from AfD Proposer (Keep): I don't know Kazakhstani history and thought this topic was non-notable when it wasn't so I'll vote for keep. ThatOneRandomGuyYouMeet (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The proposer provides no argument for deletion at all. The article clearly needs improvement, but Mamanova is a notable figure in Kazakhstani history. She is the subject of a recent book: Pecherskikh, V.E. (Ed.), 2020. Khalida Mamanova: sbornik dokumentov i materialov. Print express, Almaty. ISBN: 9786017946364. Furius (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Biography was written about her. Noah ^💬 21:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with a biography, but the article needs WP:TNT. --hroest 03:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Batool

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

her name is NOT included on BBC's reference on Article, plus that reference from "www.hazara.net" doesn't seem to be valid. NameGame (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The subject garnered a bit of news coverage for becoming one of the first female pilots in the Pakistan Air Force, but I'm not seeing any evidence of enduring notability. My English-language Google search just turns up the article from Hazara.net, and my search in Persian also does not turn up any good sources. Ping me if there are non-English sources I'm missing and I'll reconsider my !vote – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these first x to do y articles have reached the level of being ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. One of first four not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Magsanoc

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. I wanna know everyone else's opinion on it though... ShadowBallX (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ShadowBallX (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG. Very notable in the Philippines. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep In addition to the GNG pass based on sourcing, he was a two-time medalist in the Asian Games and was named as part of multiple Philippine Basketball Association All-Time teams. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: GNG is OK, so imo have no reason to delete it.--vote by Alcremie (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; popular in Philippines, well established as a national and international player. Its time WP:NBASKETBALL was updated to include all first class competitions affiliated with FIBA. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:32, 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 Speedy delete. WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bikram Malati (film director)

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

Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NDIRECTOR, fails WP:NACTOR.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:53, 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) 05:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Armstrong

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

This seems very much like a resume, and to me is on the borderline of being speediable, but consensus is the better part of valor. BD2412 T 02:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.-KH-1 (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any sources for her. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 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 Speedy close, wrong forum, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.google

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

Propose merge with Google. Reason: The top level domain has not gotten significant coverage or notoriety to have its own Wikipedia article. That said, there is also the TLD .microsoft which does not have its own Wikipedia article for the same reason. Aasim (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into a disambiguation page. Sandstein 07:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social evolution

