Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 04	April 06 >

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 delete. Consensus determined that being in multiple notable bands does not equate to demonstrable notability. ✗plicit 07:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Herrera

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

Two of the four sources are dead and the other two are passing mentions. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. May be the member (or touring musician) of multiple bands, but that has not resulted in any meaningful press for the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral-this is really borderline...he was, after all, in a very notable band for seven years...but at the same time, I don't find much about him..this is not like most Menudo members for example or The Beatles where there are multiple articles about each member individually....however, as I said, he was in it for seven years, which means he was probably on music videos and etc...Antonio Guevos de Acero Martin (que fue?) 06:29, March 28, 2021 (UTC)
~~Weak Keep~~ changed to Weak Delete I, too, am troubled by the seemingly non-existence of RS recognition that is independent of one of the multiple groups he is associate with, but isn't one of the automatic criteria for WP:MUSIC notability to have been a member of at least two notable bands/ensembles? This guy has been in three. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no such automatic criteria. The criteria reads that the the subject may be not that the subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. That being the case, I struck weak keep above and changed to weak delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need independent sources to show notability, and they are lacking here. There is no other guideline that trumps the need for independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BAND: "[...] or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". He's been a member of Suicidal Tendencies and Luicidal. --FMSky (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How is he reasonably prominent? Do you have sources to support that claim? It seems to me that he was just a band member, not a prominent one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We also now have a circular argument: he was in two notable bands, with Uncle Slam being the second, and in that AfD it was argued that because Herrera being in that band, that article was kept because we have multiple notable musicians in it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there appears to be ongoing discussion regarding "prominent" according to WP:BAND. Otherwise this discussion is trending towards a "delete" consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two passing mentions doesn't warrant a standalone article. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Riteboke (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Losliya Mariyanesan

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

The article still fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR (one of the reason proposed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (2nd nomination)). Apart from participating in the reality tv show Bigg Boss (Tamil TV series), the subject is barely noticeable. No films have been released yet. Most of the television work listed in the article corresponds to special/guest appearance. I request to create a third AFD discussion to get a consensus on the noticeability. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:5C0:2EF:B11A:C8BA (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she is still a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News anchor on the main Tamil-language TV channel in Sri Lanka; lead role in a notable film. Furius (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom -still fails WP:NACTOR. Appearing in a reality television show doesn’t satisfy the notability criteria. No notable film roles either (noting Friendship has yet to be released and is borderline notable). Dan arndt (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good coverage available to pass for NACTOR. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gives main information about person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.86.194 (talk) 19:22, April 7, 2021 (UTC)
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article shows important and key points about this person such as films and television shows they appear in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal.Choudary2 (talk • contribs) 23:51, April 8, 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR, article is highly promotional "rose to fame"? , sources are weak and don't support notability requirements Ravensfire (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it's very probably that 58.108.86.194 and Bilal.Choudary2 are the same editor - the overlap is just about perfect. Ravensfire (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: completely agree with previous arguments for deletion. It appears as if the creator of the page simply goes through the list of participants on Big Boss and adds articles of every person who has ever been on the show.-- Microhierax (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. Fails WP:NACTOR. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with Microhierax's observation. There is another article created by the same user for another Big Boss contestant, which also fails NACTOR. The corresponding afd discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shariq Hassan 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:690E:881A:67B:3FF1 (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that Romil.Choudary and Bilal.Choudary2 are the same, the former created a series of Bigg Boss contestant articles Som Shekar, Aranthangi Nisha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:690E:881A:67B:3FF1 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable actor as per Wikipedia norms. Behind the moors (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:NACTOR.Riteboke (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Büşra Demirörs

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

No appearances that qualify for WP:NFOOTBALL found at TFF; recent seasons in the third tier give little confidence that the player will ever pass the SNG.

My searches, including a search of Turkish sources, yielded no WP:SIGCOV. Only passing mentions in Haber 46, Akdeniz Manset and Gun Haber were found. No evidence that Demirörs meets WP:GNG, which is absolutely required for anyone that does not pass the SNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, Groundhog day, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see enough coverage available to pass for GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL--Kemalcan (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with all of the above Less Unless (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 17:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with everyone above (fails GNG and NFOOTBALL). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is a clear consensus here that the subject is not-notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Cadzow

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable radio announcer. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found a couple of mentions, but the coverage is not significant. Fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources for notability. Behind the moors (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing significant about this individual for an standalone article. Riteboke (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Horta. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L'Horta

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

None of the linked entries mention "L'Horta". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeto Horta, where none of these seem to be mentioned. PamD 08:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those Hortas appear to take the definite article. —--Pontificalibus 13:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And they're all WP:partial title matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Valencian Community. It's clear from the 20-or-so mentions in Enwiki that "L'Horta" usually refers to a place in this region. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, shouldn't it be Horta of Valencia rather than the much broader Valencian Community? — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Catalan Wikipedia which shows that all the articles listed here could or should be renamed to begin “L’Horta...” ---Pontificalibus 13:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Catalan Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not saying keep because they have kept, rather keep because we’ve spelt our article titles wrongly.—--Pontificalibus 18:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're not spelled incorrectly in English. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: A simple case where a disambiguation page only containing articles named "Horta" should be merged to the disambiguation page Horta. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Horta. Riteboke (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Goulding

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

Taking to AfD after 12 years in CAT:NN. The sources I could find were mainly unreliable. I don't think he passes WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I found was this and that’s not enough to support a stand alone bio. Mccapra (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable TV producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good coverage available to pass for GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found no IRS and thus no SIGCOV. Less Unless (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devoke water 17:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability. Only one citation. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daytona Sports Cars

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

Taking this to AfD after 12 years in CAT:NN. I couldn't find evidence - in article or in general search - that this meets criteria for stand-alone article, or that there is a good merge/redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nominator. Can't find info on them. The website is also down, so probably out of business. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at this too and concluded it wasn’t notable. I did think there was probably a decent redirect target somewhere but quickly got lost in the tangle of different designers, builders and models so thought I’d leave that job to someone more familiar with this field. So there may be an ATD but I agree it’s not notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no redirect target seems viable. Mccapra (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW; nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine J. Thompson

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No claims of notability. No significant coverage. One sources is an interviews, others are primary sources. Rogermx (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator per WP:PROF#C3 (fellow of a major academic society for which this is a significant honor, the American Statistical Association), as I already suggested to the nominator in removing their previous prod. The nominator appears to have failed to have even considered this suggestion seriously, and as a result the nomination is seriously flawed by using the wrong notability criterion (should be WP:PROF, not WP:GNG). Note that the primary nature of the sources is not relevant for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Low citation count and no GNG coverage, but the subject still appears to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC#3 as a fellow of the ASA. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although GS cites are low WP:Prof#C3 is satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep/Improve As per above. I added a few cites to better describe the work she does at the census. Jessamyn (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per WP:NPROF using primary sources is not an issue here. Also, please do WP:BEFORE. --hroest 00:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to being ASA Fellow, she has served as President of the ASA Section on Government Statistics. Ebony Jackson (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I will bow to consensus and remove XFD. Did not see anything in the sources that said the subject was an academic, it simply listed her as a statistician who manages a government department. I could also ask if there is a list of scholarly societies whose membership gives someone a free pass to notability. Thanks to everyone for educating me on this and for upgrading this article. Rogermx (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not membership, it is fellowship. Anyone can join the ASA, but becoming a fellow requires significant accomplishment. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as passes WP:NPROF and seems nom has withdrawn. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:16, 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 merge to Tustin, California. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tustin Police Department

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

Per my PROD reasoning: "See WP:CORP. A local police department that does not have any real inherent notability."

