Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 11	February 13 >

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. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 02:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crane (musician)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 23:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician. LA weekly entry isn't SIGCOV. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even one source that constitutes significant coverage in a reliable, secondary, independent 3rd-party source, let alone the multiple ones we need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution of the United States

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

Likely fits WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE. Normchou ^💬 22:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Normchou ^💬 22:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I'd say the topic might be notable, as it has been covered a lot in fiction, but I don't see anything salvageable from the current state of the article. Pladica (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to WP:CRYSTAL there is a big list of other relevant issues (see the template at the top of the article). For cases like these you can just use WP:PROD. I wouldn't expect any objection for this nomination.-Renat 12:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - Amigao (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per nom. WP:CRYSTAL. Alex-h (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view" Normchou ^💬 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is invalid, because the article is written only based on (!) 3 news sources and they do not predict: WP:NOTNEWS. There is not enough coverage for the subject so the article fails to meet WP:GNG. Someone could be tricked with the amount of text in the article, but I checked text-source integrity and can confirm, that the content of the article violates WP:OR. There is no way such amount of text could be extracted out from 3 news sources.--Renat 10:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because a few people have speculated about something does not make it a subject that we can actually have an encyclopedic article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BALL. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTESSAY. KidAd talk 09:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks Workers Union

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

Fails WP:NORG. References are either affiliated with subject (the IWW/Starbucks union websites) or aren't sufficiently independent (the many profiles of the union that are generally just interviews with the union members). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it easily passes WP:GNG with stories about the organization itself in the Boston Globe, Seattle Times, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal to name a few. A quick search of newspapers.com also reveals a number of other sources in newspapers across the United States. There is also a book written about it by Staughton Lynd and numerous other mentions of varying levels of depth available via Google Scholar.--User:Namiba 03:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG isn't applicable here. As an organization these sources have to abide by SIRS. Most of them aren't independently written and are just profiles or otherwise insignificant. Brief mentions don't satisfy WP:SIRS. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, anything by Straughton Lynd automatically fails the "independent" part of SIRS as he has very strong ties to the IWW (having given a speech to their general assembly). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, It's normal for scholars to be also involved in topics they research. If you think the source is not reliable, I suggest taking it to WP:RSN first. If there is consensus it is unreliable, then we can remove it and it will carry much less weight here. But for now, I'd call it reliable (a book written by an academic expert on the topic). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Didn't say it was unreliable, just that it doesn't meet the criteria for showing the Starbucks Workers Union is notable. WP:SIRS is very clear here. The source must be completely independent of the article subject to prevent organizations from gaming the system. Since the SWU is an IWW union and Straughton Lynd is very associated with the IWW, the source does not satisfy the "independent" criteria of SIRS. While I'm sure it is a reliable source, it is not an independent one. If you don't like that policy, I suggest you take it up at the talk page at WT:NORG to get it changed. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, NORG as usual focuses on commercial companies and fails when it comes to non-profits. SIRS is intended to prevent paid-for shills from creating fake 'independent' sources. Anyway, let's examine this case in more detail. You claim "Straughton Lynd is very associated with the IWW" but right now his article doesn't mention any such ties? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:NORG is applicable to unions regardless of your feelings on the matter. Unions can pay for shills just as much as any other organization. While I can pretty clearly see that this AfD is going to result in a keep because the unwritten rule is that NORG is really just meant to target organizations that endeavour to turn a profit and the policy is only written the way it is to give the illusion of fairness, I believe that the policy should be enforced the way it is written which is why I opened this AfD.

On Lynd's association with the IWW, I point out these excerpts of a speech he gave to the IWW general assembly [1] he cowrote a book with one of the founders of the Starbucks Workers Union (Daniel Gross, his SWU affiliation given a single sentence in the linked article). [2] And while I cannot find a source saying Lynd has ever worked for the IWW or is a member (never said he was), I'd say giving speeches on behalf of the IWW and writing books with IWW members that are considered essential IWW literature, originating the "Solidarity Unionism" philosophy of the IWW [3] certainly make him a fellow traveler at the very least.

In all honesty none of that really matters though because after taking another look at the book you've linked I've realized that it's the exact book Lynd wrote with Daniel Gross. So I'm pretty sure there's no way in hell a book cowritten by the founder of the Starbucks Workers Union satisfies the "independence" criteria of SIRS and probably doesn't even satisfy the GNG criteria if it was applicable here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search with the phrase "Starbucks Workers Union" produces many ,many mentions in Google books:

Solidarity Unionism at Starbucks Daniel Gross, ‎Staughton Lynd · 2011
Two full pages in the book Starbucks by Marie Bussing-Burks · 2009
Z magazine, volume 2
Four pages in the book Subverting the Present, Imagining the Future: Class, Struggle, Commons
Business Week article
Discussed in Imaginal Machines: Autonomy & Self-organization in the Revolutions of Everyday Life by Stevphen Shukaitis
also see mentions in Teen Vogue, Huffpost and SeattlePI.com.

I'll stop there. Possibly (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mentions don't satisfy WP:SIRS and neither do profiles written based off of the unions pamphleteering or interviews. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like there is a coverage on several pages in this book, for example. And a few paragraphs in this one. Seems to pass NORG/GNG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First book was written by Daniel Gross, founder of the SWU [4] and the second fails the significance criterion of WP:SIRS. It covers Starbucks far more than the union and limits its coverage of the SWU to three paragraphs, one of which is almost entirely composed of a verbatim quote of the SWUs website.Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Chiminski

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 22:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage revolves around the company he runs, not him. Possibly (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all those sources are about the company, not the person. WP:SIGCOV D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Considering the importance of Catalent, a CDMO manufacturing at least 100 million doses of the COVID vaccine, this person should be considered notable regardless of whether anyone has decided to write about them. While not well-known among the general public, Catalent is playing a very important role in overcoming the COVID pandemic. PeanutTheDog55 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC) — PeanutTheDog55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That is the company, not him, and notability is not inherited. There is no coverage on him. scope_creep^Talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Party "Green Planet"

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

Fails WP:GNG. A political party that has never won any seat or office in any election and, as far as I can tell, has never received any significant coverage. (I don't speak Ukrainian, but Google search/translate results do not give the impression that there is anything.) The party's founder, Natalya Zemna, has an article, but she doesn't seem to be notable either, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalya Zemna. Lennart97 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG. Uk wiki article is only a bit longer and doesn't help to establish notability of the topic, either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. Meets GNG (and WP:NBASE), with sources found by Muboshgu. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Sborz

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

Non-notable MLB pitcher. Yes, I know that he technically meets WP:NBASE, but he only appeared in 1 MLB game. It seems that he played 9 years in the minor leagues prior to his MLB appearance. Natg 19 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like you said, he meets WP:NBASE. So why did you nominate this exactly? You didn't even bother with WP:BEFORE, did you? [5][6][7] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did attempt to find sources about him, but I did not find any. In my opinion, just having played in 1 game doesn't meet the standard for WP:NBASE. On further research, I was able to find more sources, so I'll withdraw. Natg 19 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Played in Major League Baseball so he is notable. Spanneraol (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nyeema Morgan

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

not yet notable artist. No work in the permanent collection of major museums. No major studies about her--the first NYT ref has one sentence mentioning her in a long review of a exhibition; the other mentions her only as the wife of the subject of the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Morgan has works in the permanent collections of the Bowdoin College Museum of Art and the Menil Collection and meets WP:ARTIST#4(b) with nine solo/duo exhibitions as well as residencies at Smack Mellon and the Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture. She also meets GNG with significant coverage in Daily Camera, BOMB magazine, and Arcade Project. This article doesn't yet include all of her exhibitions (which also have references... see Wall Street Journal, ArtForum, ArtNet). gobonobo ⁺ ^c 22:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep Gobonobo has summed it up well. I think It's more the collections that mean she may meet WP:NARTIST. There is not an enormous smount of coverage out there, but with the collections it maybe enough. Possibly (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to solid keep based on the two collections and the article improvements by gobonobo. GNG is fully met, and WP:NARTIST is minimally met for the two collections (one of the works is a collaborative work, but she is clearly credited). Possibly (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the basis of available resources, subject seems to be notable. Niceguylucky (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion and page improvements. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The artist is in the early stages of her career and we will probably hearing more about her in the coming years. The article in its current state, thanks to the great work by Gobonobo now meets WP:GNG. She also is in two museum collections therefore meets WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article shows signs of satisfying WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Alex-h (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Maleh

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

Subject does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO or NSOLDIER. Sources in the article and BEFORE did not show anything with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. The Times reference is the name in a list of two people killed, not even a complete sentence. "The Scramble in the Horn of Africa" does not mention the subject on pp.386 (it does mention a report from Colonel R. I. Scallon, but no mention of the subject or support claims in the article) and a search showed nothing on any other page. // Timothy :: talk 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No SIGCOV anywhere. SK2242 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Europe (newspaper)

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

A note on WP:RSN provided no further independent information on this newspaper; I can find no reason to assume this is notable. It is odd for a newspaper that claims a circulation of 66,000 copies to not receive any coverage itself, and the only explanation for that--well, I don't want to speculate. But this is not a notable subject, given the complete lack of coverage, and I'd add that I don't think it's a reliable source either (I know, that's another matter). Buidhe, thank you for chiming in at RSN. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a presumptive NCORP failure. A search for references is made difficult with New Europe's own articles appearing in search results. SK2242 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only WP:RS source I can immediately find is [8] a French-language scholarly article with 1-2 sentences about New Europe, not SIGCOV. With the stated circulation and length of history there might well be more independent, reliable sources, but I'm not finding them. If they can't be found I agree the article should be deleted. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm struggling to find sources that establish GNG (apart from Buidehe's source above, all I can find is [9]), but it's very possible they exist. "New Europe" has so many red herring results that it's hard to sort through the chaffe. IAR, I'm hesitant to delete. 150,000 online readers and 60,000 print subscribers is a substantial readership and 1993 is a decent history. This is a good case of a publication that appears to meet WP:NMEDIA criteria 3, are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area (the EU), or criteria 5, are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets (people interested in the EU). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that I don't think either of these sources establish either criteria 3 or 5. I've seen no evidence that this is a RS source let alone "authoritative". And I don't know how to judge if a publication is "significant" except RS coverage. New Europe isn't even on the list[10] of media frequently followed by MEPs. (t · c) buidhe 05:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Sdkb, Buidhe hits the nail on the head. The basic facts can't even be established reliably. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with European Union#Media. I agree that sources are thin on this one. However, New Europe seems to be a serious, active, "specialist" kind of publication, akin to trade magazines or scholarly journals. Please review the following info before deciding: website's About Us, website's Alexa statistics, French Wikipedia article, and Wikidata page's Identifiers. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Any mention of this obscure outlet would be clearly undue on European Union article. (t · c) buidhe 17:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sadly, it is a rather obscure newspaper, as are many specialist publications, and EUobserver with an Alexa ranking at #212,312 looks obscure too. Cheers, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 18:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could only find one story in Turkish [11] and a profile by Media Bias Fact Check, which is considered to be unreliable.[12] Fences&Windows 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I checked the Turkish story (from 2009) and it seems to be pushing a conspiracy that US wants a military coup to happen in Turkey. When a coup actually was attempted (in 2016), the US condemned it. (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 USS John R. Craig (DD-885)#Namesake and commissioning. This time around, consensus is rather clearly against keeping this as a separate article. There is no clear consensus about whether and what to merge, but this seems to be a moot distinction because much content appears to have been merged already. It's now up to the editorial process to determine whether to reduce or enhance the biographical content in the target article. Sandstein 13:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Craig