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

The content describes sociobiology. Most links pointing here seem to be referring to sociocultural evolution. Should turn this page into a disambiguation. C9mVio9JRy (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. C9mVio9JRy (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - social evolution and sociobiology are not even remotely synonymous; the former is a very small subset of the latter. If there are a preponderance of links pointing here that refer instead to sociocultural evolution (which is effectively disambiguated here), then the proper solution is to fix those links, not to delete this article. Dyanega (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The current article seem to suggest the latter is a subset of the former. As far as I can tell they study the same topic using the same set of theories, namely, inclusive fitness and evolutionary game theory. The word sociobiology is coined later by Wilson when some study on the topic already exists, perhaps in the name of social evolution, but I'm not aware of any difference between the two. Can you point to some sources that clearly contrast the two? C9mVio9JRy (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of books about this by this title – see above. Insofar as the topic is broad and controversial, that's a reason to develop it per WP:ATD, not to delete it. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's title is two common words that are commonly smushed together to mean any one of a variety of things. As often happens with technical or scientific topics, the bag of words approach to judging notability doesn't really work. Since we already have better articles on any of the topics this one might be about, I refashioned it into a list of pointers. XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the article was significantly reduced on 23 March 2021 (UTC) (diff). The article as it existed at the time of nomination for deletion is viewable using this diff.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I think that was premature, and have reverted it. Turning the page into a disambiguation is functionally equivalent to deleting the article or doing a blank-and-redirect, which is preempts the result of this discussion. – Joe (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is indeed a mess of similarly-named articles and if you search for "social evolution", the most common result is the concept described at sociocultural evolution. But that doesn't mean social evolution in the evolutionary biological sense isn't a notable topic. A quick search turns up whole books about it[25][26][27][28][29] and while there's a lot of overlap with sociobiology, one is a natural phenomenon and one is a field of study – two different things. However, I do think it would be a good idea to turn this article into a disambiguation page pointing to social evolution (biology) (this article), sociobiology, sociocultural evolution, cultural evolution, etc. – Joe (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguify as in my edit (more or less, details obviously not set in stone). There's no need to keep the current text, which has hung around for years in a half-hearted, not-really-explanatory, superficial state, when we have more substantial writings that we can link to. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation is not appropriate as the title matches are not exact and WP:CONCEPTDAB states "A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual." Also, disambiguation pages do not have citations and the topic seems sufficiently controversial that citations will be required. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, call it a "set index article" or whatever the inside-baseball name is for those things that are obviously disambiguation pages but can't be called that for reasons no reader will bother to understand. Scientific controversies within the various topics listed certainly exist, but the existence of those subjects is not in doubt, so that's beside the point here. WP:CONCEPTDAB is a guideline, not a policy, and the quoted guidance is inapplicable here because there are multiple topics with similar names, some pertaining to biology and others to anthropology or sociology. It's all well and good to say that there should be a broad-concept article, except that nobody is going to write it and if they tried, it would be WP:SYNTH. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is supposed to be the evolution of social behavior, that's what the title should be. However, given that we already have behavioral ecology#Social behaviors, evolution of eusociality, sociality, and sociobiology, I don't see how this article is going to provide any added value even if it were to be improved. C9mVio9JRy (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate, probably with more options than used by XOR'easter - Joe Roe points out a few. The current article is a poor attempt at providing some bits and bobs of the possible meanings; if it were more developed, it would at that point become duplicative of the better developed articles on these facets. Let's abstract that and channel the user to the well-curated material already present. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
My list indeed was very short and could probably be expanded. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguify The expression "social evolution" is used with different meanings by different authors, it is not possible to write an article about it. There is already a good article about sociocultural evolution, as well as other possible targets mentioned above, so we should point to them instead. Tercer (talk) 14:28, 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) 05:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Duggal

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

PROD was removed hence bringing to AFD. Non-notable IPS officer. He is husband of an elected politician but notability can't be inherited. Some other news in this article is about his transfers. He has one award but that doesn't seem very significant either. Failing WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create, 2007-02 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a lot of passing mentions in relation to cases, but I could find no SIGCOV of the man himself. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Superintendent of police in India is notable person. There here is one police man for thousand persons and in this manner he is working for millions of people in Haryana State. Police Medal is conferred only for remarkable services rendered for human welfare for masses.Mamtakuhu20 (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mamtakuhu20 : can you guide me which wikipedia guideline say that 'Superintendent of police in India' is a notable person? Working for millions of people is not a notability criteria from what I know. I am not disagreeing that his services have not been remarkable. Just saying that the single medal is not enough to cross notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete distict level heads of police are not default notable. The sourcing does not show notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. While consensus can change, there is a very strong consensus that police and school superintendents are not inherently notable, even if they have extensive coverage due to crimes. Only police chiefs or school supers of world class cities are inherently notable. 20:43, 7 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Air Go Airlines

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

I can find no evidence this short-lived airline was ever notable, and the article doesn't assert it was. Articles in German, Greek are also unsourced and there is nothing to be found via search to establish notability. StarM 16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, into List of airlines of Greece. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That article is only for airlines that are still in operation. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keycafe

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really found anything, apart from the old sources already cited in the article (the Globe and Mail piece now sporting a notice that it may not be correct nowadays), that isn't regurgitated press releases or direct quotations of the company founder. Several of the sources in the article turn out to be just sentences with lists of businesses that exist in part because of Airbnb, which is why, when that sentence is inverted, they support so little here. Uncle G (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NCORP/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 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. I could relist this, but it's been awhile. Let me offer one tip: Someone may want to go in and reorganize, or reclassify the criteria or do a RM or something because odds are it will be here again and it might not make it next time. This is precisely the kind of AFD that needs to generate activity AFTER the discussion to address the problems brought up. For now, opinions are all over the place, so I'm calling it no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball Association team presidents

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

The list in question (along with List of National Basketball Association general managers, which was used as example) is subject to WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTDIR. The NBA teams can have more than one president for different sections (basketball operations, business operations, etc). – Sabbatino (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* There is an Article titled List of Portland Trail Blazers executives. Only NBA team with this type of article.