The creator of the page reverted the PROD, claiming that "the department is "notable" due to the city presence and provides more information beyond the City of Tustin Wikipedia page" (reasoning that could be applied to any police department) and that "the department was also the first to introduce a Pursuit-rated tracker system in Southern California", which is a very specific thing to be first at. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tustin, California. Suburban police department is not independently-notable. KidAd • SPEAK 22:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tustin, California as per above. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tustin, California: per others.--vote by Alcremie (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tustin. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:42, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Kay

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

This article was merged to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players when nom'd for deletion in 2014, as that page is a repository for "not yet notable" prospects. Now, he's playing for independent baseball teams, with little chance of meeting WP:NBASE, and in spite of those few links I put in the 2014 AfD, he does not appear to meet WP:GNG either. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for baseball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I don't think he meets GNG (and certainly doesn't meet NBASEBALL), but I did want to point out the best sources I did find. Probably passing mentions, but worth flagging nonetheless: [1] [2] [3] Go Phightins! 21:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable minor league baseball player, the sources found appear to be routine coverage (especially the blog). SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see enough coverage available to pass for GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adata Needle

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

Fails notability per WP:NBOOK, was redirected to the Author, had been reverted by the Creator CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BOOKCRIT also, written like a an advert. Chirota (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a plain advert. Should be G11'd. scope_creep^Talk 10:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd also back a WP:SPEEDY. --Microhierax (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As pointed out by a number of editors, passing an SNG is irrelevant if an article doesn't pass GNG. Black Kite (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obaidullah Sarwar

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in Urdu/English newspapers. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask which newspapers you checked for this routine check? You've had a number in the past which have been significant fails, where I've been able to

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was a good example of what can happen when articles get written exclusively from scorecard data, and WP:WHYN. I have rewritten the article and removed the invented narrative. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Has played 5 FC games passing him for WP:NCRIC, but no coverage. Sources may exist offline and in Pakistani sources but I couldn't find any in a search. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but limited coverage, is redirected/deleted. As he has played for two different sides, there isn't a suitable WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with five first class matches he passes WP:NCRIC. No information is provided by the nominator as to why he would not be able to pass WP:GNG eventually, in line with the criteria for WP:ATHLETE, as set out in the FAQ at the top of that guideline: The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist... Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find. The nominator should provide detailed evidence of which precise sources he has checked, rather than just stating "nothing in Urdu/ English newspapers"- which newspapers, from which dates? User:Störm has been consistently failing to provide evidence of sufficient checking of sources; indeed, given the number of AfD nominations made by this user, it is in my view impossible- even if he spent 168 hours per week on it- to have done sufficient checks, including those of hardcopy content. On several articles he has nominated, I have done my own subsequent checks, and there is additional coverage which has neither been included in the article, nor referenced by the editor in question. This type of handwaving at checks, which is designed to provide a rationale for deletion where none exists, just isn't acceptable from any editor. DevaCat1 (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such demands far exceed WP:BEFORE and are unreasonable; if you have issues with the conduct of the nominator, take it to WP:ANI. Please clarify that these sources you have found are not simply more databases, scorecards and passing mentions. If they do constitute significant coverage, then please add them (and the additional content they provide) to the article(s) so everyone is able to evaluate them. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) DevaCat1, please search and prove me wrong. I found this in my before which I don't think proves his notability. Störm (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total and complete failure of GNG. Articles like this prove that we need to scrap the cricket guidelines, as has been said over and over. Wikipedia is not cricketpedia, and biographical articles need to have substances which these lack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage, only wide ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. This trumps the trivial pass of WP:NCRIC, which has proven to be a very poor guide to the existence of coverage in cases such as this, where there are few known matches and no performances of note. No suitable redirect target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCRICKET and WP:GNG. Sliekid (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, the only source fails WP:SPORTCRIT, I can find no other available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 12:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note redirecting to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers could be a valid option per established precedent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has played more matches for Sialkot (3 to 2), while I feel a redirect would be confusing here because of this List of Sialkot cricketers also exists. Personally I wouldn't redirect because of this. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a second time primarily to see whether a clear consensus for a post-deletion redirect target can be achieved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 20:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCRIC. Riteboke (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Obviously failing GNG should be enough for deletion even if it marginally passes WP:NCRIC Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails GNG. This is another in the seemingly endless parade of match scorecards inflated into faux-biographies. Reyk _YO! 10:58, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Moguel Hernández

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

Fails WP:GNG. As a first-team manager, he has at most coached a Mexican 3rd division team. As a player, he seems to have played 11 games for Monterrey in the Mexican 1st tier, but I can't find any source to confirm this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not adequate sourcing to show a passing of GNG which is the absolute minimum for any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources in the article, hoping it helps to approve the notability rules. My best regards! SputnikXX (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @SputnikXX: Thanks for the additions. However, the only thing that would make him notable per WP:NFOOTY is if his 1994 spell at Monterrey were sourced. How do you know he has 11 caps? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nehme1499: His participation with Mexico U-23 could make him notable? I got the caps from this source: https://futbol-mexicano.fandom.com/es/wiki/José_Moguel#Trayectoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by SputnikXX (talk • contribs) 02:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SputnikXX: Nope, he has to play (or manage) either for a senior national team, or in a fully professional league. Since you wrote the article, where did you find his playing career? Where did you see that he has played 11 games for Monterrey in 1994? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nehme1499: I took as reference this source: https://futbol-mexicano.fandom.com/es/wiki/José_Moguel#Trayectoria, I considered relevant to create this article because this former footballer has a long career as a manager with about 20 years and also because of the popularity and relevance that he has in his native city, being the first footballer from Cancún that played in Liga MX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SputnikXX (talk • contribs) 02:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SputnikXX: Unfortunately, fandom.com is not a reliable source. It's important to note that the article says that he only played for the "affiliate" teams of Monterrey, in the Primera A and Segunda Division. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: But still the Primera A is considered a fully professional league, right? No matter the fact that he played in an affiliate team. SputnikXX (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SputnikXX: True, but we need to be able to source the fact that he actually played games. Maybe he just played friendly/unofficial games, or just trained with the team? Who knows. Ideally we would need a source saying "Hernandez played x games in the Primera A with Monterrey B (or whatever it was called). Also, I can't seem to find any Monterrey affiliate team in the Segunda Division/Primera A during the 1990s, so that's also an issue. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. The claim of multiple appearances in the Mexican top flight is enough to confer notability - but it is not verified. Giant Snowman 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOCCER Dr Salvus 09:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSOCCER. Riteboke (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:23, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saurav Das

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

No evidence of notability. He appears to be an actor but mentions are just that. No reliable and independent sources discuss him in any way that conveys notability. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should no longer be listed on this page. Please list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers instead." Kolma8 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sigcov thus failing GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see enough coverage available to pass for GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No main roles found. Failing wikipedia notability guidelines. Behind the moors (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NACTOR. Riteboke (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devoke water 16:37, 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 speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hands Across the Bay

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

Non-notable organisation. Superficial / routine coverage in local news only. The only in-depth coverage is the Fox News interview, but as an interview it isn't independent coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G11. --DePlume (talk) 20:12, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kachin United F.C.