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS John R. Craig (DD-885). Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS John R. Craig (DD-885) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 14:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the ship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS John R. Craig (DD-885) per TimothyBlue. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS John R. Craig (DD-885), insufficient (nothing) to demonstrate it meets the GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a "no consensus" closure and a similarly inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 2.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. “Redirect” to one ship doesn’t make sense when he is strongly associated with two: the USS Grampus (SS-207) and the USS John R. Craig (DD-885). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current content of paragraph 1 of USS John R. Craig (DD-885)#Namesake and commissioning is more than sufficient for a bio stub. In terms of article structure, it is a perversion to have a garden path structure of ship -> namesake -> command history -> other ships unconnected to first ship. The bio should have an incoming link from every ship he commanded, and three incoming links justifies the standalone article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with option to merge to USS John R. Craig (DD-885). Through all the lengthy history of this article, there have not been enough sources presented to meet the GNG. Longstanding policy (WP:ATD-M) permits the non-notable article to be merged into another, notable article. In this case, the USS John R. Craig is the appropriate one, since it's necessary to explain why the ship was named for him. The ironic thing here is that no content needs to be lost: it can all be merged over. The only question is whether our coverage of this man needs to be fragmented into two articles, and policy is clear that it shouldn't be. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If not disposing of most of the content, this merge will mean that the USS John R. Craig (DD-885) article will contain a sizeable outtake of discussion of the command history of the USS R-17 (SS-94) as well as the command history and fate of the USS Grampus (SS-207). That is perverse meta:Structurism. It doesn’t fit. It would be an obvious case for a spinout of this person. Are you sure you have really thought this hypothetical merge through? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict with Mztourist, below) What is this article? It's text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, in which it serves to explain why the Craig was named after him. As such, it would work perfectly well at the article about the Craig, where it would fulfill the same function: explaining why the ship was named for him. The section about the "command history and fate of the Grampus" covers exactly three sentences, and the section about the R-17 covers exactly one sentence. That's not "a sizeable outtake": it's basic background, and it would be useful to the reader. As such, there's no danger of turning the ship's article into a coatrack, and a merge proposal is certainly not "perverse". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have already merged all relevant information on Craig onto USS John R. Craig (DD-885). It amounts to one paragraph. The loss of the USS Grampus (SS-207) is covered on that page. SmokeyJoe the pages for USS R-17 (SS-94) and Grampus don't feature command histories, so that argument doesn't carry much weight. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS John R. Craig (DD-885), where the relevant content has already been merged to. Does not meet WP:BIO, so no reason to keep as a stand-alone article. A plausible search term, with a clear redirect target. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now I strongly suspect we'll find sources solid enough to meet the GNG, but we aren't there yet. Hobit (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS John R. Craig (DD-885), which is basically the same as merging since the important content has already been merged. The only source cited in the article is [13]. This is a wiki which accepts user-submitted content, and therefore isn't very reliable. It does link to other pages, however they aren't great sources either (the guy's college yearbook, two other memorial associations and a service history). I wouldn't be surprised if there's some other brief coverage of him from when he got the medal or when the ship was named after him, but I don't think he passes WP:GNG. Even if having a ship named after you does meet WP:ANYBIO as a "well-known and significant award or honor", WP:BIO#Special cases says that subjects which meet ANYBIO but fail the GNG should be merged into another article. Since his main significance is having the ship named after him it makes sense to cover him in the article about the ship. Hut 8.5 18:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds (Lil Peep and iLoveMakonnen album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, on account of not having been released and having almost no details available about it, and if one of its makers is to be believed, will now never be released. I've been following this for a while – a collaborative hip hop album that was put on ice indefinitely after Lil Peep died. There is coverage of iLoveMakonnen speaking in 2019 after Lil Peep's death, talking about how he was continuing to work on the album [14], [15], [16], but those were WP:PRIMARY promotional interviews around the release of the lead single from the planned album, and don't really say anything more than that he was continuing to work on the record – no details of other songs or anything. The two songs that are talked about in any detail, "Sunlight on Your Skin" and "I've Been Waiting", already have their own articles. And now according to a recent Instagram chat with iLoveMakonnen, the album will never be released [17]. Of course, decisions and circumstances can change, but as of now, the release of this album appears unlikely, so this is WP:CRYSTALBALL and there is almost no reliable information about it, and we shouldn't be keeping stub articles indefinitely based on a possible release one day in the future. If it does eventually see the light of day, the article can be easily recreated, because there's almost nothing here worth keeping – a few days ago a new editor added a track listing, but this is unsourced OR and are the editor's only edits to Wikipedia so far. This collaborative album is already mentioned in the articles for both artists. So there's nothing to merge, and as both artists are notable, no redirect target per WP:XY. Richard3120 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:NALBUM and appears to be nothing special, despite tragic circumstances, etc. Web sources make passing mentions of expected album while talking about/with artist, but naturally have nothing much to say about album directly. Article itself should never have been made; now's not too soon to kill it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D’Shon Taylor

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Played a measily 27 minutes in 2016 for Bahamas national team and seems to not be playing anymore. Kline | vroom vroom 19:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kline | vroom vroom 19:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Kline | vroom vroom 19:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D'Lete per nom. He played in Iraq too, but that's about it for coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes WP:GNG with the sources now in the article. On a sidenote, he may have "Played a measily 27 minutes in 2016 for Bahamas national team" but as the article clearly stated, he played in the 2022 FIBA AmeriCup qualification and is considered a key player for the games expected to be played in 2021.[18] Alvaldi (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As mentioned above, he clearly passes WP:GNG. He played much more than 27 minutes but is just a side note...please check the facts more thoroughly. In fact, whether he still plays or how many minutes he played is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with wikipedia's notability criteria. Stephreef (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just enough sources to justify passing GNG. He doesn't meet notability from strict NBASKETBALL standards, but that guideline is more about the specifics of a ball player rather than overall notability. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Passes GNG. Niceguylucky (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Agree with above, he just passes WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the alleged GNG "pass" is with a lot of low quality coverage and should not be allowed to overcome the total and complete failure of the basketball notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He definitely passes WP:GNG.Reagan1987 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaiu Johnson

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

One line article about an American golfer who fails WP:NGOLF. A WP:BEFORE search only brings up articles about his PGA Tour debut being delayed by Covid, and his subsequent debut. A case of WP:TOOSOON. John B123 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Google News search for "Kamaiu Johnson" shows over a dozen articles granting direct coverage from higher quality outlets. Seems to meet WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BLP1E/WP:ONEEVENT. Below the standard of golfer we would normally cover. Seems to be his first OWGR event, only played mini-tours so far. No notable amateur career. Only seems to be notable as he's been given a one-off opportunity to play in a PGA Tour event. Nigej (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with NickCT, seems to meet WP:GNG, regardless if he's below the standard of golfer we would normally cover. We cover what is covered in sources, of which there are plenty for him. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^^This. I guess I might agree w/ some of the delete folks that this guy might not be notable by WP:NGOLF standards. But GNG trumps NGOLF. NickCT (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But does he pass BLP1E/NOT? I'm unconvinced there is reason to believe coverage will extend beyond these tour appearances. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there a lot of golfers who don't get coverage outside tour appearances? NickCT (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of golfers who do not have articles on Wikipedia. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fair enough. But aren't there a lot of golfers on WP that don't get coverage outside tour appearances? NickCT (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, and some of them possibly don't meet the criteria for standalone articles, but that doesn't help us here. NGOLF specifies a golfer should have played a full season or had exceptional performances at the elite level as a reasonable insurance that coverage will be available over an extended period. GNG is there to catch the rest, subject to other guidelines and policy provisions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not to discredit his golfing abilities but his rags-to-riches background story captures attention and the Google hits prove it. If this article gets dropped it'll be back in short order.--Hooperbloob (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets notability and does not deserve to be deleted. Alex-h (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to revisiting this article when/if more reliable sources come about such that it meets the WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG notability guidelines. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akini Blake

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

far WP:TOOSOON - no coverage, hasn't charted. CUPIDICAE💕 17:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. I'm not seeing much in sources for him, even music industry magazines. Coverage doesn't seem significant enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Bloomington, Illinois mayoral election

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

Routine election of a city of 76,610 people. Not automatically notable. Nothing distinguishing this election. The election has not been identified as particularly notable. None of the individuals running have even been identified as particularly notable. SecretName101 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A routine election in a relatively small suburb. Nothing notable here. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not sufficient coverage that makes the election notable. Rondolinda (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.does not prove notability. Alex-h (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Nightlife Association

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

Purely WP:PROMOTIONAL article about an organization that does not meet WP:GNG, potentially written for pay. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Likely paid-for spam, creator blocked for advertising. Sources are mostly press releases. MER-C 19:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little coverage in the article sources, excepting the articles on cryptocurrency sites discussing how the subject is embracing crypto, which I don't believe establishes notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing anything but press releases and trivial mentions in passing: fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The alleged sources are either PR fluff or don't cover the subject; fails notability with flying colours. Likely paid promo piece (by now banned editor, one might add). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unanimous agreement here even after I discount a sockpuppet argument. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James G. Abruzzo