* And NBA Executive of the Year - DrumFan4ever (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand much of the nomination, everything in it prior to "NOTDIR" seems like it's in response to a comment that must have been made elsewhere by someone else. I also don't know whether the fact that there are multiple presidents per team has any bearing. Anyway, those with subject matter familiarity can speak better to how significant this role is to note, and to index together across the entire NBA. We do have Category:National Basketball Association team presidents, though it is not well populated, but I wonder if it's because most of the eligible entries are in the parent Category:National Basketball Association executives instead? Many of the entries in this list (whether rightly or wrongly) are also not wikilinked. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy? Clearly, there's been a lot of work done with the article, and I hope we can salvage some of that effort. But the scope of the page has never been clear to me. For example, Artūras Karnišovas specifically has the job title of vice president. (Maybe we could call the page List of National Basketball Association team leaders?) The organization and presentation can use some retooling, and I have some ideas for how to simplify things, but first I'd need to understand what we really want to accomplish here. Zagalejo (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:LISTN, namely discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources If these types of groups were notable, they wouldn't be limited to current directory listings, they would include past position holders as well. Current directories of team owners, general managers, and coaches exist, but I consider those more WP:IAR for popular positions. I don't consider team president one of them.—Bagumba (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any additional support I can provide, please suggest options. I hope to preserve as much data as possible, whether or not it is moved to another article. DrumFan4ever (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that "team president" is too fuzzy of a concept to work with. But we may be able to repurpose this as a more general list of key executives. A lot of the data in the table would need to be dropped for ease of reading, but we could possibly do something like this table in my sandbox. (This is just a very simple mock up. I'm rusty with tables, and there are more sophisticated things we can do with the formatting. I just wanted to give a general idea of how this topic could be presented.) Please wait to see how the overall discussion develops, though. I wouldn't recommend spending more time on this unless it becomes obvious that the list will be kept in some form. Zagalejo (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zagalejo: I will stand by and wait for a consensus to be reached. I agree with your thoughts: possibly changing name to 'key executives' and condensing info as shown in your sandbox. - DrumFan4ever (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zagalejo and DrumFan4ever: There's still no evidence that this meets WP:LISTN. Expanding the net from just presidents to the wider key executives brings concerns of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.—Bagumba (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think List of National Basketball Association general managers runs afoul of INDISCRIMINATE? I think a broader “executives” list could solve issues that are also present in the GM list (eg, confusion between GMs and EVPs of Basketball Operations). Zagalejo (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GMs probably pass WP:LISTN. Like I mentioned earlier, they're so oft-mentioned, people would probably WP:IAR keep GMs (and owners) anyways, even if LISTN wasn't demonstrated. Not so here.—Bagumba (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles suggest the EVP of Basketball Operations outranks the GM. So some team roster decisions are solely caused by the EVP not GM. Is this not worthwhile to distinguish? Can more team articles be created like List of Portland Trail Blazers executives? DrumFan4ever (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia notability isn't based off one's corporate hierarchy, it's based off of coverage in sources. If sources are identified that establish LiSTN for this topic, I can reconsider.—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Possibility of rescoping and alternatives to deletion that should be discussed more thoroughly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It could possibly be renamed to "list of... executives", but the topic itself is notable and has certainly been discussed as a group before. I didn't do a particularly extensive search, but a quick Google search turned up at least the following results: this one, along with many other similar articles, describes their collective response last year to the coronavirus pandemic; this one discusses the increase of female presidents of CEOs of NBA teams during the last decade, and finally this one seems to be about the racial makeup of the group. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The third source is more about NBA executives and coaching staffs racial makeup in general, not specifically for presidents. Incidentally, that topic is also overlapped by the existing Race and ethnicity in the NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If true, then why not re-name to 'list of NBA... "executives" or "presidents of basketball operations' or 'presidents of business operations'? NBA Executive of the Year Award were just given to Lawrence Frank, Daryl Morey, R. C. Buford, and Masai Ujiri. Each of them are considered team presidents. As such, having these award nominees and others in this table's grouping should hold merit as they are not grouped anywhere else. More examples of articles on team presidents: 'Clippers president Lawrence Frank wins NBA Executive of the Year Award'/'team presidents operating with intent to resume season'/'investigating bigotry allegation against Utah Jazz vice president Dennis Lindsey'/'video shows deputy shove Raptors president Masai Ujiri during altercation at NBA Finals' /'Top 5 Executives in the NBA'/ 'State Warriors president/COO Rick Welts to retire after season'/'president Tim Connelly on landing Aaron Gordon, JaVale McGee'/'president Daryl Morey says 3-pointers should be worth 2.5 points: 'It's just too big of a bonus' / '76ers president Daryl Morey calls job 'can't-miss opportunity;' will reportedly make over $10M per season/ president Rinehart talks about Kings' employee layoffs'/ 'resets Nets executive corps with hires from Dodgers, Celtics, Alibaba'/'Marshall- first Black woman CEO in NBA'- DrumFan4ever (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are not presidents, but rather presidents of basketball operations. And plenty of GMs have won the award. The problem is that teams have varying corporate structures. Jeanie Buss is the president of the Lakers, but she will never be considered a candidate for Executive of the Year because she is not directly involved in basketball personnel decisions. Same of a president of marketing, if a team has one. The issue is coming up with an accurate description for the "position(s)" you are trying to describe. This is highlighted by one of the sources you listed, The Ringer's "The Top 5 Executives in the NBA": The qualities that make up a good general manager or president of basketball operations may be up for debate On the one hand, the title refers to "executive", which is too generic, but then it refers to two specific positions—general manager and pres. of basketball operation—and some teams have only one and others both.—Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:LISTN.Riteboke (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an identifiable group (NBA Presidents) and there are reliable sources covering this idea and topic. I'm not a huge fan of the way that this List is presented but AfD is not cleanup and that doesn't change their notability (in my view) under our guidelines. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asuppim