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

No sources, made a cursory search and didn't find any. Tagged non-notable in March 2020, no sources/information added. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tried to look up some sources for the team and when the team doesn't even have a website for that team and barely any resources, that is a problem. HawkAussie (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devoke water 17:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided and nothing else can be found. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Event symmetry

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

Per Talk:Event symmetry, this is an incoherent WP:SYNTH of unrelated topics that is overwhelmingly background information and does not clearly or accurately explain what this topic is. Summary:

Nonsense that is mostly background information and gives a nonsensical conclusion that the equations governing the laws of physics must be unchanged when transformed by any permutation of spacetime events — which means that all scalar fields are uniform. Uses a soap bubble analogy in an unencyclopedic manner and ends by making an OR connection between the article topic and John Stachel's proposed principle of maximal permutability that equivalent objects of the same kind are exchangeable.
A non-notable fringe theory of quantum gravity, which is cited entirely to primary sources, along with similarly non-notable theories absed on random graphs.
A poorly explained notion of diffeomorphism invariance applied to a matrix model of M-theory. This section incorrectly juxtaposes D0-branes, instantons, and events.
A misinterpretation of something in a sci-fi novel Permutation City. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Badly-sourced mishmash of badly-understood physics. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous references from peer-reviewed journals by respected physicists. How exactly is it badly-sourced and badly-understood? Weburbia (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous paragraphs entirely without sources. And sources providing background information or otherwise failing to back up the actual content of the article do not count towards the notability of its topic, no matter how respected their authors might be. As for badly-understood, the nominator's discussion of the trivializing consequences of symmetry under all permutations and of Permutation City will suffice for two examples. I have read that novel and did not recognize its content from its description here (the paragraph about it in Garden of Eden (cellular automaton) is much more apropos and, unlike here, properly sourced to non-fiction sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are confused about the role of symmetry in physics and try to apply the symmetry principle to the solutions rather than the equations. They then come to nonsense conclusions such as "scalar fields are uniform". Obviously physicists would not be using symmetry principles if their consequences were that trivial. The relationship between the ideas of event symmetry and Greg Egan's dust theory from "permutation symmetry" were first pointed out to me by John Baez on sci.physics.research. Of course Egan uses the idea in different fictional and philosophical ways more related to mind uploading and the simulation hypothesis but his description of the physics principle is perfectly clear and directly related to this topic. He has a very good understanding of physics and mathematics and has published papers on quantum gravity so I dont doubt that he knew what he was talking about. Weburbia (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't write articles based on chatter on Usenet, and we certainly don't use Usenet chatter as a springboard to justify speculation and invention. XOR'easter (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't. We are using the references cited. Weburbia (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Large passages of text uncited, not written in an encyclopedic tone, doesn't demonstrate the notability of the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of pages which are labelled as stubs needing expansion, yet when I write an article with more detail and explanation it is called uncyclopedic. The "large passages" of explanation are covered in the cited sources. Weburbia (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My PROD rationale was With the original publication getting only 11 citations in 25 years, even by the permissive standards of Google Scholar (counting unpublished items and self-citations), this is not a notable physics idea. WP:SYNTH throughout. I thought at the time that that was an understatement; the nomination goes into more detail. XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree that it is synthesis. I think Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not applies here. Weburbia (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The combination of ideas that other, reliable sources have not yet combined = synthesis. And the notability and COI problems remain regardless. XOR'easter (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH applies here. Weburbia (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tercer (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG —Quondum 16:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? There are many references from reliable sources. If people prefer coverage in popular science press that can be found too, especially for the quantum graphity example. Weburbia (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first reference covers the topic, and that is a primary source, one which (having obtained a copy) only very sketchily covers it. There is nothing to indicate that the quantum graphity example preserves any "rules" under a general permutation of events, or that any sources claim that it does. Hence, such sources cannot be regarded as covering the topic. Given that you are "not that invested in keeping it", you are putting a lot of energy into arguing for its retention. —Quondum 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to argue against the deletion but I think its important to fix some of the factual errors in the rationale and comments, especially about the physics. It shouldn't be deleted for wrong reasons. Weburbia (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, as editors we all fall into the trap of arguing the physics from time to time. Criteria for whether a topic should be in WP centre on verifiability and not on the beliefs of the editors, which is why I focused in WP:GNG in this AfD thread. —Quondum 19:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until somebody can write a better article. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Rename The only genuine problem with this page is that it uses the term "Event symmetry" as a title and this is a usage that is not well supported by secondary sources for the subject matter. I therefore suggest that the page should be renamed to a more descriptive and generic title such as "space-time permutation symmetry" Weburbia (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This would, at absolute best, make it a case for WP:TNT. But both synthesis concerns (combining various ideas that might be called "space-time permutation symmetry" that the literature has not combined in any serious way) and notability (most such proposals are marginal and have a paucity of in-depth secondary sources) would persist. XOR'easter (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I refuted most of the statements in the rationale in responses above. As for "A poorly explained notion of diffeomorphism invariance applied to a matrix model of M-theory" , this is explained with reference to one of the seminal and well-cited matrix theory papers by Iso and Kawai which said in the abstract "We finally argue a possible identification of the diffeomorphism symmetry with permutation group acting on the set of eigenvalues,.." I don't know how it could be more clear.Weburbia (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom's analysis and Weburbia's comments to keep. Excellent rationale. Couldn't be clearer. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 14:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Riteboke (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NFT PianoDan (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Excellent rationale. --SimoneD89 (talk) 05:29, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharifa Yasmin

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

BLP of a playwright who does not yet meet WP:CREATIVE as she is still very early in her career. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharifa may be on the younger side, but she has been an incredibly influential voice in the emerging body of Trans and GNC theatre artists. Her first full-length play is being published in the forthcoming Methuen Drama Book of Trans Plays (the first anthology of its kind), and as a professional director, she was appointed to the Drama League's first Director's Council, where she is positioned at the same level as famous and influential US directors like Melia Bensussen, Daniel Banks, Brian Herrera, and Lisa Portes. She's also one of the most visible trans Muslim artist/activists and MENA-American Theatre Artists. Therefore, I contend that Sharifa is both "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and is "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique," in advocating for representation of a significantly minoritarian and intersectional identity within theatre spaces.Rmirsajadi (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, as WP:TOOSOON and because there does not appear to be WP:BASIC coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources to support her WP:CREATIVE notability. Beccaynr (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable playwright.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Riteboke (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KMCT College of Engineering

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

Fails GNG, NORG and NSCHOOLS as no independent sources are there to establish notability Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-01 ✗ deleted

Delete - non-notable private educational institute. Riteboke (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Sandhu

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

Fails GNG and NACTOR. Nothing in her acting history suggests that she has had multiple significant roles in notable series. The two TV shows that bluelink don't even mention her. I see hits on Google News for people named Aman Sandhu, but they don't appear to be her. Article appears to have been created by a PR team as the creator was blocked for sockpuppetry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:NACTOR. Riteboke (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted by admin Sergecross73, so no need to keep this discussion open any longer. (Non-admin closure) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros (2022 film)

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

edit warred without any sources into mainspace, while this has been announced, there is no indication whatsoever that the cast list is real and it hasn't begun production yet. It will probably be notable if the cast list is real but it is not yet and it appears to be a partial hoax/fan wishlist based on this. EGGIDICAE🥚 17:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF Donaldd23 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. No sources given, seems to be copy-pasted from fan wikis. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NFF. Kolma8 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In fact, it’s a borderline G3. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per complete hoax. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And block the hoaxer who is continuing to wreak havoc in draftspace with a fake Pucca film. Nate • (chatter) 03:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I've blocked the article creator, as their primary purpose appears to be adding hoaxes to Wikipedia. Same here - a Super Mario film has been announced, but virtually all of the content present is a hoax. I mean, give me a break, if actors as big as Alex Baldwin was cast as Mario, or Danny Devito as Toad, this would be a front page story all across the internet. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not to mention that The Rock doesn't seem like the type to accept anything under fifth-billing. Nate • (chatter) 20:08, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael "Wise Mike" Stepovich

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

This person's claim to fame seems to consist of a) having a son who was a governor, and b) being inducted into the Alaska Mining Hall of Fame. Poorly sourced, and a search finds only passing mentions in his son's obits etc. Fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a book about this person. Also found this source. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book is about this person's widow, rather. And in any case written by her relative, so not independent of the subject. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having a son who becomes governor of a state does not make an individual notable. That is the only way we could find Stepovich notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any information about Marko Stijepović being inducted into the Hall of fame could be placed on his son's page. 81.131.132.199 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator was evading a block at the time of nomination (but another editor added a substantive comment so this is not WP:CSK#4). In the end, no editors in good standing have advanced an argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Believers Church Residential School, Thiruvalla