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

Purely WP:PROMOTIONAL biography of someone who does not pass WP:GNG, potentially written for pay. WP:NOTRESUME. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Likely paid-for spam, creator blocked for advertising. MER-C 19:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom. Niceguylucky (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability guidelines Padavalam🌂 ► 16:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. looks promotional Alex-h (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG Devoke water 09:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Evidently uncontroversial. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Tom (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:TWODABS. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not need disambiguation for two entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as uncontroversial cleanup. (I know disambigs go to AfD rather than MfD, but I don't quite get why.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:G14. "Captain Tom" is not mentioned at Daniel Defoe. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting BLPREQUESTDELETE. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LDShadowLady

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

Subject has requested deletion. As noted in the previous AfD closed as no consensus, there is some coverage, but in my opinion not enough to establish clear notability that overrides the BLPREQUESTDELETE concerns. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and due to the current lack of sourcing—the first two sources are primary and the third is not independent. Perryprog (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, poor sourcing. As the subject has requested deletion due to privacy concerns (she hasn't released her name, thus non-public), it clearly meets the criteria of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Additionally, the sources are weak, primarily consisting of social media links. Editor760 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even putting BLP concerns aside, significant coverage in reliable, independent sources does not appear to exist. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was taking a look at the sources mentioned in the prior discussion, and considering attempting to improve this, but the fact that the BLP vio existed since the articles creation, the poor quality of even the best sources in the prior discussion or previous versions of the article, and the fact that the subject requests deletion all push me towards delete. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - the subject didn't request deletion, just that her real name not be used. She uses her alias and photo on her social media so I don't think she's worried about those items being public. I just contacted Google since they indexed the version with her real name before we could revert it. I added some coverage - she was the #2 female YouTuber in the UK a few years back. That's enough for a weak keep. The question now is, do we leave this article up because it might be a magnet for personal info, or do we remove it to protect her from being doxxed? Tough choice but I think as long as she's notable enough, the benefit of compiling knowledge comes first. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote due to help desk request. IP address of request geolocates to subjects home area. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Someone claiming to be subject requested the article be deleted over IRC. I have not verified their identity, but I am taking their request at face value, and it was the same person as Wikipedia:Help desk#Please help, Wikipedia doxed me. Being "a magnet for personal info" was part of their argument. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 19:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she's a low profile individual and imo not notable anyway but if WP really wants to deal with gender gaps and equity with women, we should start by listening to them when they ask to have articles deleted, especially when they are not major public figures. CUPIDICAE💕 19:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested and taking as WP:GOODFAITH. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough there would be hundreds of youtuber pages if this was notable enough which it is not. Also the page has many other problems. TigerScientist Chat 18:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lubi-Lubi

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

Really bad article asking for a TNT. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it customary to issue notifications when you do this? Like to the creator of the article? Hasn't happened yet.

WP:PROD states in pertinent part:

The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed deletion. This should be done by adding the == Proposed deletion of Name of page ==

The article Name of page has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. tag, or other appropriate text.

If you use the above template, you do not need to add a section header, as the template will do this for you. Twinkle has an option (which can be configured as the default in Twinkle preferences) to inform the page creator.[4] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, note that the article creator was blocked nearly four years ago for persistent sockpuppetry and creation of blatantly nonsense articles, so notification was probably a waste of time in this case. Richard3120 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason was given for deletion. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is not a valid reason. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Dream Focus 18:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC) added Keep vote and would like to also point out the article already has a reference proving this is a traditional folk song. [19] Dream Focus 01:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Based on my initial research and addition of news sources to the article, it~~ seems appropriate ~~to keep and revise this article to focus on the Lubi-Lubi song, for which~~ [because] independent and reliable sources appear to exist, ~~and to consider merging the description of the game into another article if reliable sources can be found.~~ Beccaynr (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC) (updated due to Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus's contributions to the article and this discussion)[reply]

Comment Also, perhaps the title of the article can be updated to Lubi-Lubi (song) for greater clarity, because there are also Lubi-Lubi festivals. Beccaynr (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I concur that the nominator failed WP:BEFORE (Google Books search for Bicol song "Lubi-Lubi" suggests some coverage of the topic in [20], [21], [22], [23] (that said, I could only get snippet views, so I am not 100% convinced the sources contain more than trivial mention of the topic, but one at least suggest the topic gets its own section/box). The article is nowhere near the shape bad enough for TNT although I couldn't find any references that a 'game' accompanying the song/dance actually exist. The nominator should be WP:TROUTed for not presenting their analysis of sources (BEFORE). PS. I did some c/e, removing description of this as a game, it doesn't seem to be described as such. The article should be less confusing now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article on Filipino folk songs. Oaktree b (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs a little expansion if ever. Other than that, it is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources indicated above and in the article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by User:Superastig 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Architectural Historians of Bengal

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

Non-notable organisation. Unable to find any significant coverage. Fails WP.GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see enough coverage in news and books. --Yoonadue (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spontaneous Combustion (English band)

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

Similar issues to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tris Margetts. The overwhelming majority of the references are not reliable sources, including Facebook, Discogs, RateYourMusic, and other social media or user-generated sites. The book cited Bournemouth Rocks! : A Brief History of Rock Music in Bournemouth, Boscombe and Poole, 1960-1980 is by a small local history press and is held in a grand total of eight libraries according to Worldcat. This does not contribute much to the notability of the band. The only generally-accepted RS that covers this band, AllMusic, has a one paragraph stub. The remaining RS's are about notable band Emerson, Lake & Palmer, with whom some members recorded, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Despite copious WP:REFBOMBing, the evidence is not enough to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily notable with releases on major labels such as EMI as shown here and Capitol Records passing WP:NMUSIC criteria 5 (only one criteria needed) and with significant coverage such as album reviews in Billboard and Melody Maker. Yes there are many unreliable sources such as discogs that need replacing but that is no reason to take the easy deletion route and ignore the reliable sources and the notability of the band, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Included in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Major label albums petty much guarantees that enough coverage will exist to satisfy even the most ardent GNG-wonk. --Michig (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator is correct about the article's reliance on unreliable social media sources, but that is a matter of cleaning up rather than deleting. The article needs to be significantly reduced to eliminate excessive fancruft informed by that same social media chatter. But it can be narrowed down to basic facts supported by some reliable sources on 70s progressive rock, as located by the previous voters. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Institute of Professional Studies (TIPS) Dwarka

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

A completely unsourced article that doesn't meet WP:ORG, WP:SCHOOL. RationalPuff (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Degree-awarding institutes in India are typically presumed notable; 'schooloutcomes' touches on this more broadly. Zindor (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References are weak but this is a degree awarded institute affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. Niceguylucky (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a degree-awarding, GGSIPU affiliated college (see here for latest proof) that enrols thousands of students each year. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES point number 2 suggests that online coverage for such institutions may not readily be available online. Dial911 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keepaccredited school, although sources light, it meets guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plextek

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP. Product of COI/UPE (see article history). Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRFI Ltd and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plextek RF Integration. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Looks slightly better than Plextek RF Integration so it took more time to read it and check the sources, but there's still nothing here but self-announcement and a basic business offerings broschure. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with both of the users above, NCORP notability not established Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Without Frontiers

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

This has been tagged for years and years; it's little more than a directory-style entry with a history of COI edits and link spam. Nothing much can be found on this outfit, besides a few mentions in Amnesty International and HRW and, of course, press releases. The best thing I found was this, an *ahem* somewhat biased opinion piece that inflates the organization, in a non-notable publication which is spammed for in our article on a publishing outfit, Pulsamerica. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article does not meet WP:NGO. The organization is active on the international level, however I could not find "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." JimRenge (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JimRenge and nom. Feoffer (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They have been described as "One of the world's leading human rights groups" here, although I am not sure how reliable the source is (low key academic journal? But it's called 'News Weekly'... I can't find much about the author, 'Peter Westmore'). Whatever this is (an article or a news piece) I also failed to gain access to it. Other than that I see some mentions in passing, some citations to their work, and that's it. I couldn't find any discussion of the organizaton's history or significance, not even a sentence-long one, outside WP:PRIMARY sources. As such, it seems that this NGO fails WP:NORG/GNG requirement. PS. A bit more digging and I found the source I mentioned mirrored here, but it seems like a low key news piece in a minor Australian magazine. (Also, the article doesn't provide in-depth analysis of the organization outside a few superlatives, and quotes an otherwise unnamed "HRWF’s Internet consultant" a lot, which makes it not very independent (it's really is on the level of a rewritten press release, just from NGO, not the more common a for-profit spam variety). Anyway, I guess it is probably the best source we have, but still not enough in light of our source requirements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plextek RF Integration

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

Non-notable company which fails WP:NCORP. Draft was rejected by AfC but created in mainspace anyway. Product of COI/UPE; also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRFI Ltd and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plextek. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that much of the promo / obvious COI text was just removed. see version before removals ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails NCORP even in the pre-removal version. Basically a "Web-presence" page for a NN company. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. fails NCORP. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NCORP requires multiple reliable sources examining the company in detail and addressing it directly; this simply is not the case here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Dahissiho

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

Finished in last place in an election, that seems to be it? Simeon (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable political candidate. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because they ran as candidates in elections they did not win — no, not even at the presidential level — but this doesn't even try to claim any preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy, and even the candidacy itself is "referenced" solely to a directory entry rather than any evidence of notability-supporting media coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable political candidate Rondolinda (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was a national parliament member, easily passed NPOL: https://levenementprecis.com/2009/07/23/entretien-avec-l%E2%80%99honorable-depute-joachim-dahissiho-%C2%AB-je-quitte-le-g13-parce-que-les-objectifs-du-groupe-sont-atteints-%C2%BB/ , https://www.24haubenin.info/?Joachim-Dahissiho-parle-des , https://lanationbenin.info/actualite-politique-nationale-l-honorable-joachim-dahissiho-rompt-le-silence/ , http://fpconference.org/2013/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/EPF-Delegation-2013-ICFP-Addis-Ababa-12-15-November-2013-Report.pdf , https://books.google.at/books?id=TSUzAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA58 , https://books.google.at/books?id=kt55DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA60 This would have come up if the nominator had looked for alternative sources, before posting AfD --Soman (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources dug up by Soman show that this person served in the Beninese National Assembly, and therefore he passes NPOL. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NPOL as deputy in National Assembly. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NPOL Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Beninese National Assembly. I note to the closer that after those sources appeared showing the subject was a member of the Assembly, no votes of delete have been added. --Enos733 (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PRFI Ltd