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

Notability? Editor2020 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search and a Google Books search shows that many reliable sources in the area of Biblical commentary discuss this word and its underlying meaning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Cullen328, most of what I'm seeing through Google Books are one- or two-sentence mentions of this term without extensive commentary. What would you think of a merge or redirect? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone asked me to weigh in on my talk page, so I will. It's hard to see this page being expanded beyond just a dictionary / glossary type definition. So, it should probably be merged somewhere else. I can't find any good place to merge, though. Best I could find was [[30]] Danski14^(talk) 00:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, Asuppim refers to an area of the temple in Jerusalem. I can't tell whether it was a structure specific to the First Temple or Second Temple, but those could both be valid redirect targets if there is not enough coverage to warrant a separate article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page was just a dictionary/concordance entry, so the AfD made sense. I started a re-write just now (in progress), might still want to be folded into a Temple page. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC) UPDATE: new article complete, deserves its own page. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Grove in Smith might help with Greek and the Vulgate.
  - Grove, George (1863). "Thresholds, The". In Smith, William (ed.). A Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 3 Red Sea–Zuzims. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
- Uncle G (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving to keep after reviewing the expansion by GordonGlottal. There is enough commentary on the etymology and proper translation of this term that we can expand beyond a regular WP:DICDEF. This information has encyclopedic value and we wouldn't be able to effectively merge all of it to the article on the temple. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. St Anselm (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been found to show notability. Spudlace (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 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.