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

~~Non-notable CBSE school. No sources to establish notability; fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The school is one of the top schools in Kerala as per the ranking by careers360.com. It is ranked as 20th best school under the category Top National Day-Cum-Boarding Schools in Kerala 2021 with AAA+ ranking.^[1] The School magazine "Blaze" was awarded the second best school magazine in Kerala in the All Kerala School Magazine competition 2015 conducted by The Confederation of Kerala Sahodaya.^[2] It was also listed as the Most Beautiful School in India by The Education Tree, India’s Biggest Youth Community.^[3] Various films were also filmed there including June, one of the highest grossing Malayalam film in the year 2019. Considering all this information, Believers Church Residential School, Thiruvalla shouldn't be deleted. TobinKoshy^Talk 06:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tobin Koshy : Can't consider this Instagram post, career 360 and school's website as reliable sources. YogeshWarah^Talk 07:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Top Schools in Kerala 2021". careers360.com. Retrieved 29 March 2021.
^ "Second Best School Magazine in Kerala 2015". bcrschool.org. Retrieved 29 March 2021.
^ "Most Beautiful Schools in India". The Education Tree. Retrieved 29 March 2021.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - nomination was created by a sock in evasion of a block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, and no other substantive comments about the article were made, so this falls under WP:CSK#4. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thrikkariyoor Kottekkavu Bhagavathi Temple

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

~~No Reliable Sources found. Fails WP:GNG YogeshWarah^Talk 05:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - nominator was a sock created purely to evade a block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, and no other substantive comments about the article were made, so this falls under WP:CSK#4. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Venugopala

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

~~No independen Reliable Sources found. To support WP: GNG YogeshWarah^Talk 05:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - bad faith nomination as the AfD nominator is a sock created solely to evade an indefinite block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Charlie Rosen (musician). czar 20:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 8-Bit Big Band

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources currently used are primary (either by the band itself or their PR). Reliable sources show barely any coverage, passing mentions at best. IceWelder [✉] 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding enough deeper coverage beyond routine concent/album announcements to support an article: Boston Herald, NYTimes, a NPR station, not to mention various jazz magazines that I'm not 100% sure on reliability. At minimal, this would clearly support a merge and redirect to Charlie Rosen (musician). --Masem (t) 16:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT one is mostly about Rosen and mentions the group only in passing. The other two are mostly interviews, so I'd definitely support a merge. IceWelder [✉] 16:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Charlie Rosen (musician) per above Mcguy15 (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adaeze Unwanya

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

Primary school teacher. She is only known for one event, winning the "London’s Official Guest of Honour" in 2015. This is a promotional prize by Visitlondon.com for London tourism, in which the winner receives a two-week vacation in London with promotional events. The winner is selected on the basis of a short video and a 70 word description of their perfect day in London. This is a WP:BIO1E, promo coverage around the event. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The prize she won in no way is something that makes someone notable, and nothing else about here is even remotely close to making her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --hroest 21:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIO1E. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability WP:TOOSOON.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:01, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Springs, West Virginia

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

If someone can find significant coverage for this Cool Springs, then I will happily withdraw this. My WP:BEFORE found evidence that there is this Cool Springs, another one near Charlestown, WV; another near Wheeling, WV; and another near Morgantown, WV. Of the four, I found very little about this one.

Old topographic maps show this label in between a point on a railroad near a river and a road junction, there is basically nothing at either point. Later maps move the label to the road junction, which my BEFORE suggests was the wrong choice. I found an old newspaper result for a boat burning at the "Cool Springs wharf" in Wood County, a listing in a long list of railroad stations, and a statement that it was a point on the railroad with no post office. While I didn't find evidence of a community at this site, it's possible the railroad station is notable, although I was not able to find significant coverage of the site. I'm inclined to think that the Wood County Cool Springs is non-notable.

Taking to AFD, instead of PROD, due to the difficulty in BEFORE caused by the commonness of this place name in WV. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You found the list of stops on the Little Kanawha Railroad from 1903? I found the same thing. After Weekley's. The railroad was abandoned in 1937. There's probably an article to be had on that, but I couldn't find anything to write about this. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Clearly just a railroad spot. The railroad in question was operated by the B&O and I find it was abandoned in stages up into the 1970s. Mangoe (talk) 23:09, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marsaskala F.C.

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

Amateur football club which does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to have played in the national cup, which is the generally accepted benchmark for football club notability. Giant Snowman 19:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:FOOTYN, shown by participation in the Maltese FA Trophy here: https://www.mfa.com.mt/en/cups-competitions/cupscompetitions/bycategory/1/publish_date/asc/10/1/the--fa-trophy.htm?round=1&s=11 User:apple20674 User talk:apple20674 14:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NFOOTBALL, played in the national maltese cup CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:FOOTYN due to playing in a national cup, as evidenced above. If we keep all clubs that play in the FA Cup or even the FA Vase, it seems silly to delete an article on a Maltese club that has done the same. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played in Malta's national cup and so meets the SNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dingli Swallows F.C.

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

Amateur club which meets neither WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per research from Govvy below. Giant Snowman 11:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I see the club does pass WP:FOOTYN having playing the the cups, they won the Second Div in 2009 [4], which means they played in the top tier in 2010. And lets have a look at our season page on wikipedia. 2009–10 Maltese Premier League, o look, there they are, playing a whole season and getting relegated. I am sure there are more sources to be found, to show their promotions, relegations. Goal.com [5] noted the club being one of the worse in the world! @Onel5969: I thought you would of done a much better WP:BEFORE, @GiantSnowman: There is always some degree of notability, you just got to go look for it. Govvy (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment O, and there is also Times of Malta, wack bam, [6] A load of articles for the club! Govvy (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former top flight club, clearly notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NFOOTBALL, see 2009–10_Maltese_Premier_League CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy's arguments Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy's arguments.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:40, 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. Consensus notability not shown Nosebagbear (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaynagar Chamatkarini Balika Vidyalaya

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. There are listings, but no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references in the article are either primary or extremely trivial, and don't discuss the place in an in-depth direct way. Plus, nothing comes up in a WP:BEFORE from what I can tell that does. So, unless someone can provide WP:THREE good, in-depth independent references the article should clearly be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Govt. sponsored educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Just Add Magic (TV series). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey K. Miller

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

I do not have admin access to old versions of this page to compare exact content (otherwise, I'd just Speedy it), but there are no significant changes to the limited set of roles that got her article deleted at the first AFD, and none of the listed sources are reliable sources. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant roles since her only major one in Just Add Magic. There is an article about this subject currently in draft space, and edits should've been made there instead of creating a mainspace article. I'm pretty sure this is mentioned when using the create option for the article, but I'm thinking the creator of this version either didn't see it or ignored it completely. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The old deleted article was pretty much like Draft:Aubrey K. Miller currently is. Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not yet meet the minimum threshold for actress notability, multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Just Add Magic (TV series), her only significant role. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E. C. Alft