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

Poorly-sourced promo piece (with likely COI issues) about a non-notable company, fails WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP, likely product of COI/UPE. Also suggest looking into Plextek and Plextek RF Integration, both of which seem to fail NCORP as well, created or heavily edited by the same author and part of the same group of companies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have sent both to AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plextek RF Integration and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plextek. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing interesting to see here (except level 1 heading misuse). Just a basic business offerings broschure; nobody outside the company cares about it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Niceguylucky (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails our high standards for companies, found at NCORP Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jermaine Williams (American football)

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

only 1 good source, and is non notable. New3400 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. New3400 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. New3400 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appeared in multiple games for multiple NFL teams, thus satisfies WP:NGRIDIRON. Deletion isn't cleanup. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 14:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Etzedek24, wasn't he a bench player for most of his career? i hardly find that notable. New3400 (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He started a few games for the Chiefs, per his PFR page. Regardless, WP:NGRIDIRON is clear: American football/Canadian football players and head coaches are presumed notable if they have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the 1960s American Football League, the All-America Football Conference, the United States Football League. He clearly satisfies the relevant notability guideline, it's just a matter of improving his article. I might suggest withdrawing this as to quickly resolve the issue since he clearly satisfies NGRIDIRON. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep overwhelmingly passes WP:NGRIDIRON - ProFootballReference shows that he appeared in 44 professional games in the National Football League over five seasons.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a straight-up pass of WP:NGRIDIRON #1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on keep - clearly passes NGRIDIRON per PFR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just fixed the page. I added the citations needed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON. — csc^-1 22:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NGRIDIRON. It's true that what's in the article doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG, but I find it hard to believe additional sources aren't out there. Papaursa (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5-year NFL veterans don't belong at AfD. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC) procedural close. A number of the participants below have since been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, so vacating my close to allow an immediate re-nomination given the original discussion was not clean. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Starr

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

Beining on a couple of dirty dozen pages doesn't seem the basis on which to base a blp. Nothing else here that comes close to a gng or ent pass and blp should be better than this. Awards are no longer a free pass to notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I believe she's actually notable. The CNBC reference lists her as one of the most popular porn stars of 2013. She's also interviewed in Pornography Feminism, which is explicit but also includes biographical information during an interview. She's also been the subject of multiple, if small, independent news stories, as well as having been quoted. For example. She was notable enough where she was a face of the industry to the media outside of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish, she does appear to be notable in her field. She also had some newspaper coverage after an appearance in Australia (1, 2, 3) one (the first link provided) even went as far to call her "one of the world's most famous porn stars." So that along with the CNBC article, there are independent sources outside of the porn industry implying notability and enough non-trivial coverage to pass the GNG in my opinion. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject seems to passes GNG. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources clearly establish her notability as a notable porn star.Fatzaof (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is not nearly at the level to pass the actual criteria of GNG. Interviews never count towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Udesh Wijesuriya

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

Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bimal Jayasekera

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

Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romesh Jayasinghe

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

Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject's only notability derives from playing in a single cricket match. While that it enough to get over the extremely low bar of the relevant subject-specific notability guideline, the subject also has to pass the GNG, and it's very unlikely that they got that much coverage from one cricket match. Hut 8.5 12:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with HUT. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Cramar

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

Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject's only notability derives from playing in a single cricket match. While that is enough to get over the extremely low bar of the relevant subject-specific notability guideline, the subject also has to pass the GNG, and it's very unlikely that they got that much coverage from one cricket match. Nor will it be possible to expand the article from its current very short state. Hut 8.5 12:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with HUT. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Cade

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

Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A thoroughgoing failure of all notability guidelines and rules. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, playing for one of the minor counties does not meet this standard; in addition Cade's solitary LA match was against a cricket board side, further confirming the lower standard of the match. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in local routine cricket reports, and inclusion in the usual wide-ranging databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to revisiting in the future if more (reliable) sources are uncovered that demonstrate passing of WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Camplin

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

Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A wholly non-notable figure in the context of Wikipedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More likely to be notable for his extensive minor counties career than 2 LA matches (NOTE: none of these matches meet the "highest domestic level" standard defined by NCRIC); article refocussed accordingly. Any significant coverage is likely to be in offline sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cricket player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don Somasiri

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

Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable cricketer Rondolinda (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilson (Cumberland cricketer)

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

Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly non-notable; even on a specialist Fandom site he would only merit a cursory mention. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable cricketer. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did not play at a high enough level to meet notability. Dunarc (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devoke water 10:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Ramachandra

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

Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search brought up nothing that would contribute to a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Abrams

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him notable. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but passing mentions at junior/youth level (e.g. school & university cricket reports), and inclusion in wide ranging databases. Solitary appearance in a F-C match (with little involvement) is not enough to suggest significant coverage exists. Fails GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Butt

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gaia (2019 film)

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

PROD concern was Does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. While this might look like a good source, it is clearly marked as a press release. This film received no significant coverage or published reviews. The awards received are not major enough to satisfy criterion 3 of NFILM. and was endorsed by User:Donaldd23 and User:Kolma8.

PROD removed without providing a reason nor addressing any of the NFILM or GNG concerns presented. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails both GNG and NFILM. I have researched the received awards, IMO, those are not major. That + no significant coverage means fails WP criteria for a stand alone article. Kolma8 (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~wEAk sPEedY~~ deLeTE per kolma8.--Alcremie (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:NFILM. --Ashley yoursmile! 12:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 06:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jitender Mehra

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remember the good old days when AfD debates such as the original for this article were populated by people who cared for the cricket project? Of course not, nobody who sends cricket articles for deletion in those days was around back then when they could easily have been finding sources for themselves. Bobo . 21:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him notable. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers - no evidence that he passes GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as notability is not evident. Bobo192 makes a curious point in reference to the original AfD over 10 years ago, and although there was a slight keep pile-on back then, I don't see any evidence that notability has been established in the time passed. Although observing the guidelines set out per WP:CRIN, I don't see how this article could be developed or determine the subject as being notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The odd thing is that, unlike many others which have been put forward for deletion, this player has played within (most of) our lifetimes. I wonder if this makes it more possible that print sources are available to those who have access to archives. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but of all the articles put up to AfD, this is probably the least appropriate player to make this argument for. This guy has played within our lifetimes. Bobo . 11:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't totally out of the question that print/book sources may exist, but simply assuming they do doesn't mean they do. I vote weakly as I take the points mentioned that there is a "possibility" that notability may be there, but it isn't proven and there is no evidence based on available material. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to make this argument however many people throw arguments against WP:PRESUME or others at me. Bobo . 11:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forgot to make this comment all that time ago, but at least a "Players by team" article exists for this time. Bobo . 11:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe instead of lamenting that no editor has added sources since the nomination we should remark that no editor has added one single significant reference in the >9.5 years since this was nominated the first time. For that little effort, there's nothing worth WP:PRESERVEing. One reference to a bare database entry fulfills neither WP:NCRIC nor WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Le Strip

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ORG and the WP:SIRS required for an private organization. Couldn't find a single independent significant RS coverage let alone multiple required for notability. The article was deprodded by the creator. Roller26 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. In-depth coverage on ProQuest: ProQuest 211513430, ProQuest 436466328, ProQuest 224861852. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A-Reece. The only "delete" vote was expressed weakly and the sole "keep" noted contentious sources. Article history will remain if better sources can be found. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From Me to You & Only You

AfDs for this article:

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

This barely meets our notability guidelines. No chart placings and sources are unreliable Xclusivzik (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Needs better sourcing, but wouldn't take much to improve. Take to draft? Lirazelf (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources indicated in the previous AfD are reliable. Too bad no one bothered to improve the article and add them after the previous AfD was closed. I also found a couple more reliable sources which talk about the album: [24] and [25]. It's also discussed in this listicle. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is a four-line introduction to a link to stream the album, the second is a collective blog that doesn't pass WP:RS. Of the sources in the previous AfD, Unorthodox Reviews is also a blog... I'm not sure about the other two at the moment. Richard3120 (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A-Reece#Discography. The sources are unreliable, there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, plus no chartings, certifications, or accolades. Clearly fails WP:NALBUMS. --Ashley yoursmile! 12:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A-Reece. Sources are unreliable. Not much information for a standalone article. If this page is re-created, then it should be protected. HĐ (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yared Negu

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

Currently only sourced with primary sourcing, no in-depth coverage. Searches did not turn up anything either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good luck to him as he gets started, but he has not yet progressed beyond minor promotions created by himself or his management, who are the only parties calling him a "leading" voice of his generation. Wait for someone else to say it first. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is called as a "leading voices among Ethiopia’s emerging generation" by non Ethiopian owned media, coca-cola.co.ug. There is no ground to say it is "created by himself or his management". It is better to have a discussion regarding to the WP:Policy. - Yitbe ^A-21 06:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CocaCola site is just advertising, not music journalism. Note all the puffery like "hit maker" (with no evidence of reaching any official charts}, "heartthrob", "eye-catching", "much anticipated" album (with no news sources mentioning such anticipation or that the album is even in production), or "accolades" (from a little-known awards ceremony). None of that adds up to "leading". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage of him seems to be in advertising. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jamie Lynn Spears and protect. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Spears

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

Article is being repeatedly redirected and restored. Listing for consensus on whether this should be kept as a BLP or redirected noting WP:INHERIT. Is the father if Britney Spears independently notable given appearance in recent news events? Polyamorph (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - notability is not inherited, and there is nothing that is not based on his relationship with his daughter. After redirection, protect from recreation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I would have agreed with the above until quite recently, but he seems to have become a public figure in his own right because of the controversy about the conservatorship, which has resulted in the public spotlight becoming focused on him as an individual. (See any news search for his name today.) If this turns out to be wrong, the article can always be re-merged into the Britney Spears article. -- The Anome (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect redirect this to Britney Spears because he's not notable enough to receive his own article and inherits much of notability from his daughter and events around the two. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The sole narrative of WP:SIGCOV of this individual is in the context of his daughter's estate. This is in the spirit of WP:BLP1E, if not the literal interpretation. I don't find any significant coverage of him otherwise. If there is future coverage that is not just about Britney or the conservatorship, the redirect can easily be reverted and a proper biography filled in. Schazjmd (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- comment having seen Lowellian's suggestion, I don't have a strong opinion on whether it should redirect to Britney or Jamie Lynn. I don't know if most readers would be searching for the father (WP:RECENTISM) or the daughter when searching for "jamie spears". Schazjmd (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamie Lynn Spears, not Britney Spears. Jamie Lynn Spears is more notable than her father, and "Jamie Spears" in public discourse commonly referred to her until recent news, and the father should not be overemphasized due to WP:RECENTISM. We can then add a hatlink to the Jamie Lynn Spears article pointing to Britney Spears for those looking for the father's conservatorship role. —Lowellian (reply) 00:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamie Lynn Spears per above; once the buzz around the documentary dies down this should be far more clear-cut a decision. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War of Kosovo: 2033