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/E. C. Alft

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

Alft was a mayor of a small city, school teacher, and author of local histories. None of the sources here would add towards passing GNG. One of them is actually a work he wrote. A search finds a few adds for books he wrote and lots of brief mentions to his works, but no substantial indepth information about him that would justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. As a rule of thumb, mayors of cities (like Elgin) with populations > 100,000 have been found to warant stand-alone articles. A quick search of Newspapers.com found more than 100 articles discussing Alft, his published works, and his works as mayor, councilman, teacher, etc. A few examples of WP:SIGCOV include (1) "Elgin's in his blood: Look! Mike Alft can never learn enough", Chicago Tribune, March 31, 1991 (part 1 and part 2); (2) "Elgin marks historian's 90th birthday", Chicago Tribune,July 14, 2015 (a six-colum, in depth piece), (3) "Elgin honors former mayor, library trustee, author", Chicago Tribune, Nov 17, 2011 (part 1, part 2); (4) Dean of Elgin historians moving out of Elgin , Daily Herald, March 12, 2016; (5) this; (6) this; (7) this; and (8) this. Cbl62 (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I question that any of these articles are published by publishers far enough from Elgin for this coverage to actually show notability. Local politicians will always get local coverage, this does not make them default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two-page, multi-column, in-depth biographical profiles in a major regional newspapers like the Chicago Tribune do not count toward a GNG analysis? There is no support whatsoever for that interpretation in WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, or WP:BASIC. Cbl62 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time Alft was mayor of Elgin it had 56,000 people. Beyond this, Elgin is just one of many suburbs of Chicago, so its importance is not as high as it would be if it were a center of a metro area of its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Elgin "just one of many suburbs of Chicago" reflects a striking misunderstanding of its history. Elgin is not the product of post-WWWII suburban sprawl. It is located an hour's drive from central Chicago, has a long history (by Midwest standards) dating to 1835, and was home to the Elgin Watch Company and, from the 19th century through the 1960s, the largest watchmaking complex in the world.Cbl62 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep based on Cbl62 and the fact that all except 1 town in Illinois over 100k currently have a mayor article and I dont see why we should not extend this to past mayors. While maybe not known on a national level, it seems this is a person known on a local level. Coverage in Chicago Tribune also indicates passing GNG. In addition the subject also published books, even though through his local historical society. --hroest 21:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Having your works published by a local history society is absolutely not in any way adding towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on arguments and sources provided by Cbl62.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:02, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lekki Wives

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

Fails GNG, Current sources fails GNG for this TV drama series. Pilean (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The article cannot remain in main space as written. Sources used in the article are not reliable, other sources however exist; A BEFORE search brings up these sources in Vanguard Nigeria, Newsweek, TIME, TIME, and a source in French. I'm willing to clean up the article if I find the time and submit via AFC. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk)
Keep: Poorly written but seem notable. Hopefully, TheSokks will improve it. HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changing my vote to keep as I've addressed the notability issues by adding better sources and done a general cleanup. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 09:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY, after work done by The Sokks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wilson (Mr. Ragamuffin)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Pilean (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, I found that the text of this article is copied almost entirely from the musician's personal site, with the sections here conforming to the subpages at that site. The creator of the WP article added a few sources but they are unreliable reprints of press releases, as is common in Nigerian entertainment media. While this musician has been around for a long time, his only coverage is the aforementioned press releases and occasional gossip rag pieces about his personal life or a feud he got into with someone. He is also described as engaged in other activities outside of music, such as activism and politics, but I can find no reliable information on him leading any activist efforts or running for office, and that's under both of his names. He's done a lot of things and appears to be a reliable behind-the-scenes guy in Nigerian music, but he is not as influential as his own press releases say he is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Udoka Oyeka

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR Pilean (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject passes WP:NACTOR#1 as he has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. He also passes WP:DIRECTOR#3 as he has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known film and WP:DIRECTOR#4b as his work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition here and here. He has been nominated for an AMVCA for best director. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 11:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator has been blocked as sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko. Riteboke (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Pastor

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

I've been keeping tabs on this page since it was created, helping out the creator make a better-looking article, but their progress has stalled and I'm not sure there are enough reliable sources that exist in the world to indicate that she is a notable individual per our usual guidelines; I'm seeing almost no Google (or GNews) hits, and the references (even the ones recently removed) are relatively minor (or interviews). Primefac (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Searches reveal nothing of note and the three existing sources include two YouTube videos and one other Mexican blog derived from Facebook posts announcing her own marriage - very much not independent. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "lack" of citations on any page has always been exceptional in certain cases. Not to mention this actress has appeared in thirteen movies and television shows with Wikipedia pages that link here. Trevortnidesserpedx (talk) 3:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment "A non-notable actress" is a broad claim and has no justification behind it. Trevortnidesserpedx (talk) 3:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep If you did a bit of research, you would find out Christina Pastor has done theater plays and also acted in 13 Mexican soap operas, 3 movies (she has an imdb page), and there are numerous YouTube video clips of her work, as well as interviews and articles. Most recently there was an article on People Magazine en Español talking about her. Please do your homework and research before deciding something is "non-notable." Greeneagle72 8:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC) — Greeneagle72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you may of course be correct, but that doesn't add a dime to notability. Unless reliable and independent sources have written about her in the context of those plays, soap operas, YouTube videos etc, they do not add anything to notability. Many actors have a varied and successful careers without ever making it into Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekta 2019

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

An article about a film by one G. Suman Reddy, contributed by Sumanreddydir who has made multiple attempts to place articles about this film, using a variety of titles, and whose promotional editing has previously been commented on their User Talk page. In 2016 an instance entitled "Ekta Movie" was deleted at AfD. In 2018 an "Ekta" article was deleted by PROD, in 2019 a similarly-named article was speedy-deleted as promotional [7]. Already this month another "Ekta Movie" instance has been created and was speedy-deleted [8], after which the same editor has created this newly-titled instance. Donaldd23 placed a PROD with the rationale "Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. All current citations are IMdB.". I am not seeing the substantial coverage needed to demonstrate notability, so agree with the rationale but it cannot stand as a PROD given the previous deletion history. AllyD (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFILM. Riteboke (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination defcon5 (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Okure

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

Unfortunately there's no significant coverage about the subject. I have found enough mentions, but all of them are just passing, not even a paragraph. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. For now the subject fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF; she is Professor of Scripture and Gender Hermeneutics at CIWA (the only professor in their Biblical Theology Dept., and one of the first two professors of CIWA), founding president of the Catholic Biblical Association of Nigeria, and has published widely on Christian theology, feminism, Christianity in Africa [9], [10], [11] . Furius (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just being a Professor is not enough. I don't see how she passes NPROF - to pass crit 1 there should be a significant number of citations which unfortunately the subject doesn't have. All the other criteria can't be applied. I regret, but she doesn't pass NPROF either. Less Unless (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a Google Books search yields coverage that is, in my view, sufficient to pass at least the GNG and possibly the first criterion of NPROF. Take, for instance, this, this, this, and possibly this, all of which discuss her scholarship in considerable detail and treat her as an important expert in her field. There are additional Google Books results, and the coverage available via Google Scholar also appears to be substantial. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ, wow, great job. I've done a thorough search but for some reason these didn't come up. I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. The refs presented show her notability. Less Unless (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In accordance with these additional secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I am happy to withdraw my nomination after the new sources have been found that show the subjects notability. Less Unless (talk) 12:20, 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. Consensus around educational institutions has changed since 2013 and there seems to be consensus here that lources are lacking to establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Academy of Engineering

AfDs for this article:

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

A private tertiary education institute that has no RS to support NSCHOOLS. A BEFORE shows some paid advertisement, press releases and primary sources. The previous AFD did not address the issue of lack of SIGCOV. There is no inherent notability for an education institution that does not award degrees. Vikram Vincent 09:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 09:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 09:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 09:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a brief news report from 2018 about the arrest of several students. Not enough to demonstrate the notability of the institution itself though. AllyD (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kehinde Asu

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

Does not meet WP:GNG - references are all brief mentions in lists plus a memorial website. Melcous (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was a philantrophist, the first chatered accountant from his home town who inspired a lot of chatered accountants from his community, reknowned auditor for multinationals and also a titled chief which was possible as a result of his major contributions to his community.