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

non-notable game, release is nearly a year away, hasn't received any coverage (and no, reddit hype doesn't count) CUPIDICAE💕 11:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Zero hits in WP:VG/SE. IceWelder [✉] 11:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON, no significant coverage found. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage at this time, and the prose reads like a promotional press release outlining upcoming seasons. Even if kept it would need significant cleanup. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DZMC

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

Non-notable college radio station. The callsign belongs to a station based in Tarlac per 2011 listing and 2020 listing by the NTC. I tried to do a copy-paste move on that page, but it was declined. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this meets WP:NORG/WP:NMEDIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Future Nostalgia. WP:TOOSOON applies. Fails WP:NALBUM also. (non-admin closure) HĐ (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition

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

This page could easily be merged into the Future Nostalgia article, as it does not have enough information to stand on its own. Due Lipa's first album has various editions, too, including a re-issue called Complete Edition, and we also didn't make a separate article for that version of the album. Sricsi (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per how it stands right now, Delete. If there are more reliable sources that can establish the notability of the article in the future, yeah. But right now it looks like redundancy. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - this has been created WP:TOOSOON and speculatively. There are tonnes of albums that have re-releases. Future Nostalgia has many re-releases but there is not enough information to ascertain that this version of the album is going to get 'x' amount of coverage to warrant an independent article. If in the end, the chart positions and sales are counted towards a single listing for Future Nostalgia, then absolutely a separate article is not warranted. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Merge - I agree with what User:Sricsi said! I think for now we should merge it to the Future Nostalgia page. Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Future Nostalgia -- WP:TOOSOON applies. Article may be good in the future, but not now. HĐ (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - it's a plausible search term, but otherwise, we generally just cover deluxe edition re-releases within the already existing album article. No need for a split. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Future Nostalgia - I would have assumed this would pass the notability threshold with album reviews, but as it currently stands, this should be merged into the main article (WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:TOOSOON).--N Ø 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. It's just a reissue. There is no article for Lipa's Dua Lipa: Complete Edition for example. --Kuatrero (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Future Nostalgia - WP:TOOSOON. --Ashley yoursmile! 11:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Future Nostalgia. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Future Nostalgia. Enough said. --Mediafanatic17 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Future Nostalgia per above. Maybe it will gain notability in the future. LOVI 33 17:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Future Nostalgia for reasons listed above. As well, I’d like it if there was a section in the article dedicated to the moonlight edition, with its own Infobox and everything. That would save a lot of confusion with the main Infobox. D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 20:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ Since the decision is quite clear, can we close this early? --Sricsi (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I want to close this (non-admin closure), I think those who voted could not close. Pinging some coordinators could help. HĐ (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Given an overwhelming consensus to merge/redirect, I shall close this as a non-admin as it is not controversial at all.~~ Just notice the AFD needs seven days before proceeding. Let's wait. HĐ (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aryann Bhowmik

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

This page does not have enough news article. DasSoumik (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Possibly a bad nomination, has appeared in several shows. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, another one that meets WP:NACTOR as Bhowmik has had significant roles in multiple notable films. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - comfortably meets NACTOR, if you want the article to be improved but aren't sure how to do so, it might be worth starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers or Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. AfD isn't the place for this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ushasie Chakraborty

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

Not enough news article. DasSoumik (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made revisions and added more sources to this article, and per WP:NACTOR, Chakraborty "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films," including but not limited to her role as Satyabati in Anjan Dutt's film adaptations of Byomkesh Bakshi, and she has a significant role in the television show Sreemoyee. Based on the sources that were in the article and the ones I have added, Chakraborty appears to meet WP:GNG; the news coverage over the past decade also extends beyond her acting career and includes her academic studies and personal/political/family life; it also appears that additional sources are likely to exist, per WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rescue described above, Sadads (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets NACTOR as explained above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Banerjee (actor)

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

This page have not enough news article. So this should be deleted. DasSoumik (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do get the above, but there are films he has starred in with articles here. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Niceguylucky (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Media portrayals of bisexuality. Consensus is against keeping. It's up to editors to determine whether and what to merge. Sandstein 10:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of media portrayals of bisexuality

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

Completely redundant to other articles (WP:REDUNDANTFORK), especially Media portrayals of bisexuality and List of fictional bisexual characters (and its sublists) which are much more sourced than this is. This is a complete mess, being almost entirely unsourced and made up of original research (probably slashfic/fanfiction-type wishful thinking behind more than a few of the entries that have accreted over the years; actual quote from one entry: "Bisexuality simple fact") and has been tagged for OR and lack of sources for over 5 years. Of the very few that are sourced, many are from unreliable sources. It would need WP:TNT even if it were a valid topic, which it's not since, as I said, this is completely covered better by many other articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; low-quality and entirely redundant. (Unrelated, boy is that a lot of discussion categories.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Media_portrayals_of_bisexuality. My second choice will be to delete.

I am not sure WHY there should be a list like this? Why is just having Media_portrayals_of_bisexuality#Film or Media_portrayals_of_bisexuality#Television not enough? Any compelling arguments? Another point is that it competes with other lists, such as, for instance, List_of_graphic_art_works_with_LGBT_characters or List_of_dramatic_television_series_with_LGBT_characters:_1970s–2000s. Of course every bisexuality-related list will be within a correspondent LGBT(Q) list for obvious reason. Any historical knowledge how a similar problem was dealt in the past?

Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kolma8, that is why I am proposing it be merged with the List of fictional bisexual characters page. I think there is value in the entries, but I also don't want duplication either. Kolma8, I also agree with your suggestion to change the page into a redirect if the merger with the List of fictional bisexual characters is not possible. Historyday01 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets WP:CLN WP:AOAL as a navigation list. Article is too large to fit well into another article and will certainly grow. // Timothy :: talk 08:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that we already have such a list at List of fictional bisexual characters, which sends readers to many sublists as well. Those pages actually have been trying to exercise quality control. This is therefore a crappy fork. "Growing" is the problem here. This unsourced junk shouldn't be fit anywhere (the aforementioned list articles are made up of sublists). Crossroads ^-talk- 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with the argument by Timothy Blue more than the argument by Vaticidalprophet, as I would not say it is "low-quality and entirely redundant." However, I would say it shares a lot with the List of fictional bisexual characters page, so I would propose that it be merged with that page. Historyday01 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The entries that are not reliably sourced should not be copied anywhere but deleted, per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR. I know for a fact that many of them are false with no sources for them; I already deleted one as an example. Some of the entries here are WP:PRIMARY sourced, which is also bad because OR is often involved in interpreting the primary source. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already copied them to a sandbox, as I was planning to go through them all, but I'm really only talking about the reliably-sourced entries here and think they could easily be merged with the List of fictional bisexual characters and turned into a redirect to that page. Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just be sure that the only ones kept are the ones that reliable sources identify as definitely and canonically bisexual. A source talking about fan speculation or saying 'we want them to be' is not enough. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. Today I moved all the reliable sourced entries to the List of fictional bisexual characters and newly created List of bisexual characters in television page, while all the other entries are sitting in one of my sandboxes and I'm going through them one by one, adding them (if there is a reliable source) to the appropriate list page. That's my plan at least. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as complicated, and I'm referring to the video game portion. A list like this is very debatable; in a lot of these games, the choice is optional. In some video games, like those choose-your-own-adventure games on mobile devices, they give you the option of being in a relationship with either man or woman because they have no way to determine either what your gender or preference is. In these cases, it would be the player being bisexual, not the character or game. P anini ^🥪 14:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:OR magnet. Some of the listed items are clearly under LGBTQ umbrella, but listing them bi on the basis of some OR (as in: not a reference in sight) claiming that the characters are portrayed fluid... as if. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and clean-up I honestly think the list article is better than Media portrayals of bisexuality, and the list should be kept with the other article merged into it (refs specifically, where available). It needs some clean-up, but it's valuable; indeed, it is more valuable than the not-list article, which is mostly a prose list without any clear encyclopedic discussion of the portrayals and different importance given to certain characters/shows that seems to come from editor bias of their favorites. I.e. just having the list is serving the same function and much more NPOV. I also think the list serves a distinct purpose to the List of fictional bisexual characters - that list is of characters that either self-identify as bisexual or have been identified by outside parties to be bisexual, while the portrayals list is broader to include portrayals of bisexual identification as well as non-identified bisexual behavior and various fictional bisexual characters, i.e. those (especially in old works and recent "woke" works) that don't use labels but are clearly still important representation. It needs clean-up; everything without a ref should at least be hidden for now, and "fluid" is a dubious category. But it's the better article of the "media portrayals of" ones. Kingsif (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree on that point. I would say that it would be better to move the entries on the existing list which have reliable sources in the List of fictional bisexual characters, then turn the page into a redirect. As for the Media portrayals of bisexuality page, it clearly needs work and that is going to be one of the next pages I'm going to try and improve, section by section. Historyday01 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bisexual characters and media portrayals of bisexuality are distinct categories, did you not manage to comprehend my comment? If any of the three should be deleted, it should be Media portrayals of bisexuality. It's a NPOV nightmare that has no more useful content than the list, and is much harder to read. Since it's much easier to make and keep the list clean, that's what should be done, no questions. You're right we don't need all three, and the lists are more valuable, but distinct enough to keep both. Kingsif (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your comment. I agree with you that "Bisexual characters and media portrayals of bisexuality are distinct categories" which is why I would argue that the Media portrayals of bisexuality should be kept (albeit thoroughly cleaned up to be much better, so it isn't a "NPOV nightmare" as you point out), while the List of media portrayals of bisexuality can be turned into a redirect to the List of fictional bisexual characters page after all the entries with reliable sources are moved from the main page. This would reduce redundancy between the two pages. And the fact that the unsourced entries won't be there anymore shouldn't be a concern, as I've already copied all of that to a sandbox and am planning on going through every entry, adding a source (if there is one), then adding it to the List of fictional bisexual characters or any other relevant page. I'd further say that the List of fictional bisexual characters and Media portrayals of bisexuality pages have value, although the latter is couched by what I said earlier. I agree with you that the lists are valuable, but I'd also say that analysis pages, when done right, can be valuable too. Historyday01 (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on I think everything in this comment. Kingsif (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how media portrayals are meaningfully different from characters. Portrayals of bisexuality are portrayals of bisexual (behaviorally) characters. We need RS identifying the characters as bisexual/engaging in bisexuality regardless of exact title. The better one's lead can be modified if needed; however, the sourcing standard has to be the same no matter the title, and "non-identified bisexual behavior" is an invitation to commit OR because some fans see almost anything as bisexual behavior. My main point is that we don't need or want two 'lists of bisexuality in fiction', and the one that should be deleted is the one that is mostly OR. As for the prose "media portrayals" page, whatever work that needs is a separate matter. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with you that the media portrayals page needs work, but I would say that rather than deleting the list, it should be turned into a redirect to the List of fictional bisexual characters page. Historyday01 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we don't need or want two 'lists of bisexuality in fiction' - then merge them into different lists in the same article, with clear referencing needs and an appropriately broad title. the prose "media portrayals" page, whatever work that needs is a separate matter - it's not a separate matter since it's nothing more than a prose, NPOV, version of the list. If you want to argue the list is pointless, so is the prose article; if it isn't, then one of them is redundant. Some form of merging, no deleting, is necessary and the clear solution, and obviously everything needs references to avoid fanwank and OR - nobody is disputing that. But I highly question your knowledge of anything relating to queer media if you genuinely don't see how media portrayals are meaningfully different from characters. Characters are, in the material, identified explicitly with a label. The label of bisexual is recent, to the last few decades. Yet there are many works of fiction before then with characters which portray bisexuality and are important representation. It's also possible to have characters that explicitly aren't bisexual and still portray bisexuality; take homosexual characters that had heterosexual relationships before coming out. The two are distinct, and both significant. Kingsif (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My "knowledge of anything relating to queer media" says that when it comes to "many works of fiction before then with characters which portray bisexuality", if there are sources so identifying them, the same entry can be put in the other list(s). It's the same thing as is done for real historical persons. If the character/person was not called "bisexual" in their own time, but is now considered so by the sources, then it counts. As for the latter example, there of course still needs sources calling that bisexuality (which may not be done in some such scenarios for the reason that it contradicts their true orientation), so we're again back in the same spot - it can go in the other list as a (behaviorally) bisexual character. A media portrayal of bisexuality is a bisexual character, even if how they ended up on the relevant list isn't from saying "I'm bisexual" but from consistently being identified as such by reliable sources. That's already how the other list works. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, on a related note, that I am currently working on completely revamping the Media portrayals of bisexuality page and will be done in a couple days. I'm trying to base it around either GLAAD reports or other sources which mention important bisexuals, rather than the current format. I'm planning on doing the same thing for the Media portrayal of lesbianism page and the Media portrayals of transgender people page too. Just have to do one page at a time. Historyday01 (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, Crossroads, what you want is actually a merge. The List of bisexual characters currently explicitly excludes those that are not labeled bisexual, even with sources. So my suggestion to create different lists in the same article with a broader title (the "portrayals of bisexuality" would be suitably broad for both, in fact) for all the sourced entries is actually what you seem to want. You're still infuriatingly mistaken by saying A media portrayal of bisexuality is a bisexual character. No, no it isn't. And that incorrect assumption will be perpetuated if editors like you insist on conflating them in lists. Kingsif (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kingsif on that point. A media portrayal is not necessarily a character. There can be bisexual series, music, film, etc. That is the limit of a page only focused on characters. Historyday01 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional bisexual characters opens by saying, This is a list of fictional characters that either self-identify as bisexual or have been identified by outside parties to be bisexual. (emphasis added). I don't see how it excludes anything. And despite any possible difference in the names, this is a de facto character list anyway. The concept of a "bisexual series" and the like seems very fuzzy and like an OR magnet, and I consider it unlikely there are sources that call a series but none of its characters bisexual, but if that did occur that can be discussed in the prose "media portrayals" article. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fictional characters list only includes fictional characters. In terms of a bisexual series, there would need to be reliable sourcing that such a series is out there, which I imagine exists. I'm saying that bisexual representation goes beyond just the characters. The characters list is fine, but there is also a place for a analysis page too which shows how that representation changes over time. Historyday01 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. At this point it's the same as listing "media portrayals of coffee shops", in other words it appears too often for a list to be necessary. It's also far too much of a magnet for original research as opposed to actual confirmed bisexual characters._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But, Zxcvbnm, would you support turning the page into a redirect to the List of fictional bisexual characters page? I think this page largely duplicates that one, at least in subject, since it has "actual confirmed bisexual characters" and is not indiscriminate. Historyday01 (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The names are like apples and oranges; a redirect seems totally unnecessary, if not confusing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also note that even though Historyday says they have moved all sourced entries to List of fictional bisexual characters, this list does not include any characters from comics, podcasts, television, and other media. It's incomplete, so even if people can't get their head around the fact portrayal of bisexuality is not the same as a bisexual character (first example to come to mind: Kissing Jessica Stein is a movie about a woman trying to work out if she's bisexual and decides she isn't, but it's certainly bisexual canon), a merge at least is damn necessary. Kingsif (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comics and podcasts, the few that are reliably sourced, can still just go in List of fictional bisexual characters (also, those podcasts appear to be non-notable and primary-sourced; don't we avoid listing non-notable media because pretty soon you end up listing random personal webpages?). There's also List of graphic art works with LGBT characters, which isn't bisexual-specific and needs work, but does cover the comics topic. Television is absolutely covered at List of bisexual characters in television, which was probably size-split from the general list in the past and is linked from the lead. Kissing Jessica Stein can go in Media portrayals of bisexuality (it's in the current list as depicting "fluid" bisexuality, which is of course unsourced). Crossroads ^-talk- 23:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, let me say that the List of fictional bisexual characters does have sections for "graphic novels" and "webcomics," which I would say comprises comics. As for podcasts, they are currently on the List of LGBT characters in radio and podcasts page (split from the aforementioned list page), with other LGBTQ characters, and the television characters are on their own specific page (List of bisexual characters in television), as are anime (List of bisexual characters in anime) and Western animation characters (List of bisexual characters in animation). But, yes, you are right that the fictional bisexual characters page is "incomplete" in the way you pointed out, and a merge makes sense. So, Crossroads, comics can definitely be incorporated into the List of fictional bisexual characters, while podcasts can go into the page I previously mentioned. And yes, there is a List of graphic art works with LGBT characters which definitely "needs work," and I'd like to also mention the List of webcomics with LGBT characters too, which includes bisexual and other LGBTQ characters. So, yes, you are right that "television is absolutely covered at List of bisexual characters in television." And yes, it was "size-split from the general list" (originally from a page titled "LGBT characters in television and radio" (now called the "List of LGBT characters in radio and podcasts"). But, sure Kissing Jessica Stein can go in Media portrayals of bisexuality, but it is an example of something which is a portrayal which isn't a character. And again, sourcing of these pages is important. Historyday01 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, there's a lot of articles that probably need a MAIN or some navigation template, and a lot of clean-up, and just proposing to delete one of them is no help at all. If Historyday has copied all the current text into a draft (if not, I will) then we can at least start moving and merging, pruning examples. Nobody here wants to keep all the unsourced "fluid" or "fans interpret" examples, but there's enough good material to fix. It wouldn't even need TNT because it's a list. You can hide items so easily while working on it. Kingsif (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The title/concept is redundant and the content is unacceptable. That's why it's been nominated. Most (perhaps all) of the would-be legit entries are already covered better in the good lists, and the rest can be. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif, I have actually moved all the text, apart from some entries I already moved to other pages, into a sandbox for now, so examples can be pruned there as you put it. Historyday01 (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titoo – Har Jawaab Ka Sawaal Hu

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

There are three articles on this topic, this one in mainspace and two in drafts: Draft:Titoo - Har Jawab Ka Sawal Hu and Draft:Titoo – Har Jawaab Ka Sawaal Hu. This article should be deleted, it's a substub and not ready for mainspace, this will make way for the more developed of the two draft articles to be moved; the other draft should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirects and copy/paste content moves have been created. It appears the article history is here, its behind a acouple of redirects. // Timothy :: talk 10:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a better version at Titoo - Har Jawaab Ka Sawaal Hu (different dash). Move/re-redirect/merge as necessary? --Finngall ^talk 16:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Yes, I think the original page history is here [26] from Nov 2020. I don't think the subject is notable (at this time), coverage all looks promo, so deleting/redirecting it all might be the consensus. Hope the closing admin has a good mop. // Timothy :: talk 20:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all mainspace versions. This sort of duplication of draft content is unseemly, and the topic has not yet been demonstrated to be notable. BD2412 T 06:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus - no prejudice against filing another AfD. Basically, the points made between everyone cancel each other out. I don't think there's going to be an agreement on this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HealthTap

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

Minimal, announcement-oriented coverage in reliable sources. The NYT coverage is actually VentureBeat. Nearly everything cited is a routine business announcement or not a reliable source, and the article only documents the company's existence. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. FalconK (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:36, 3 February 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, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-01 Ron Gutman ✗ delete