In some of the links cited below it is obvious that he was a titled chief. I sourced for a lot of these links and it was only obvious that he was a very private person despite his notability.

He was also the Chairman of Infinity microfinance bank, Nigeria as seen on page 4 of the first link below.

https://www.infinitymfb.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Published-Accounts-2018.pdf

Page 4

Meanwhile the Annual reports of the multinationals are online. They were all signed by him. Circa 1988 to 1993 or beyond

Niger paints Nigerian Breweries Sun flag PZ Julius Berger and a host of others.

Here are other cited links in the article:

https://lawsdocbox.com/Politics/80531175-The-institute-of-chartered-accountants-of-nigeria-financial-members-as-at-may-22-2018.html

https://www.yumpu.com/xx/document/view/29224427/financial-members-list-the-institute-of-chartered-accountants-of-

https://kipdf.com/transformation-first-bank-of-nigeria-plc-annual-report-accounts-2010-nigeria-lon_5aadd5471723dd37770c4507.html

https://www.lafarge.com.ng/sites/nigeria/files/atoms/files/2018_annual_report_final_0.pdf

Page 45

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/31686208/mise-en-page-1-ecobank-investing-in-africa-investinginafricanet

Page 29

https://www.fbnholdings.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FIRSTBANKOFNIGERIA31DECEMBER2012ANNUALREPORT.pdf

Page 25

https://cdn.trombino.org/uploads/files/FBNH-Annual-Report-2010.pdf

Page 194

https://www.anan.org.ng/general2.aspx?id=menucol2d

https://www.forevermissed.com/peter-kehinde-asu/about

https://gramho.com/media/2103826865331547659

https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=xtbuCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=chief+p+k+asu&source=bl&ots=tq7d2gy1RB&sig=ACfU3U3lRViwdRL74GHzJgaP0n_H6Q6Xng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiioJmkt9rvAhXrCWMBHX4AB284ChDoATARegQIExAC#v=onepage&q=chief%20p%20k%20asu&f=false

@User:Versace1608

You can be kind to help edit and make the article better, it is the reason we are here "TO CONTRIBUTE" and not spite. Thank you in anticipation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyitayo osunkoya (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)< [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reliable sources do not address Asu directly and in depth, WP:GNG is not met. The self-published Forever Missed memorial is the only source that is more than a passing mention but such sources are not WP:RS and therefore do not contribute towards GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is getting ridiculous. Now we consider "first accountant from a particular village" to be GNG-worthy? For shame. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 8 unsourced paragraphs, 6 unsourced achievements, and phrases such as "blessed with 6 handsome sons and 4 beautiful daughters" make me wonder if there is an undeclared conflict of interest. GoingBatty (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - User:GoingBatty , User:Lettler , User:Spiderone , User:Melcous why isnt anyone of you editing the article to get better? Instead of voting for the deletion of the article? Is this the right way to get things done / collaborate? Two articles i created years back: 1. Smalldoctor and 2. Mayorkun, who are both Nigerian musicians; were both nominated for deletion and eventually deleted. Few months later the above listed pages were re uploaded by another wikipedian and those pages are still live till date. "someone else took the credit". It is the reason i stopped creating articles on wikipedia for years.

I thought wikipedia is meant for collaborative efforts and not for spiting or racism. Is it because the article is of a black man? He is however dead. Dont forget that in a hurry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyitayo osunkoya (talk • contribs) 21:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eyitayo osunkoya. It is easy to misunderstand the Wikipedia term "notable". In ordinary language, anybody who is famous, or important, or innovative, or popular, or influential will necessarily be notable. In Wikipedia "notable" generally means "there is enough independent reliably-published material about the subject to base an article on". Since Wikipedia requires that all information in an article be sourced from reliable published sources (and most of it from sources independent of the subject) it follows that if there are not enough such sources, then there is literally nothing which can be put into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eyitayo osunkoya, please be civil in AFD discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment User:ColinFine He is wikipedia notable, if not i wont have deem it fit to write an article about him. Have you tried editing the article or reviewed my comment above via the links cited there in?

Speedy Delete - Subject of the article fails GNG. A BEFORE search comes up short. Large portions of the article are a copy of a memorial website. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 09:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:GNG. Riteboke (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Lettler, the re-listing was a very horrible one. Please if you do not understand policy please keep off from admin related areas until you are experienced enough to delve into such areas. I suggest you revert the abysmal error you just made. Celestina007 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I see the state we've devolved to on WP, demeaning editors for tiny mistakes. Please tell me calmly and maturely if I did something wrong, and I will revert it. Thank you. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McMahon (filmmaker)

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

Filmmaker with no independent sources.

Note Number		Independent
1	City of Niagara Falls web site	No. Testimonial to native sons.
2	City of Niagara Falls web site	No. Testimonial to native sons.
3	Primitive Entertainment.	No. McMahon company.
4	Institute of Documentary Film	No. Trade association.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually find reliable sources to reference an article about him properly. He does actually have a credible potential notability claim as a producer of Genie/Canadian Screen Award nominated or winning documentary films — but while that is a valid notability claim if it's sourced properly, it isn't so very meganotable as to exempt a person from having to have any acceptable reliable sources just because the article has the word "award" in it. But even on a ProQuest search I just can't find anything good — I can find a few stray namechecks of his existence, but nothing of substance, and even those are far, far outnumbered by accidental text matches on sources about different people who merely happen to have the same name. So if somebody can actually find better sources than I've been able to, then this could be reconsidered — but nothing in the article is "inherently" notable enough to override the very poor state of the article's current sourcing.
Also, the article was created by a single purpose account with a direct conflict of interest, as her entire Wikipedia contribution history consists entirely of creating and editing articles about Michael, his brother, their production company and the director of a film Michael worked on, making it remarkably unsurprising that the LinkedIn résumé of an associate producer with that very same company comes up as the very first hit if you search the username on Google. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McMahon has 30 years of documentary filmmaking experience in Canada, and to refer to him as a non-notable filmmaker is simply incorrect. His films have received over 40 international awards and his production company has created dozens of Canadian documentary series and feature films. Perhaps try a Google search instead of ProQuest and look for Michael McMahon, his brother Kevin McMahon, or the company Primitive Entertainment and you will see plenty of sources, many of which I have included. I am happy to show you better sources than the one ProQuest search you did. Correct, I will not ignore the COI, but I have spent hours insuring that my bias is removed from the facts I included in the article. I am happy to work with someone with no COI to look over the page and make edits as necessary. I apologize that my only contributions are related to this company, but I thought I'd give it a go for the first time once I realized these prominent Canadian documentary filmmakers had no pages, when many of their colleagues with less notoriety do. I have read through the entire COI page and have ensured that my COI is not getting in the way of my editing. I am not being paid to create this Wikipedia page, but simply think that 30 years of hard work by Canadian documentary filmmakers should be honoured and remembered. Primitive Entertainment, Michael McMahon and Kevin McMahon all have countless sources online that reference and praise their work. I am looking to create a Wiki page that gathers all those facts in one place.Maevekern (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they and their work exist — the notability test is not "has done stuff", it is "has received reliable source coverage about the stuff he's done". For example, a film is not automatically notable just because it exists, or because its existence has been listed on IMDb — a film becomes notable when the likes of Norman Wilner or Radheyan Simonpillai or Richard Crouse or Geoff Pevere or Barry Hertz or Chris Knight or Eli Glasner or Craig Takeuchi have reviewed said film for media outlets like The Globe and Mail, the National Post, CBC, CTV, Global, the Toronto Star, the Montreal Gazette, Now or The Georgia Straight. And by the same token, a film producer is not automatically notable just because he has a "staff" profile on the self-published website of his own company, or an IMDB profile, or press releases issued by his own company — a film producer becomes notable when journalists have produced and published content that independently analyzes the significance of his production work in newspapers or magazines or books. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Luckily, Michael McMahon has indeed received plenty of reliable source coverage. For example, in the Globe and Mail article titled "The Canadian film industry is on pause – but once it’s back, how can we make it better than ever?" includes as story about producer Michael McMahon who is editing, remotely, his four-part CBC series about Canadian authors, Writing the Land. Additionally, his work is covered in the Toronto Star article "Nominees in major categories for the 23rd Gemini Awards". I am not claiming that he is automatically notable, I am claiming that he is very well known in the documentary world, both locally and internationally. And I would appreciate your help in building up this page to your standards. I am relatively new to Wikipedia contributions, and happy to work with you on the page until it is up to your standards. I would appreciate your support and assistance on this matter.Maevekern (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not looking for sources in which he's quoted as a giver of soundbite, or sources that just include his name in a list of names — we're looking for sources in which he and his work are the things that other people are talking about: critical analysis about his work, news reportage about his work, and on and so forth. Being a giver of soundbite in an article whose primary subject is something other than him does not help — for example, this article helps to support the notability of Paul Humphrey as its subject, but does not help to support the notability of Geoff McOuat as the person who spoke about Humphrey's death to the media, because Humphrey is the subject of the piece and McOuat is not. And while the list certainly verifies the award nomination, it doesn't secure his notability all by itself if it's the only legitimate source that can be provided. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 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 redirect to Alan Bates#Personal life. Sandstein 07:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Ward (actress)