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Stross, Randall (2012-02-04). "Advice for the Ill, and Points for the Doctors". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
  The article includes criticism of the company: "HealthTap requires only that its physicians be licensed in the United States and in good standing — that is, not accused of malfeasance. Lamentably, it does not use board certification to establish a floor for qualifications required for physicians to participate. ... Another worrisome aspect is the breeziness of HealthTap’s answers, which are limited to 400 characters, a length hardly well-suited for providing nuanced answers to some medical questions. ... Dr. Peter W. Carmel, president of the American Medical Association, says he is concerned about the use of online medical information, which should “complement, not replace, the communication between a patient and their physician,” he wrote in an e-mail."
2. Temple, James (2014-07-30). "HealthTap Turns to Telemedicine, but Will Consumers Pay?". Recode. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06 – via Vox.
  The article includes critical analysis about HealthTap: "I’m dubious that loads of consumers will be willing to pay that much, especially on top of existing insurance premiums, given the limitations of mobile medicine. Doctors can only prescribe certain drugs remotely, while blood tests and other diagnostics still require in-person visits. Telemedicine makes perfect sense in and of itself, especially for relatively healthy people who only need to check in with their doctors occasionally and don’t want the hassle of physically getting to a clinic. But HealthTap’s rivals in the space are generally charging less, at least for the basic level of these services."
3. Lapowsky, Issie (2014-07-30). "HealthTap's Video Chatting Doctors Want to End Your WebMD Meltdowns". Wired. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
4. Thomas, Rob; McSharry, Patrick (2015). Big Data Revolution: What farmers, doctors and insurance agents teach us about discovering big data patterns. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-94372-4. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
  The book notes: "HealthTap is building a patient-focused health information service, starting with a mobile application that anyone can run on most any device. For a patient, the experience is simple: Tap a button, ask a question, get an answer. Behind the scenes, HealthTap is processing vast datasets, using machine-learning, natural language processing, and voice recognition, to find answers to the questions that are asked. It's almost like having a doctor in your pocket, anytime you need her. There are currently over 55,000 doctors using the application and providing answers. Like any network, as the users (patients and doctors) increase, the value of the network increases, often exponentially."
5. Olson, Parmy (2014-07-30). "HealthTap Offers Uber-Like Service For Seeing A Doctor". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
  The article notes, "HealthTap is best known for its question and answer website, where consumers can submit questions limited to 150 characters, answered by a pool of 60,000 doctors from across the U.S. That service has 10 million active users and is free with no ads. Prime is how HealthTap could start making money."
6. Schleifer, Theodore (2018-05-01). "The CEO of a health startup backed by Eric Schmidt and top VCs has been fired amid allegations he intimidated employees. "This leaves us with no choice but to fire you," the letter to HealthTap CEO Ron Gutman reads". Recode. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06 – via Vox.
7. Henry, Alan (2011-09-27). "HealthTap Express Puts a Doctor on Your Smartphone, Ready to Answer Questions". Lifehacker. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
8. Henry, Alan (2012-06-28). "HealthTap Puts a Doctor On Your Smartphone, Helps You Find a Good One to See In Person". Lifehacker. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
9. Mukherjee, Sy (2017-01-10). "You Can Now Download an Artificial Intelligence Doctor". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
10. Ferenstein, Greg (2012-04-03). "HealthTap Uncovers The Secret Knowledge Network Of Doctors, Online". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
11. Eddy, Nathan (2016-08-16). "HealthTap Unveils Virtual Consult With Live Translators". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
12. Heussner, Ki Mae (2013-10-30). "Doctor Q&A site HealthTap wants to give patients a Siri-like way to access health info". Gigaom. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
13. Kolawole, Emi (2012-09-25). "Medical app HealthTap launches feature that lets doctors translate medical research for the masses". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
14. Lazzaro, Sage (2014-11-19). "HealthTap Now Uses Artificial Intelligence to Offer Personalized Medical Information". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
15. Hamblin, James (November 2014). "The Doctor That Never Sleeps. How will telemedicine shape the future of patient-doctor relationships?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
16. Rochman, Bonnie (2011-04-19). "A New Health Site in Beta Testing for Pregnant Women, New Moms". Time. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow HealthTap to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I note that Cunard is using the GNG as the applicable guidelines to decide on notability and not WP:NCORP which is for organizations/companies. Also, as per the clear consensus at this recent RfC from Jan 2021 (which is to decide wording to describe *current* practice), it acknowledges the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organisations and companies. In summary, references that rely on "echo chamber" information/opinions/etc (i.e. articles that rely entirely on information provided in announcements, quotations, interviews, partners, financial data, etc) fail the criteria for establishing notability.

There are two primary sections within NCORP that are applicable. WP:CORPDEPTH requires Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization and WP:ORGIND requires "Independent content" which is described as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

Assuming that Cunard put his best references at the start, I'll focus on the first five. In summary, *all* of the above references fail the criteria for establishing notability.

1. NYT has no Independent Content. The quotation about physicians being licensed and in good standing is directly attributable to the company. The quotation from the president of the American Medical Association makes no mention of this company and there's no indication that his comment is directed at this company and not the industry in general.

2. Vox reference is based on a company announcements and preview of an update to their product version including pricing. While there is an opinion provided by the journalist, the reference does not provide any in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH

3 Wired reference is based entirely on an interview with Ron Gutman ,a founder of the company, and information/statistics provided by the company. It is an echo-chamber article and fails WP:ORGIND.

4 Book reference provides a very short overview of Healthtap but it is neither in-depth nor significant. It also fails to provide any Independent content as it is merely reciting facts and data about the company which were provided by the company (e.g. the statements about using machine-learning, NLP and voice recognition, the number of doctors on the platform, etc).

5. The Forbes reference is from the "sites" section but was written by a staff member. That section of the website is widely acknowledged as not having editorial oversight and fails WP:RS. The reference itself relies entirely on a "demo" provided by the company founder, fails WP:ORGIND.

References fail WP:NCORP (the applicable guideline for companies/organizations), topic fails the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: HealthTap passes both Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. The sources I provided meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says:
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
The New York Times article has substantial analysis about the company. It writes (my bolding), "HealthTap requires only that its physicians be licensed in the United States and in good standing — that is, not accused of malfeasance. Lamentably, it does not use board certification to establish a floor for qualifications required for physicians to participate". This is direct criticism from the journalist about HealthTap's deficiencies. Another quote from the article is (my bolding) "Another worrisome aspect is the breeziness of HealthTap’s answers, which are limited to 400 characters, a length hardly well-suited for providing nuanced answers to some medical questions." This is further criticism and analysis of the company from The New York Times. It is incorrect to say "NYT has no Independent Content."
The Vox article provides substantial criticism of the company: "I’m dubious that loads of consumers will be willing to pay that much" and "But HealthTap’s rivals in the space are generally charging less, at least for the basic level of these services."
The Wired article provides substantial analysis. It notes (my bolding), "Then there's the price. At $99 a month, the service is cheaper than the average monthly cost of insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and yet, it's still a substantial amount to pay on top of insurance." It also notes (my bolding), "For many patients, empathy, bedside manner, and understanding are some of the most important traits for any physician. ... Building that unprecedented level of comfort is a challenge HealthTap, and indeed, the rest of the telehealth industry, will have to overcome."
The book provides roughly 200 words of coverage about the company under a heading titled "HealthTap". It provides an overview of the company's work so meets the "deep or significant coverage" requirement of the guideline.
Regarding "The Forbes reference is from the "sites" section but was written by a staff member. That section of the website is widely acknowledged as not having editorial oversight and fails WP:RS." – every article under https://www.forbes.com/ is under the "sites" section, regardless of whether it's written by a staff member or a contributor. To say that the "sites" section "is widely acknowledged as not having editorial oversight and fails WP:RS" for both staff members and contributors is incorrect. Only the contributor articles lack editorial oversight. All staff articles do have editorial oversight. The article provides an overview of a HealthTap offering. It includes independent research such as noting that there are "cheaper" services like HealthTap: "While there are other, sometimes cheaper, “telemedicine” services out there like LifeHealth Online and American Well, Gutman says he’s trying to build a marketplace for doctors that's a little Amazon."
Cunard (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Cunard, the references must pass *all* of the criteria in NCORP, you can't just pluck s couple and then say the sources pass. You haven't addresses the fact that once the articles are held up against ORGIND, you're left with one or two comments here and there - and those comments don't amount to in-depth coverage.

For example, you've picked two sentences from the New York Times article where the journalist voices an opinion. But that's it, there's nothing else remaining in the article once you discard those parts that are attributable to the company. The sentence starting with Lamentably is followed by The company says... so the fact about the licensing of physicians is attributable to the company and the *only* independent content is the journalist repeating this fact and preceding the sentence with "Lamentably". The comment on "Another worrisome aspect" isn't even about the company but about their app. Having one or two bare "opinions" with no in-depth commentary or discussion on those opinions does not pass CORPDEPTH.

The same criticism can be leveled at the Vox article - the article is based entirely on a company announcement and we get one single sentence where the journalist expresses one single opinion on his doubt that consumers will be willing to pay. There's nothing else. That is not enough to pass CORPDEPTH.

The same criticism applies to the Wired article. It is en interview, all the information about the company originates from company sources and the $99 per month opinion formed part of the interview itself and the executive responded. Taking a single comment out of context, as you've done, is a misleading practice.