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

Yet another 15+ year-old article with no sign of encyclopedic notability. The listed IMdB page lists precisely one credit, for an unheralded 1972 short. The cited source mentions her only in the context of her relationship with her substantially more notable spouse. Delete this and retarget the title to Alan Bates#Personal life, which contains everything of note on the subject anyway. BD2412 T 05:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Alan Bates. The article does not say very much, does not list anything she was in and does not indicate why she was well-known apart from her marriage to Alan Bates. Rollo August (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your rationale, but there is literally nothing to merge. All of the biographically significant details of this subject are already in Alan Bates. BD2412 T 16:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alan Bates, clear WP:GNG fail, the only sources I could find where IMDb and other unreliable ones. There is no information to merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alan Bates, with {{R from spouse}}. Would otherwise be a permanent stub, or if expanded, content that would likely be more relevant to Bates' biography. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:47, 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. Sandstein 07:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Dolan

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is solely inherited from the newspaper he works for. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete executive editors are not inherently notable, and the coverage is not enough to show that this journalist is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No trace of notability at all. Chirota (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 09:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funnelback

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squiz (3rd nomination), the parent company has been deleted. Main reason for deletion of this article is that since the parent company is not notable, a subsidiary is likely not notable as well.

A redirect to Comparison of enterprise search software is preferable per WP:ATD-R and WP:PRESERVE.

Notability

WP:NCORP should be applied here instead of WP:GNG as the subject is a corporation.

Current sourcing in the article relies on wp:primary sources that cannot be used to meet WP:NCORP. Before searches with query string "Funnelback" -wikipedia do not turn up sources that can satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Specifically, wp:reliable sources (many news result with a WordPress favicon) found fail wp:independent or WP:CORPDEPTH.

Other issues

The article describes both the company itself and a product of the company, but not in a clear way, so a cleanup may be required if kept.

There are some WP:COI editing as evident by the article history. The article may be promotional as a result. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly promotional and fails WP:NCORP despite being an article for 15 years! Shushugah (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV Redoryxx (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Beach

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

Fails GNG. Definitely a very old company and some notable people have happened to work in this company in past. But that doesn't make the company notable. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A fairly cursory search turns up substantial coverage, including a 2004 scandal involving a state senator directing business to the firm. I am confident that this can be significantly expanded in short order. BD2412 T 04:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, thanks for expanding. Can you help me how you found those two sources? I will look for more, try to add more sources, expand and perhaps withdraw this nomination. The way you have cited, I can't see any URL to go to. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are available through Newspapers.com, for which a free membership can be requested through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. BD2412 T 04:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments of BD2412. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:46, 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. The "keep" arguments are based on this game winning one or more awards. But this does not address the arguments for deletion, which is a lack of reliable sources. Per WP:V, a core policy, we must not include content that cannot be verified in reliable sources. WP:GNG likewise requires such sources. I must therefore discount the "keep" opinions. Sandstein 07:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Europe Engulfed

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

No sources provided on the article. BoardGameGeek do cover the game, but it is not WP:RS and coverage on BGG alone does not make a board game notable. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. SunDawn (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a video review on a popular board gaming YT channel: [12]. Not seeing anything else that's reliable (a blog review here and there), and this title is new enough there should be some digitized coverage. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an award-winning board game, winning the Charles S. Roberts Award for Best World War II Boardgame. It was also an extremely rare wargame which ranked in the Top 10 of Boardgamegeek.com briefly in 2005; Paths of Glory might be the only other wargame to achieve this ranking or fame. Durindaljb (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Durindaljb, We only have a reference for Charles S. Roberts Award. Even if we accept it as significant, is winning a single award sufficient to make the game notable, given that it otherwise fails GNG - there are no reviews of other coverage? I am not convinced. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly rated and winner of multiple prizes = obviously notable. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments, and per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 01:40, 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. Sandstein 07:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Hills Preparatory School