You claim that all of those sources meet the criteria for Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization but when you remove the information provided by the company from the articles, there is barely anything remaining other than the odd sentence here or there that you've highlighted. The purpose of CORPDEPTH is that the *journalist* has to provide the information, not simply write down exactly the information the company provided and then make a comment here or there. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That some of the articles include quotations from people affiliated with the company does not make the entire articles non-independent. The sources have independent research, reporting, and analysis about the company as I pointed out in the quotations. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and that's why you need to go through each article and discard everything that isn't clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company (as per ORGIND). The trouble with the articles you've pointed to is that once you do that, there's nothing left. Certainly nothing that meets in-depth coverage. The odd quote here and there is all you (and I) have managed to isolate. There's no point in trying to then argue that 1, 2 or even 3 sentences meets WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References are the classic bad sources per NCORP (WP:ORGIND "dependent coverage"). Forbes non-staff, VentureBeat etc. There is no "New York Times article". This discussion is being tactically flooded. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last go-round for more discussion now that sources are being asserted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for opinionated and content feed sources. The NY Times citation is credited to "VentureBeat" - a promotional content provider. The Forbes citation has the byline of "Forbes Contributor" and not a staff writer. Per WP:RSPSRC Forbes contributors are generally unreliable as they have minimal editorial oversight and are not reliable unless "..written by a subject-matter expert." The service lacks broad geographical coverage. The New Zealand press citation focuses on the app's failure and how it cost their government millions. And finally there is serious WP:COI where several editors limited their contributions almost exclusively within the HealthTap article: Relam26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Unehepginagal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), HealthTap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(!), Gabynextdoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), HITESH1113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and "sujit jadhav 123" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I cannot know if they are socks but it is an editing pattern for a WP:SPA, and possibly WP:COI through paid editing. Blue Riband► 05:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article cited in the Wikipedia article is a VentureBeat article: https://www.nytimes.com/external/venturebeat/2011/09/26/26venturebeat-healthtaps-social-network-of-5000-doctors-is-6641.html. The New York Times article I cited in this discussion is written by a New York Times writer: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/business/on-healthtap-advice-for-you-and-points-for-doctors.html.
The Forbes article cited in the Wikipedia article is by a Forbes contributor: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2011/12/06/healthtap-qa-site-connects-doctors-and-patients/. The Forbes article I cited in this discussion is written by a Forbes staff member: https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/07/30/healthtap-offers-uber-like-service-for-seeing-a-doctor/. This comment and Alalch Emis's comment do not address the significant coverage in reliable sources I provided.
The New Zealand Herald article does "focu[s] on the app's failure and how it cost their government millions". This is a source I overlooked in my list of sources above. This source strongly contributes to notability in being an independent source that has very negative material about HealthTap such as:
• A particular driver of HealthTap's poor reputation was its design for the US health-care market, which meant it had attributes that were strongly at odds with Waikato Hospital's clinical culture;
That this very negative source is cited in the article is a very strong indication that non-paid editors have contributed to the article.
Cunard (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I missed the The New Zealand Herald article about HealthTap in my search for sources. After Blue Riband pointed out the source, I conducted a new search for sources about HealthTap. I have found some additional very negative coverage about the inquiry into HealthTap in New Zealand. I have also found a book from a Taiwanese publisher that profiles HealthTap on three full pages. There is sufficient coverage in (1) the Taiwan-published book and (2) the Ernst & Young report and the Controller and Auditor-General of New Zealand report into HealthTap to meet the significant coverage requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, the independence requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources, and the geographical coverage requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience.
The Chinese book source:
1. 文丹楓; 韋紹鋒 (2018). 互聯網＋醫療：移動互聯網時代的醫療健康革命 [Internet + Medical: Medical and Health Revolution in the Era of Mobile Internet] (in Chinese). New Taipei City: 崧燁文化事業有限公司. pp. 114–116. ISBN 9789865603526. Retrieved 2021-02-22.
  The book covers HealthTap on three full pages (pages 114–116). It does not include quotes from people affiliated with the company
Coverage about the inquiry into HealthTap in New Zealand:
1. "Part 8: Ernst & Young's report: Assessment of implementation of the HealthTap Solution". Ernst & Young. 2019. Archived from the original on 2021-02-13. Retrieved 2021-02-22 – via Controller and Auditor-General of New Zealand.
  From the Ernst & Young report:
  1. "Where the service offered through the HealthTap platform met a particular clinical need, it performed well."
  2. HealthTap's operating model did not fit well with the New Zealand healthcare context, and the application had usability issues in the Waikato DHB operating environment. This meant that: (1) the "off-the-shelf" HealthTap platform was very United States-focused when it went live in the Waikato, which alienated local clinicians and consumers seeking to use it; and (2) considerable unanticipated time and expense was put into tailoring the platform to Waikato's outpatient model and IT requirements, and tailoring the content and functions for New Zealand users."
  3. "The implementation of the HealthTap platform lacked a clear direction, transparency, or open communication, which was a significant barrier for organisational and sector support of it"
2. "Inquiry into Waikato District Health Board's procurement of services from HealthTap. Part 2: Background information". Controller and Auditor-General of New Zealand. 2019. Archived from the original on 2021-02-22. Retrieved 2021-02-22.
  The "Part 2" of the report discusses has sections titled "What is HealthTap Inc?" and "How does the HealthTap platform work?" It is part of an extensive 66-page report about HealthTap.
3. Articles about HealthTap's use in New Zealand, the inquiry, and the report:
  1. Akoorie, Natalie (2018-05-23). "SmartHealth review finds failed virtual health app cost taxpayers $25.7m". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-02-22. Retrieved 2021-02-22.
    Here are quotes from the article:
    1. "A five-month-long EY [Ernst Young] review of SmartHealth and HealthTap, the American company that powered the service through smart technology, discovered a series of bungles that led to a $9m budget blowout."
    2. "A particular driver of HealthTap's poor reputation was its design for the US health-care market, which meant it had attributes that were strongly at odds with Waikato Hospital's clinical culture"
    3. "The HealthTap contract price was a fixed annual licensing fee that did not reflect staged uptake of SmartHealth and meant the DHB paid the highest price from the outset."
    4. Implementation of HealthTap lacked clear direction, transparency and open communication. "Other health organisations both in Waikato and the wider Midland region were surprised by Waikato's introduction of HealthTap, and organisational relationships suffered as a result.
  2. Leaman, Aaron (2019-09-26). "Auditor General's damning findings into Waikato DHB's SmartHealth". Stuff. Archived from the original on 2021-02-22. Retrieved 2021-02-22.
    The article notes, "The finding is one of many in a damning report released Thursday into Waikato DHB's dealings with US start-up company HealthTap, and its SmartHealth product."
  3. "Inquiry launched into DHB's use of HealthTap app". Radio New Zealand. 2017-12-20. Archived from the original on 2021-02-22. Retrieved 2021-02-22.
  4. Akoorie, Natalie (2017-11-30). "Purchase of HealthTap criticised, no value for money - Audit NZ". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-02-22. Retrieved 2021-02-22.
  5. Akoorie, Natalie (2017-11-09). "SmartHealth uptake low as HealthTap contract renewal begins". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-02-22. Retrieved 2021-02-22.
  6. Akoorie, Natalie (2017-11-25). "HealthTap proposal lacked details and substance, says health board insider". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-02-22. Retrieved 2021-02-22.
Cunard (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge proposals may still be discussed at Talk:List_of_Hellblazer_characters, but I see no real consensus for that action at this point. Consensus is clearly against outright deletion in this discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Midnite

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with a copy-paste generic rationale. Let's discuss here, then. If this is deleted, I suggest soft delete by just redirecting this to List_of_Hellblazer_characters#Papa_Midnite. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 12 February 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} 03:41, 12 February 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} 03:41, 12 February 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} 03:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination starts by kvetching about a PROD. The WP:PROD process is only for uncontroversial deletion and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." Piotrus must expect opposition in such cases but still they persist. In this fresh nomination, notice that they don't propose outright deletion and suggest an alternative instead. So, why did they first propose full deletion?

The character is quite a major one as these things go. They appeared in issue #1 of the relevant comic and have since had their own mini-series, appeared in a major film and as a recurring role in a TV series. As a black character, they naturally attract attention for this reason and so deletion would be especially controversial.

The nomination is therefore quite unconvincing and we should retain the page for further work per our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep or Selective Merge to List_of_Hellblazer_characters#Papa_Midnite. This article should not have been PROD'd for the reasons brought up by Andrew, and the rationale provided by the nominator is just as generic and copy paste as the dePROD response he criticized. My WP:BEFORE reveal some coverage from Comicbook.com, Cinema Blend, Mashable, Digital Spy, Entertainment Weekly, Flickering Myth, Hobby Consolas (Spanish), A.V. Club though mostly in relation or in response to the character's appearances in adaptations/other media. Anyway, there is a difference between the character being noteworthy for coverage on Wikipedia, and whether it warrants a standalone article. Since the issue in contention is clearly the latter and if consensus decides that the existing sourcing does not convincingly meet WP:GNG, a merge may be considered. In any event, a merge proposal should have been done per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, with no prejudice for the article to be recreated; more sourcing may turn up in the future given that this character is a recurring one in comics published by DC .Haleth (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Haleth, The first source doesn't even mention the subject (did you mix some links?). Second is a baitclick that does not provide any SIGCOV. It mentions he briefly appeared in the TV, and mentions the subject four times, that's simply calling him an " immortal badass", "a fashionable guy," praising his jacket. Third is even worse, the subject is mention like two times, and all we get is a one-sentence praise from the show director of the actor; it contributes NOTHING to the topic. Fourth is a tiny interview with the actor asking him if he will appear in crossovers, he replies he doesn't know of any plans. Again, this contributes NOTHING to the notability. I am stopping my review here, since clearly you did not read the sources and are just using WP:GOOGLEHITS arguments, and considering the first source is off topic, it's a fail at even this simple task. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct, the first link is wrong, I guess because I scrolled too far down the page before I copy and pasted the link without checking correctly, so here it is, but I doubt you will change your mind. As for the rest of your...comments, honestly it read like another diatribe. If you read what I wrote in response, my point is that PROD is clearly an inappropriate course of action to begin with, since a cursory search indicates that the character is clearly verifiable and a PROD for the subject would not be uncontroversial. I included sources for the benefit of the participants in this discussion, and everyone is free to decide for themselves whether it meets WP:GNG. If you are going to be doing a source by source analysis, my suggestion is that you go all the way or don't do it at all. And if you read my original reasoning properly, I am not strongly in favour of this article being kept, but I am open to it being merged or redirected since there is enough coverage in my view that outright deletion is inappropriate or unnecessary per WP:ATD. I should also point out that you're not even arguing a proper case for deletion since you have presented a valid WP:ATD solution for this article, to be redirected List_of_Hellblazer_characters#Papa_Midnite, in your own rationale. Haleth (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This would appear to be a notable subject for an article, and given the expansive list of coverage on the subject, it would seem ill-advised to delete the article. While a merge can be considered, I don't see a reason to do so. The article has sourcing already added, and I would disagree with the nominator's assessment of the article not meeting WP:GNG. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough here from Haleth and this can be saved with some work. Archrogue (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Archrogue, Please see my analysis of the sources above, sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable character. The issue here is that this article (just like 99% of all other articles on comic book characters) is terrible.★Trekker (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- *Treker, WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a great argument. You need to tell us "why" he is notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer. Please remember AFD is not a vote. No policy based arguments have been presented, and extra sources at that moment, per my review above, fail our requirements (first link doesn't even mention the subject, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your opinion is noted but not accepted. Policies have been cited by other editors. I am not sure if it is appropriate for you as the nominator (unless there's a supporting policy or guideline which I am unaware of), to essentially instruct other editors on how they should be closing this AfD, especially when you are presenting your sentences in a passive aggressive, WP:BLUDGEON manner towards others in this discussion when the emergent consensus does not seem to be going your way. Haleth (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. This is not the first time I've seen similar behaviour.★Trekker (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the suggested target above by Haleth. I don't think there are enough sources to expand the article to a good state, but there probably are for the list article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Hellblazer character article per Haleth. I agree there is not quite enough to keep the article. Merging is the best option here. Rhino131 (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Empire Lights

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

A band that does not appear to have been notable. I have been unable to find any coverage at all in reliable sources about it. The article makes the assertion of notability that their one released single charted at 49 on the Irish Singles Chart, which would technically pass item 2 at WP:NBAND. However the website being used to support this information does not appear to be a WP:RS, and I have had difficulty confirming it elsewhere. Regardless, though, WP:NBAND states that meeting that requirement may indicate notability, and given the complete lack of coverage on the band in reliable sources, I would argue that in this case, it does not. Rorshacma (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no indication in this article that this band released more than one single; apparently they were working on their debut EP in 2013, and no updates to their status have been made since then. More importantly, no significant independent sources have been provided except to establish that their one single spent one week on the Irish singles chart. No news or biographical coverage has been cited. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No additional citations since 2012. --Darubrub (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC) sock strike--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This band doesn't pass WP:GNG. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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