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

This article concerns a private school in Beverly Hills, California. According to the California Department of Education the school shut down in 2006. At present, the article cites two sources, both of which state only that Dan Brown briefly taught at the school. BEFORE searches likewise do not return any coverage about the school itself, only passing mentions regarding Brown's short tenure there. But, as is well established, notability is not inherited. And given that there is effectively no reliable, independent coverage regarding the school, I don't believe this article can meet any general or specific notability guideline and also that we lack sources to provide verifiable coverage. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Provost, Jon; Jacobson, Laurie (2007). Timmy's in the Well: The Jon Provost Story. Nashville, Tennessee: Cumberland House Publishing. Turner Publishing Company. pp. 211–213. ISBN 978-1-58182-619-7. Retrieved 2021-03-29.
  The article contains several pages of discussion about the school from former students of Rexford School. The students had attended the school over 30 years prior to the book's 2007 publishing. The article notes, "In the fall, I started at Rexford High School in Beverly Hills. This former house held a tiny, two-story school designed for working kids. I had about twenty-five people in my entire grade. Jay (North) went there along with Dino and Ricci Martin, Burt Lancaster's daughters, some producers' kids ... kinds in or around the business."
2. Los Angeles Evening Citizen News articles:
  1. "Rexford Semester Opens January 29". Los Angeles Evening Citizen News. 1962-01-23. Archived from the original on 2021-03-29. Retrieved 2021-03-29 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article discusses Rexford Junior and Senior High School. The school was located at 9250 Olympic Boulevard in Beverly Hills. The school's principal was Dr. M. J. Firestone. The school offered electives in art, drama, and music.
  2. "Rexford School Uses Paced Teaching Method". Los Angeles Evening Citizen News. 1964-01-18. Archived from the original on 2021-03-29. Retrieved 2021-03-29 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article said that Rexford Junior and Senior High School is "a fully accredited co-educational college preparatory day school". The article noted that the school has a class size ranging from 10 to 15 students. The article noted that Rexford used "newer concepts of mathematics and the oral-aural technique of a foreign languag[e]" in its teachings.
3. Los Angeles Times articles:
  1. "Rexford High Given UC's Approval". Los Angeles Times. 1963-06-27. Archived from the original on 2021-03-29. Retrieved 2021-03-29 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article noted that the University of California accredited Rexford Junior and Senior High School's college preparatory program. The school has two directors: David W. Axelrod and his wife. The school has five faculty and 80 students. It was established five years ago. The article focuses on mathematics, science, and history, and has drama, art, and music enrichment classes.
  2. "Sons of El Presidente Visit Rexford School". Los Angeles Times. 1969-06-05. Archived from the original on 2021-03-29. Retrieved 2021-03-29 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes, "Alfredo and Gustavo Diaz Ordaz Jr., sons of the President of Mexico, were recent visitors to Rexford School where they were guests of Ellen Fuchs, a student at the school."
  3. "Mexico Will Be Fashion Show Theme". Los Angeles Times. 1965-04-15. Retrieved 2021-03-29 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes that the Rexford Junior and Senior High School is presenting a fashion show and tea with "Mexican Holiday" as the theme. Money earned from the event was allocated to the Rexford Parents' Coordinating Council scholarship fund. Female students and their mothers modeled clothes from Sally's in Westwood. Male students modelled clothes from Brussells in Beverly Hills and Westwood.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rexford Junior and Senior High School (which was later known as Rexford College Preparatory High School and later known as Beverly Hills Preparatory School) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rexford Junior and Senior High School passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says, "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both."
The school passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience through receiving significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times.
Cunard (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these. I'll leave it to other voters to assess for themselves, but none of these seem like "significant coverage" to me.
- The LA Times references are extremely short and cover pretty trivial matters that I'm not sure would even warrant inclusion in an article. Ditto for the LA Evening Citizen articles, which, while a little longer cover perhaps the most routine things you can say about a school.
- The Timmy's in the Well book is a sentence or two about the fact that some individuals attended the school and some basic attributes. But again, notability isn't inherited and there's really not meaningful discussion (as far as I can tell) of the school itself.
In short, while I appreciate you flagging these, even with these references in hand, I'm not sure we could even write a better article than the one that presently exists. But we'll see what others think as that's just my opinion and I appreciate you taking the time to compile these. DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rexford College Preparatory School participants: Bigwig7 (talk · contribs), Just Chilling (talk · contribs), and Doncram (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's extremely questionable that the sons of the President of Mexico visiting the school makes it notable. Same goes for most of the other things that have been mentioned by Cunard for why the article should be kept. For instance, them "presenting a fashion show and tea with "Mexican Holiday" as the theme." Seriously folks. This whole thing is about more then just cutting and pasting trivial mentions that you found in a Google search and then calling it a day. Seriously folks, there has to be more then tea time and a fashion show for a private organization (even a school) to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Adamant1. Wasraw (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all, Not enough sources to pass GNG. Pilean (talk) 12:29, 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. Sandstein 07:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruva College of Management

AfDs for this article:

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

The page relies on a primary source with lots of press releases, paid advertisement. No solid RS with a BEFORE. Fails WP:NSCHOOLS. Arguments in the previous AFD fail to address the lack of WP:GNG. Post clean-up, the article fails to match WP:HEY. Vikram Vincent 10:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC) *Comment The creator is reintroducing advertising content post-clean up, disregarding the templates that have been added to the page, and the call for discussions on the talk page Vikram Vincent 12:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 10:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 10:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 10:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom : No evidence of notability. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 11:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Not enough sources to pass GNG. Pilean (talk) 12:29, 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. Sandstein 07:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Gakhar

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

Non-notable person, the only politics they have been involved in has been at the student level failing WP:NPOL. The references are all written by the same author, and don't discuss him in any sort of depth failing WP:SIGCOV McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a WP:RESUME. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very much a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete What the hell? A promo article about of minor politician, clearly fail WP:NPOL. VocalIndia (talk) 07:45, 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.

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions don't cite any specific reliable sources. Sandstein 07:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Bhatt LLP

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Sources provided do not appear to significantly discuss the company (at least based on the title - some are inaccessible without a subscription). ... discospinster _talk 16:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, most newspapers in Kenya now require a subscription to view articles. This is due to the fact that Nation Media Group has a large monopoly. The company in question is well mentioned, but those reviewing wiki references won’t be able to view them without paying. The article shouldn’t be deleted, and future articles referencing Kenya issues may also face a similar problem in proving authenticity. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by The inquisitive reader (talk • contribs) 18:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason mentioned above. I'm going to do some digging myself, might be able to find more. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:10, 28 March 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and even looking at articles that are now "behind a paywall" such as this in The Standard and this in Nation Africa (which doesn't even mention the company) and having searched further online, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. If someone wants to post a link to a reference they believe meets the criteria, please do so. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per HighKing and the fact that we shouldn't have any articles without a lead or containing the phrase "tender age of 22". Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like HighKing, I can find no sources that cover the company in-depth, and therefore go towards showing notability if we're going by NCORP. Likewise for the general notability guideline, significant coverage in multiple, independent sources does not appear to exist. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dabney Donovan

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The Essential Superman Encyclopedia is not independent, and its coverage is limited to plot summaries and occasional notes about which issue a character debuted - this type of 'fanpedia' is often less useful than our own entries or most fan wikis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom has summed it up perfectly. Fails all of the criteria for notability. Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Not enough sources to qualify for GNG. Pilean (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperstown Junior/Senior High School

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks notability - the only serious mention of the school in Wikipedia is the April Fools' request. While Cooperstown the place is notable (per its hosting of the Baseball Hall of Fame), I argue that the school itself is not. DePlume (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Example: For 1 Jan. '21 to today, there are only 2 days where the page is viewed more than 10 times: on January 27 and April 1. Including these two days, there are only 5 days in 2021 that sees the page be viewed 5 times or more. Sincerely, the nominator, --DePlume (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - page views are not a valid criteria for deletion. There are presently 3 sources which meets our general notability guidelines. I don't see any grounds for deletion. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes to the page views part, but as WP:GNG states that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage," I do not think that one could say the CCS page could stay merely by having 3 sources. And you added one of them right before this vote, meaning that it would have had only 2 sources, failing your own test. --DePlume (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC) (Added to on 18:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - the current sourcing includes two simple listings, and a primary source, which doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Searches turned up some mentions in local newspapers, as you would expect of any high school in the U.S. In fact, there are far fewer than one would expect. You have to use the search term , "CCS" + Cooperstown, as they are known more by the acronym. Using that, they get far more hits, but all the usual local coverage you'd expect. Not sure it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. If more refs from non-local sources are added, let me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At one point high schools were considered to be inherently notable. Has this changed? Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are people that uses that argument or its exact opposite (see WP:High Schools), so I argue it should not be factored in. Rather, I argue WP:Cruft. DePlume (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every single public high school is notable. At the rate we're going, articles of people that are "notable" for dying in WW2 and nothing else will be commonplace on this site soon. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Fiddle Faddle, there is a historical note at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: At one time, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG. Now the relevant policy explanation is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. Note the notability requirement for public schools is WP:GNG or WP:ORG. My newspapers.com search today brought up 106 hits. Even assuming 95% of those hits are sports events, passing mentions of meetings held at the school, or of wedding notices mentioning alums of the school, I have so far found at least 4 articles I will be using to expand the article a bit. Stay tuned. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you very much, User:Grand'mere Eugene, for your addition to the article concerned. Would you please consider adding some more? If so, I could potentially withdraw this nomination due to its increase in sources. Patiently waiting, DePlume (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On the basis of Grand'mere Eugene's research, and also explanation of the changes in school notability, I consider this school to be notable. Even prior to their promised expansion of the article the notability expressed is sufficient to keep the article Fiddle Faddle 21:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily enough sources for notability as with any American high school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen high school pages with less info than this one. JayPlaysStuff (talk) 23:42, 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.

[1] "Top Schools in Kerala 2021". careers360.com. Retrieved 29 March 2021.

[2] "Second Best School Magazine in Kerala 2015". bcrschool.org. Retrieved 29 March 2021.

[3] "Most Beautiful Schools in India". The Education Tree. Retrieved 29 March 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]